🔗 Share this article

The charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This grave charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account about how much say you and I have in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 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 a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides 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 margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,