You may have thought that the dust had settled on the public spending row after the Tories last week obtained a Treasury document showing plans for departmental cuts of 9.3 per cent over four years. This seemed to prove that Labour promises of further investment were a smokescreen at best.

Could Gordon Brown deny that this was the case? It was hard to rouse anyone from Downing Street to rubbish the 9.3 per cent figure last week. After all, it is there in black and white in a government document.

But the prime minister has today tried to wriggle out of his tight spot.

He told Simon Mayo:

“No, I don’t accept these figures, this was a leaked Treasury document that I have never seen and there will be lots of…(interrupted). Hold on, there would be lots of documents that would be around the Treasury looking at different potential options, but we have said we can maintain frontline services….”

He then goes on to suggest that there could be some “extra growth” which will be registered in the Pre-Budget Report. Interesting if this is the case. If not, this appears to be new evidence of Mr Brown’s stubbornness.

Okay, it’s not the same Fred Goodwin. This one works as an analyst at Nomura, apparently.

But the Tories have seized upon Goodwin’s report which suggests “the prospect of a UK fiscal crisis is a clear and present danger”. The report suggests that a fiscal crisis is “far more likely” in the UK than in the US - because the dollar is a reserve currency.

“The UK fiscal dynamics are unsustainable. The fiscal balance is plunging deeply into the red in a spectacular and frightening way. Who will fund it? Without QE (quantative easing) the possibility of failed auctions is not trivial.”

Apparently the government’s mega-programme of gilt issuance (selling bonds) has not yet been fully tested - because it has been exceeded by QE (buying bonds).*

When the government turns net seller we will see whether there truly is a market appetite for UK gilts.

George Osborne described the Nomura report as a “wake-up call” with Britain’s “international reputation” at stake. Privately, however, the Tories must be as worried as the government is - given that the situation may still be with us in eight months.

UPDATE

The exact figures are as follows:

* As of September 10 there has been £145bn of QE (assets purchased by the creation of central bank reserves), of which £143bn has been gilts. The process began on March 11.

* Since that date the Debt Management Office has sold £95bn of gilts.

For my money Chris Giles has provided the best explanation of the baffling blizzard of public spending numbers.

The FT’s economics editor points out that current expenditure will indeed rise (slightly) every year to 2013/14, as promised by the prime minister.

But as Chris explains:

“Current expenditure includes the salaries of vital public service staff, paper-clips and, crucially, also the interest payments on government debt and social security costs.”

If you also factor in capital spending cuts you end up with the really painful numbers - ie the 8.6 per cent real terms cut in departmental budgets (or 13.9 per cent if you exclude health and overseas aid).

Meanwhile our political editor George Parker today questions how Gordon Brown tied himself in knots over the question of spending cuts:

“Privately cabinet ministers despair of the prime minister’s propensity to court political trouble by refusing to acknowledge the truth or by trying to avoid difficult questions. As one senior Labour figure put it: ‘He never learns.’”

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.

A brief passage in George Osborne’s last Andrew Marr interview stands out: In it, the shadow chancellor heaps praise at the feet of the world’s central banks for preventing financial meltdown.

“But we say the most effective form of stimulus is monetary policy, is the low interest rates, which both here and around the world I think have been the most effective tool at bringing the world back from the brink of depression.”

A statement of the obvious, you might think. But was Osborne playing up the actions of Mervyn King and others to belittle those of Gordon Brown? A Tory MP suggests that this strain could grow louder as the party seeks to rob Brown of the credit for halting the apocalypse.

For some time now I have been asking the Treasury for an explanation of Alistair Darling’s Budget claim that government actions have saved “up to 500,000 jobs”.

My questions:

1] What research is this based on?

2] Is 500,000 at the upper end of a wider range of estimates; eg “350,000 to 500,000″?

3] How much of the 500,000 is down to political action and how much is due to the actions of the Bank of England - ie quantatative easing and interest rate cuts?

It’s been at least three weeks and the Treasury still hasn’t answered the question. Although they say they may provide more detailed analysis later in the autumn.

I haven’t had a chance to number-crunch today’s unemployment figures yet. But there was an interesting chart in the Audit Commission report - also out today - on how councils are faring in the recession.

For all the talk of the public sector cutting jobs and sharing the general pain, the figures seem to show a rather different story.

The chart on page 19 (based on ONS figures) shows a fall in employment of about 210,000 in manufacturing, 195,000 in distribution and hospitality and 180,000 in finance and business services.

Meanwhile there was a rise of about 170,000 workers in public administration, education and health.

This is likely to fuel the suspicion in some quarters that state-employed workers are cossetted from the downturn; a claim which is bitterly contested by the public sector unions.

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.