In any contest between Labour's mods and wreckers, you know where Gordon Brown will be. On the one side, the cool, modish, well-kempt modernisers, all in favour of the private sector; on the other, the greasy, loutish (trade union) wreckers, who romanticise the past and are hostile to change. Tony Blair, with his grin and his middle-class style, is a natural mod - looks the part, sounds the part.

And Gordon . . . well, there's the problem. On the face of it, this is a very stupid question. Naturally, Gordon Brown is a mod. Good Lord, he was at least half the brains behind the whole modernising project in new Labour's early days. And now he's a passionate defender of private sector involvement in the public services.

Just look at his most recent pronouncements, as he returned to work after his tragic bereavement: he insists that public and private money must be combined to secure adequate investment for the public services. He defends the public-private partnership for the Tube more vigorously than anyone else, including the Transport Secretary, Stephen Byers; and for good measure, he says he believes his side will win the argument in the end.

So clearly Gordon Brown is a tip-top mod, right down to his shiny Vespa scooter. He's far too well brought up to get involved in rumbles - even of a verbal variety - with the other side, but there is no doubt which side he's on.

Or is there?

As he prepares for his April Budget, I'm sure I detect something else in the character of the Chancellor - there is the whiff of old, oil-stained leathers about him. His hair would be long and lanky if he had the chance. He is not like Tony Blair. He has the soul . . . well, not of a wrecker, perhaps, but of a rocker, to be sure.

With two months to go until his Budget, Brown's old Labour soul has been on view. This is, without doubt, his most important Budget so far. It will set the course for this second-term Labour government. It will answer the question we have all been asking: "What is this Labour government really about?"

Labour governments that come afterwards can lunge for votes and jiggle the figures around the edges, but they can't really affect the overall direction of the next few years as this one, nearly a year after the election, still can.

All the signs are that this will be a Budget where the Chancellor unashamedly raises taxes. The pile of savings accumulated from the low-spending early years is virtually gone. Brown has already used every windfall, indirect tax and cunning dodge to raise more. Therefore, this time, real taxes - probably national insurance - will have to go up.

The hints have been strong enough: Brown says he won't rule out tax changes; he speaks of giving the NHS the necessary resources; he claims the public wants a properly funded health service on a sustainable long-term footing. He suggests that the full report from Derek Wanless, due out just before his Budget, will make clear the choice the country is facing.

This could all be another blind. It would not be the first time that Labour has punted an idea, only to disclaim all knowledge of it: "Put up taxes? Me? You must be joking! Wherever did you get that idea from?"

Yet in this case, the prospect of another apparent U-turn, from a government that is turning Z-bending into an art form, would be highly damaging. (Ask yourself, do you really know the answers to the following questions - is the government for higher taxes or against them; in favour of joining the euro or not; eager to crack down on crime or more concerned about what causes crime?)

All this signalling and countersignalling, briefing and counterbriefing is simply infuriating. If Brown were to turn round and say: "Ha, taxes are going down after all", voters would quite rightly question the competence of the driver and the navigator of such an erratic vehicle.

This is not a government that needs more vagueness. We must assume, then, that the signals on tax rises are correct. I would be very surprised indeed if the middle classes do not find themselves worse off - by quite a bit - after the April Budget.

Two points follow from this. The first is that, after all the inept provocations and the recent froth about "wreckers", this is the real agenda: a real Labour commitment to a better-funded health service, and better late than never.

The second is that it is Gordon Brown, the dogged, single-minded Labour tortoise, who is the dominant domestic figure in the government, not the leaping, eye-catching, initiative-launching Tony Blair.

Brown has quietly kept going, trying to camouflage what he is up to, redistributing money to poorer families, hoarding taxes for the public services, and shifting Britain very gently to the left. Blair, with his restless energy, has moved on, seeking his kicks elsewhere: just now he is in Africa, last month it was Asia. In weeks to come, it will be Europe.

In April, with the Budget, Britain may at last notice the Chancellor's steady progress on taxation. It has taken five years, but in the end, even Brown has to break cover. I would predict a great flurry of other announcements in the Budget, intended to take the eye of the right-wing papers off this.

The best minds in the Treasury will have thought of some brilliant diversion. But this is surely going to be a significant moment of truth for us all.

And - one last prediction - the country will rather like the idea. After being unsure what the government stands for, if anything, people are looking for some clarity. At last, they're going to get it.

Mods, wreckers, rockers . . . forget it. We simply need to know where the government is going.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website