🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, scaring them to accept massive extra taxes which could be spent on increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge requires clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,