🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes that could be funneled into increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands straightforward responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say you and I get in the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope 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. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,