🔗 Share this article

This allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story about how much say you and I have in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not 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 precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,