Gordon Brown’s Chancellorship was built on “prudence”. He was the boring Chancellor: the steady helmsman with both hands and even his glass eye trained fixatedly on the rudder of the British economy. His obsessiveness yielded rewards. Apart from one or two mishaps (such as announcing that he would sell gold when the price was at its lowest, just to ensure that it dropped further still), he was a reasonably good Chancellor. He inherited a rallying economy, but must be credited for not screwing it up.

Unsportsmanlike: Gordon Brown

I am not pretending that Brown was a saint of any sort. He has largely deceived the population with dodgy statistics and misplaced promises about his “rules”. He has borrowed far more than he says he has, but shifts figures by counting that debt as separate to national debt. A crass comparison can be made to Hitler’s employment figures: take Jews, the disabled, women and conscripted soldiers out of the equation and Hitler was a master at slashing unemployment! Moreover, the Tory charge that the government has failed to prepare for the coming downturn is entirely fair: Brown promising to build thousands of new homes when construction firms are feeling the pinch is too little too late. When the going is good, we should enjoy it. But we should also recognise that the downturn will not be a particularly pleasant experience.

The last thing people want in times of economic slowdown is increased tax. Brown knows that his fiddling with tax cost him dearly in local and by-elections recently. Any increase in tax would be suicide. But an increase in borrowing is a worse scenario: it harms the economy for a very long time to come. It is, in short, irresponsible.

But worse, it is unsportsmanlike. The recovery from the recession in the early 1990s was a natural response to the economic situation, albeit politically motivated. Brown’s current policy of spending at will with an IOU is wholly irresponsible. It is thoroughly unfair to lose a duel and then kneecap your opponent as you leave the arena. By denying the Tories the chance to govern as they wish (low tax, low spend) he has dictated the economic course for the next few years (high tax, low spend, debt repayments). The simple problem with government borrowing is that it does not yield a good return for the taxpayer: they pay for yesterday’s welfare at tomorrow’s prices. To strap the Tories into paying for his spending, he has effectively sounded the death-knell to solid welfare provision for the next decade.

I object to this addiction to borrowing, therefore, for two simple reasons. Firstly, that it denies the next government from governing as their manifesto states. This is surely an abuse of office? Secondly, when the Tories see public spending targets as “what’s the least we can get away with and still win elections?” it is shocking that a Labour prime minister would steal their spending power and waste it before they get into office. If Brown seriously thinks that welfare is worth having, he should be trying to protect it by keeping government debt as low as possible now. By his current actions, it looks as if he uses it simply to win elections, then hopes the Tories will slash it so he can win the election after that. It is unsportsmanlike, and illogical in the long-term. The Tories will doubtless crow about this U-Turn, and blame it for years to come, but the loudest dissenters must surely come from the Left.