🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be spent on increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge requires straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On current information, no. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise 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 casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,