The prolonged wait for the fiscal event was punctuated by trails and leaks and capped by an unusual scene-setting speech by the chancellor herself, in which she gave a hefty nudge-and-a-wink towards income tax rises, before climbing down days later.
When the moment to deliver finally came, Rachel Reeves was upstaged by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) effectively publishing her budget online, 90 minutes before she stood up in Parliament.
Money latest: Big rise in pension drawdowns
Appearing before the Treasury select committee of MPs – a routine post-budget date for any chancellor – she had her best opportunity yet to explain the apparent chaos. She only partially took it.
Ms Reeves insisted that the leaks were unauthorised and unhelpful, but failed to say explicitly why she dropped income tax rises having intentionally flagged they were coming to plug a hole in the public finances.
We did learn the focus of the leak inquiry is a story published by the Financial Times, on 13 November, nine days after her Downing Street speech, which revealed that the income tax changes had been ditched.
It moved markets, pushing the price of UK bonds down, and the price the government pays to service that debt up.
The story, she said, was inaccurate, partial and “very damaging” because it gave the impression that she was abandoning the “core elements” of her strategy, crucially increasing the headroom against her fiscal rules.
What many people took from it was that a key decision had been reversed before it had been taken, adding to pervading uncertainty and a general sense of chaos.
It looked even more curious post-budget when the OBR revealed it had told her before the nudge-and-a-wink speech that the total funding gap was not as wide as first feared.
The chancellor did confirm she had considered breaking a manifesto pledge on income tax and that the final decision was made in tandem with the prime minister “as a team”. “In the end it was not necessary,” she said.
She was more bullish when questions moved from the style to the substance of the budget, defending her blend of backdated tax rises and upfront spending pledges from the charge they do nothing to promote growth.
She was also tempted into making two firm commitments – not to levy capital gains taxes on primary residences or dilute the triple-lock on pensions – underlining the sense that, for this government, budget speculation is now a permanent loop.
Committee chair Dame Meg Hillier concluded by describing her appearance as the “full stop” on the budget process. The chancellor will hope so.
