The Sketch: Blethering, babbling, bubbling Brown misses the target

If Gordon Brown wants to get on in life he's going to have to stop talking all that rubbish whenever he's asked a perfectly simple question. Whatever his achievements on inflation, growth, unemployment and debt repayment, unless he knocks off the blethering, babbling, boiling, bubbling, bollocks, he'll never be Prime Minister.

It's awful when he responds to questions. Insulting. Infuriating. Demeaning. Slightly insane.

Here's John McFall, Labour chairman of the Treasury select committee. He was thought to be a Brownite, incidentally, but shows himself capable of independent leadership of his plucky band of brothers. Mr McFall asked the Chancellor about all the targets the public service was going to have to meet in exchange for the multibillion-pound public spending bonanza. There are 130 new targets, on top of the 300 targets from the last target-setting frenzy. Mr McFall felt they were "rather bland". No detail. The Foreign Office, for instance, had seven targets, one of which was to "make the world a safer place". So he asked the following important question, the question that is central to the Government's delivery strategy: "Are you satisfied these targets will allow Parliament to properly monitor performance in the public service?" As soon as Mr McFall stopped talking the Brown babble began. Listening to any question Mr Brown decides which sort of answer he's going to give. He has three sorts. They are: 1) He Who Talks Most Wins. 2) What Am I Trying To Say? 3) I'm Not Falling For That One.

To Mr McFall's question he couldn't decide which genre to use so tried a bit of each. He said that the targets were proposed by departments themselves. The opposition had come out against targets. That was a debate that'd got to be had. Targets allowed us to focus on priorities. Nothing wrong with that. The debate should be about which targets have been chosen and why they were chosen. Consideration should be taken not just of inputs but of outputs. The Chancellor wanted to put the case for a focus on outputs. "So I hope the committee is in favour of outputs, even though they are a matter of controversy." Ghastly. Unforgivable, really. What does it mean? It means Gordon Brown could never win a general election.

Earlier in the day, Michael Howard asked why the new targets had reduced expectations of efficiency savings by 30 per cent. The Chancellor replied that this was the result of the NHS having reached the targets set in 1998.

It had already become more efficient, that's why the target had been lowered.

People have been jailed for lesser perjuries.

Mr Howard quoted a report from the Government itself which revealed that "slippage" had occurred. And this meant, in a gloriously positive phrase, "there was increased room for catch-up". Thus is government failure presented as an opportunity for greater government success. As people get madder their potential for sanity increases. The longer Gordon Brown speaks the more we wish we knew about economics.

simoncarr75@hotmail.com