He finally said it. There will be cuts. But Gordon Brown waited until he was nearly half an hour into his speech to admit it. (Bottom of page 7 out of 8).

And he wedged the stuff about deficit, hard choices, sustainable finances, cutting costs into a handful of paragraphs. The rest of the speech was the usual glorious talk about saving the global economy, the national economy and the range of initiatives which Labour has thrown out in the last year. And - to be fair - there were two genuinely big policy pledges.

More paternity leave and the swift implementation* of the temporary workers directive will please unions and, you’d have thought, workers. The business lobby might not be so happy but neither concept is exactly a surprise (the only question on the directive was its exact timing).

*UPDATE

My eagle-eyed colleague Jean Eaglesham points out that the government is only putting the temporary workers directive on the statute book in the next Parliamentary year. This is not the same as the implementation date. We still don’t know when that is going to be. In other words, this may not be much of a gift to the unions (and temps) as it sounded at first.

The union leaders don’t want to admit it. Brendan Barber argued this morning that Labour should keep on borrowing and spending until unemployment is on the way down - which could be several years away. But the simplistic debate between cuts and investment is now over.

We’ve now heard Alistair Darling and (today) Peter Mandelson both spell out the new message; that the UK is heading for difficult choices in public spending.

Earlier this summer Gordon Brown was maintaining the illusion that Labour would be able to preserve spending increases in the coming years. Here is what I wrote at the time, as a reminder. (Brown said “They (Tories) would cut savagely by 10 per cent and that is not going to be allowed to happen.”)

Now Downing Street is briefing that Brown has always been fiscally conservative over two decades; an attempt to erase the “investment” message of June.

Nick Robinson argues on his blog today that Labour is trying to rewrite history. Francis Elliott wonders just how great the difference is between the two parties.

Not a lot, you might think. In effect, Labour has been reduced to painting the Tories as maniacal small-state ideologues who - in the words of Mandelson - are “salivating about wielding the axe”. Will the public agree?

The man who runs the Local Government Pension Scheme has warned that public sector pensions need radical reform to meet critics who believe there is a growing “pensions apartheid”.

Bob Holloway, who manages the LGPS, is quoted in Public Servant magazine saying radical options must be considered. These could include:

1] increased employee contributions

2] raised retirement ages

3] public service cuts

4] council tax rises

This is radical stuff to come from a senior DCLG official (*although Holloway disputes parts of the article). His other suggestions - speaking at a conference of Whitehall types - included the idea of higher and lower membership bands. This could mean those earning £75,000-plus could have to pay higher contributions.

“The LGPS is under threat, something has to happen - things may even happen before a general election,” he said. “There will need to be something more major than a sticking plaster. Unfortunately, people are refusing to die.”

This is surely going to be one of the major battlegrounds before or after the general election. Philip Hammond has warned that it’s unsustainable for 90 per cent of public sector workers to have final salary schemes while only 5 per cent of private sector workers do. Watch this space.

UPDATE

Here is the government’s response:
“No changes have been proposed. There is an informal consultation going on with scheme administrators to gauge views ahead of the next year’s routine three yearly valuation. The Government will continue to make sure the LGPS remains fair, solvent, protected against risk, and affordable to the taxpayer.”

FURTHER UPDATE

* Holloway is disputing that he said points 3 and 4. And someone else who was at the speech confirms this, telling me that Holloway’s main recommendation was the increase in employee contributions.

Lord Myners gives short thrift today to Tory plans to kneecap the Financial Services Authority and transfer many of its powers to the Bank of England.

In an interview with City AM (the freesheet) the City minister says the central bank neither wants nor has the right skills for the job. He portrays the Bank as an ivory tower full of chin-stroking academics.

“They (Tories) have misjudged the competence and culture of the Bank of England. The Bank is a very academic institution. It is not actually about doing things,” he said.

“The Bank is good at looking at the wider picture but it does not want to be supervising and reflecting on individual banks. Do we want the Bank of England distracted by supervising building societies and insurance companies?”

I was going to blog on Monday about the flaws in George Osborne’s plans but Paul Murphy on FT Alphaville beat me to it. And here is another colleague, Paul J Davies, making a similar point.

Ultimately the reason why financial regulation often fails is because the smart guys aren’t working for the FSA or the SEC: they are making millions of pounds/dollars in the banks.

Chief executives of banks didn’t understand some of the financial products cooked up by youths with PhDs in advanced mathematics. How can we expect low-ranking regulators to be on top of these innovations?

This point is made in a shrewd letter to the FT today by Tim Price of PFP Wealth Management:

“As to the likelihood of the Bank attracting a sufficiently experienced and qualified staff, this gets to the absolute heart of the problem. Short of receiving infinite remuneration, no regulator will ever realistically be able to compete with the so-called “talent” on Wall Street and the City, even if that talent amounts to self-enrichment rather than wider wealth creation.”

See the FT’s Arena blog debate: should the FSA be scrapped?

Expect several front page headlines on Tuesday morning about HMRC’s plunging tax receipts in 08/09 - laid bare thanks to an NAO report. Astute readers of this column will already know about the £20bn-plus fall in tax take - you read it here - because it was flagged up on Budget day in the red book small print. You’ll notice that the coming year is set to be even worse, according to the Treasury’s own predictions.

The real nasty today was another £10bn-plus of unpleasant news, including £3bn of uncollected tax and £7bn set aside for legal claims by taxpayers. The bulk of the latter - a staggering £4.8bn - stems from a single landmark case concluded early last year over VAT repayments. HMRC admitted today that they have already paid £1.5bn as a result of this “Fleming” test case. That’s an awful lot of helicopters or MRI machines.

Attempts to clean up the financial system have become more urgent given reports of the banking world returning to normal.

There are suggestions that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley could agree to pay out $34bn of bonuses between them later this year. I caught up with a friend at the weekend who works for a bank in the US: “Everyone is expecting a bumper bonus season, it’s going to be hugely controversial when this comes out,” he told me.

Of course lending has not yet returned to normal. But banks have been able to profit from recovery surges in some markets, for example stock markets outside Europe and the US. Soon it will be champagne time on some trading desks.

Today’s white paper on banking - issued by the Treasury - doesn’t seem to be greatly radical despite its broadly sensible tone.

1] It urges more sensible remuneration practices but fails to specify how pay and perks should be curtailed in any detail. The paper says “the FSA now has powers to penalise banks if their pay policies create unnecessary risk“. Every year the City watchdog will have to report on how banks are complying with a remuneration code of practice.

It will also “integrate oversight of remuneration policies into overall assessments of risk.” The Treasury is briefing that this means that banks with over-generous pay packages will have to hold higher levels of capital.

But how will they define “unnecessarily risky” pay packages? Herein likes the difficulty. I’m told the Treasury discussed the idea of a “maximum wage” and quickly realised it was unworkable. Let’s wait to see how this works in practice.

2] Alistair Darling (here is his speech today) will give the FSA a new statutory responsibility for financial stability but will otherwise leave the tripartite regime (Bank of England, FSA, Treasury) intact.

3] There will be a new “Council for Financial Stability” which will supervise meetings, three or four times a year, between representatives of the three bodies (who already meet regularly). These gatherings will be minuted and those minutes will be made public.

4] The FSA is strengthening rules to make sure banks hold enough capital as a buffer against losses.

Andrew Tyrie, a Tory MP on the Treasury select committee, said the white paper was “Rearranging the three key deckchairs on the Titanic”. There were questions as to why Mervyn King (governor of the Bank) only saw the report last week.

It was Lord Myners who hit the nail on the head when he told the committee this afternoon: “No amount of supervision will guarantee that you will make up for poor governance, poor management and a poor culture (at banks)”.

It is a difficult circle to square:

Ministers want banks to be responsible and risk-averse. They also want them to provide more loans for families and businesses.

The two are contradictory.

We had another insight into this puzzle this morning when the FSA, Lord Myners and John Healey (housing minister) were up in front of the Treasury Select Committee.

You may remember that Gordon Brown wants to ban 100 per cent mortgages. (”A new era of responsible lending“). The prime minister has asked the FSA to examine the issue. The watchdog is putting out a paper in the autumn examining whether mortgage restrictions are a good idea.

But the FSA executives who appeared this morning at the committee seemed far from enthusiastic about setting restrictions on loan-to-value or loan-to-income ratios.

Jon Pain, managing director of retail markets for the City watchdog, said that imposing “caps or collars” on mortgage lending based on income or deposit ratios could be a crude tool for measuring affordability.

Instead, lenders had more sophisticated ways to work out whether a household could repay a home loan, Mr Pain said. Assessing a loan on the basis of income versus mortgage was a “superficial” ratio, he said.

Mr Pain said that the level of a household’s disposal income - after paying mortgage payments - was a more appropriate figure than loan to value or loan to income ratios. (An argument used by many lenders in recent years to justify their more “liberal” lending practices).

Meanwhile another FSA executive, Leslie Titcomb, argued there were concerns about the potential impact on first time buyers.

“We are also concerned that having a fairly blunt tool like a cap on loan to values could have an effect of denying first time buyers access to the market, which would be unfortunate,” she told the committee.

Maybe I’m over-interpreting here but that seems pretty clear…..no ban on 100 per cent mortgages or banks lending six times your salary.

Sally Keeble, a Labour member of the Treasury select committee, said the comments proved that there was a “clash” between the two arguments.

“I’m fairly certain there is a clash about what the government wants to do,” she told the FT. “On the one hand, they want to see prudent lending, which argues for tight controls on loan to value ratios, on the other, they want people to be able to get loans.”

You would have thought that the prime minister would now have his public sector spending numbers at his fingertips - given that David Cameron has made the issue his focal point for three sessions of Prime Minister’s Questions in succession.

Apparently not. “Capital spending…will fall after 2011″ he said. Then, later: “Capital spending will rise to 2011 and then fall.”

This is less wrong than his previous PMQ claim that capital spending would keep rising until the Olympics (2012).

But it’s still wrong.

There was a clarification towards the end of the half-hour session when Brown said that in fact the figure would fall in 2010. His admission came after prompting by a Tory MP who reminded him that the Treasury’s own capital spending figures show £44bn this year and £36bn next year.

Some pundits are wondering whether Cameron should start following a different strategy and stop using up all his questions on the same theme. They ask whether the impact is blunted by repetition. I’m not sure. After all, Brown’s reputation was built on his solid grasp of numbers.

UPDATE

I forgot to mention Brown’s preposterous claim that the Tories were expecting unemployment to rise in the coming years - as if he was not.

Surely the Treasury’s own economic forecasts are based on unemployment rising substantially from today’s levels? Given that this is the consensus of almost all independent forecasters.