🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be used for higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I get over the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,