The future or the past
He called it a budget for the future and you knew that he meant HIS future and the Labour Party's, as well as the country's.
Gordon Brown turned his 10th budget into a 10-year plan for the next occupant of Number 10 - whoever that might be. A chancellor with no money to give away - but no black hole to fill either - could only tinker with a spending plan here and the odd tax here.
So, instead he unveiled what he called a long-term ambition to give state schools as much money as private schools receive now. Study the Treasury's Red Book - the bible of hard facts that sheds harsh light on political rhetoric - and you discover that the ambition comes with no figures attached, no target date and no explanation of how it will be paid for.
Does that make it meaningless? No. Because Gordon Brown is giving his party what it craves - what he loves to call a political dividing line - a reminder, in other words of why they are in the Labour party and not the Tories.
His mind is already clearly set on the battle ahead with David Cameron. He reminded the Tory leader that he was there on Black Wednesday; challenged his claim to be green; and insisted that he - like all Tories - would put taxcutting before necessary public investment.
"He is the past" snapped back the other pretender to Number Ten. Which of the two men's Budget Day predictions proves right - which is the future and which the past - will prove to be the lasting memory of this most political of all budgets.
I'm 
