The numbers are stacking up against Brown

AMID THE blizzard of numbers that Gordon Brown unleashed, one central truth could not be concealed. His luck could be running out. Since 1997 he has combined skill with good fortune. By giving the Bank of England the power to set interest rates and by avoiding an early spending splurge, he established a reputation for prudence.

But at least as important was the way the figures almost always turned out better than expected - faster economic growth, higher tax revenues and lower welfare payments (mainly because unemployment kept falling). He also managed to extract more than £20bn a year extra in 'stealth taxes'. No wonder, by the end of Parliament, he was able to give extra cash to health and education and still report strong public finances.

It could not last. This is not because of the present bout of global recessionary jitters. Yes, the Chancellor has had to downgrade his prediction of economic growth both this year and next from 2.5% (his forecast for both years in March) to 2.25%. Yes, this will mean a higher Government deficit next year. But these need not be fatal problems.

Most people expect the economy to bounce back next summer. The Conservatives are not repeating the mistake they made four years ago, when they predicted 'a recession made in Downing Street' and looked ridiculous when it failed to materialise.

This time they are wisely assuming that the economy will continue to grow, even if they are sceptical that growth will reach 3% in 2003, as the Chancellor forecast in hi speech. If Britain does slide into recession the consequence will be a bonus for the Tories, even if it is at the expense of everyone else.

No, the reason why the Chancellor's luck could be running out is more fundamental. It is that he can no longer rely on super-buoyant tax revenues to keep on financing his social ambitions. He has probably reached the limit of what he can raise through stealth taxes, and there are signs that the income tax and corporation tax revenues are no longer overshooting Treasury and Inland R evenue forecasts.

At the same time, the need for higher spending climbs remorselessly. Derek Wanless's report on the NHS, published today, shows how much extra cash will be needed to build the health service. Similar exercises for education and transport would also show that these need huge extra sums - on top of the amounts that will be needed in the short-to-medium term to sort out Railtrack and London Underground, and replace student loans with a policy that voters in middle Britain will find more congenial. There is also the cost of combating child poverty and, since 11 September, the prospect of defence budgets having to rise, even after the terrorist crisis is over.

It is hard to see how these demands can be met without raising taxes by the next General Election. Brown says he is launching a great national debate about these things. By this he does not mean a debate that could end up with novel solutions to old problems. He will pay little heed to anyone who says taxes should stay down, with the Government progressively withdrawing from provision of expensive public services to the better off. He is not very keen on an open-minded exploration of hypothecated taxes. What he means is he is launching a great national softening-up process to make higher taxes politically acceptable to the electorate - above the elector who lives next door at 10 Downing Street, and whose resistance to higher income taxes on higher earners still rankles with the Chancellor.