🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be used for higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge requires clear answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises 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 recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,