He gabbled. We listened. He got it wrong

One of the most successful propaganda exercises of modern times occurred during the first Thatcher administration. It was the repeated assertion that the Government was "not to blame" for the level of unemployment. That unemployment should rise was a proclaimed part of the armoury which ministers had at their disposal. They would say so frankly to economists or even to journalists. But, for the voters, it was not their fault. It was all down to "world conditions" over which they had no control. And people believed them, in poll after poll. In the most important poll of all at the 1983 election the Tories won with an increased majority.

Mr Gordon Brown is trying something very similar today. It is not about unemployment. It is about his forecasting, which has, it seems, been upset by "world economic conditions". The voters may well choose to treat his claim with the same trust – or the same credulity – as they accorded the Conservatives.

The two claims are similar. But they are not identical; not, strictly, on all fours. For the Conservative government of the early 1980s created unemployment deliberately and then fibbed about it. Mr Brown did not bring about the diminution in world economic activity. He could not have done it even if he had tried. What he can justly be accused of is a lack of foresight, of competence at forecasting.

After his last Budget I was one of the few observers to criticise him adversely. I did this partly because of his unjustified optimism and partly because he gabbled his speech. Last Wednesday he was at it again, gabbling away like someone trying to recite the collected works of William McGonagall. Chancellors get away with this offhand approach because, unlike the great Scottish versifier, they are telling us about what we think is more important than anything else: our money. It makes no odds that their intentions often become clear days or even weeks afterwards (as they did here over the increased council tax). We think they are telling us about our deepest interests: so we listen to them with attention.

Mr Brown is a special case. To him we listen even more attentively. He is at odds with Mr Tony Blair over many matters of high policy. He may or may not succeed him, with or without a brutal struggle. He causes – or so I read constantly – young hearts to go pit-a-pat on account of his resemblance to Mr Rochester. No wonder we listen to Mr Brown, and forgive him his failings at the dispatch box!

But – the fact is – Mr Brown did get things wrong. It is too simple to attribute his several errors to world conditions. This country is, as Mr Will Hutton has pointed out on numerous occasions (and he is quite right), peculiarly dependent, compared to other European nations, on the vagaries of the stock exchange.

Two weeks ago I read in the "Money" section of this paper that the collapse in the stock market had been "unforeseeable". On the contrary: it was foreseen by me in 1998, when I took my pension fund out of equities and put it into gilt-edged securities. Or, rather, it was foreseen by my son, on whose advice I acted. He is an engineer by profession, the only member of the family to have earned an honest living, and he will receive his reward in the hereafter.

Similar advice was clearly unavailable to Mr Brown. Nor was this surprising. His junior ministers are very much in the second division. Ms Ruth Kelly, the Financial Secretary, has the reputation of being a bit of a brainbox. But her cleverness did not extend to being able to make a graceful or even a moderately civil speech when she was – unaccountably – given a gong at the Spectator "Parliamentarian of the Year" awards 12 months ago. Ms Dawn Primarolo, the Paymaster General, is a token figure, both a representative of the Old Left and a woman.

Mr Paul Boateng is equally a token figure. He likewise is someone from the left. And he is black. On Wednesday, in studios up and down the capital, he behaved in a hostile, even a menacing way towards Mr Michael Howard, who had made an effective, old-fashioned Tory speech, reminiscent of Peter Thorneycroft, in reply to Mr Brown's statement. Mr Howard resisted the temptation to answer Mr Boateng in kind. He was a credit to his Alma Mater, Llanelli Grammar School, which produced Lord Elwyn-Jones and a host of rugby internationals as well as my late father.

In extenuation of Mr Boateng's mildly crazed behaviour, various anonymous "friends" have been quoted saying that "Paul is not too numerate". In that case, he is in the wrong job. He is Chief Secretary to the Treasury with a seat in the Cabinet. Not that numeracy is always necessary in such positions. When Lord Derby, as Prime Minister, offered to make Benjamin Disraeli Chancellor, he demurred because he did not have enough detailed knowledge. "They give you the figures," Derby replied. Similarly, there are all sorts of people about the place, such as Mr Ed Balls, who can give Mr Boateng all the figures he needs if he asks for them.

Mr Brown has now chosen to behave as Labour Chancellors customarily do in their first Budgets after the party has assumed power. The result is a financial crisis after two years or so. It happened in 1931, 1947, 1966 and 1976. The great exception was Roy Jenkins. He took over after the 1967 devaluation and, like Mr Brown in the first term, pursued a policy of prudence. Indeed, Barbara Castle and R H S Crossman both blamed him for losing Labour the 1970 election by failing to fabricate a pre-election boom.

Similar considerations are in Mr Brown's mind – as they are in Mr Blair's too. It would be surprising if they were not. They are both politicians. Mr Blair wants to go down in history as the Prime Minister who took us into the euro and turned round our public services; while Mr Brown wants to succeed Mr Blair.

It is doubtful, to say the least, whether last week's stirring events advance the ambitions of either. Would it not have been preferable, on political grounds alone, to raise both interest rates and taxes now, when – despite numerous disasters – the Government's credit is still reasonably good, rather than in 2003-4, with an election just round the corner or even at the front door? By that time Mr Kenneth Clarke may be the leader of the Tories. Mr Charles Kennedy may well have exchanged the hurly-burly of the television studio for the deep peace of a Commons bench. Anything can happen.

There may even be a rival to Mr Brown. Under a different party electoral system, admittedly, in 1976 James Callaghan beat Michael Foot for the premiership by only 39 votes. A Brown succession is by no means automatic.