🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On the available information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to 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 Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say you and I get over the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,