It would be fair to say that the views of the Daily Mirror and this column rarely travel in the same direction. Yesterday, however, the Labour Party's staunchest supporter in the mainstream press got it absolutely right.  Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt, it said, are "bumbling" failures, "dozy" rebels, whose "botched" plot to oust Gordon Brown was the "small-minded" treachery of two "famously self-important" but "washed-up" cowards.  In the playground of British politics, boomed the Mirror, Mr Hoon is a blundering dunce and Miss Hewitt a hectoring nanny. They are "stupid", "mad", "bonkers" and "crazy", Westminster's Dumb and Dumber.  No quibbles, there – that just about sums them up. Unfortunately, it also prompts a question: how did these clowns manage to secure top jobs at the heart of government for an entire decade?  Having demonstrated incompetence and perfidy, they are unfit to polish the Cabinet table, much less sit around it. Yet while Mr Hoon was running Defence (1999-2005) and Transport (2008-09), Miss Hewitt was in charge of Trade and Industry (2001-05) and the NHS (2005-07). No wonder we're in such a mess.  Lord Mandelson described their intervention as a "monumental distraction". Indeed it was, only not in the way that he implied. For anything that diverts attention from the dreadful state we are in – even a cameo performance from a pair of has-beens – probably helps Labour's cause.  That was certainly the case on Wednesday. While the Hoon & Hewitt horror show was highlighting an ugly split in Labour's ranks, with an even uglier split infinitive ("This is a clear opportunity to finally lay this matter to rest," said their weaselly letter), too few noticed the Treasury select committee's damning comments on Alistair Darling's pre-Budget report.  This is a panel of MPs, with a Labour majority, whose focus on the Chancellor's fiscal chicanery showed admirable independence. Bullied by Mr Brown and his ridiculous sidekick, Ed Balls, Mr Darling concocted a PBR that promised much in the way of spending, but avoided details on meaningful savings. The Chancellor talked about halving our £178 billion deficit in four years, while protecting front-line services, but invited us to infer that this would be achieved largely through bashing the rich.  There were no worthwhile plans for thrift because, a Treasury spokesman said, "given the continued uncertainty in the global economy, to fix each department's budget now, for the next five years, is neither necessary nor sensible". What he meant was: "If Mr Darling told you now where the axe is going to fall, and how hard it is going to come down, the small chance that Labour has of being re-elected would disappear. Instead, let's pretend we can keep spending more than we earn, all the way to polling day."  The committee of MPs cut through this flannel: "There is a sense," they announced, "that the Treasury is using uncertainty to suit itself. We can see no good reason for the Treasury failing to produce illustrative figures for future expenditure." In other words, a department of state is being manipulated for Labour's crude advantage, while the national interest is left twisting in the wind.  Were the situation not so serious, the announcement this week by Mr Balls that schoolchildren are to be given lessons in managing money and the dangers of debt could be regarded as a masterpiece of irony. Not only has the Schools Secretary promised this before (in July 2007), but he himself appears to be in urgent need of some basic tuition about pounds and pence.  In the parallel universe of Little Ed, other people's money – his play dough – never runs out. Here on Planet Earth, however, it does – and has. Britain's coffers are empty, which explains why the Government is borrowing billions to pay the bills. The cost of this debt is rising, as lenders fret over our ability to fulfil obligations. Without tough remedial action, there will come a moment when international markets refuse to accommodate all our needs, or charge a price that is so prohibitive it will be politically unacceptable.  Britain has got away with it, so far, because as the Debt Management Office pumps out Government IOUs, known as gilts, the Bank of England is furiously buying them back through its programme of so-called quantitative easing (QE). Yes, we're printing money to fund our own credit. This, I'm sure you've spotted, fails the common sense test. Were it that easy, the whole world would be at it.  The Treasury select committee agrees. It noted: "There remains the risk that the combination of the large amount of gilt auctions in 2010-11 [£200 billion] and the cessation of QE will result in an excessive supply of UK gilts on to the market at a time when other governments will be offering similar products, with the possible result that [gilt] auctions are uncovered and yields increase."  As we hurtle towards ruin, the Prime Minister, not surprisingly, wants to shut down debate. He inhabits the same fantasy world as Mr Balls. When questioned by Andrew Marr on the BBC last Sunday, Mr Brown dismissed suggestions that disaster looms as "talking down" Britain. How slippery is that? Bereft of intellectual integrity, No 10's tactic is to accuse anyone who challenges the Prime Minister's delusions as unpatriotic.  When it comes to dealing with the deficit, both main parties are running scared. They are prepared to discuss spending reductions, but only in the way that 1950s Britain talked about sex: not in front of the children. Grown-ups know what's going on in private, but admit nothing in public, lest the little ones are shocked. As a result, there's a gaping hole where honesty should be. Neither side, it seems, has the courage to spell out what must be done to restore credibility. Fearing rejection by voters, they merely hint at it.  In 2005, when Labour won a third term, the Government's annual spending was £519 billion. Since then, its budget has ballooned by nearly 30 per cent to £671 billion. In the same period, average earnings increased by only 16 per cent. Had the growth in state expenditure simply kept pace with wages, the total this year would have been about £70 billion less than it is. Even then, the Chancellor would still have needed to borrow £100 billion.  A shortage of taxes is not the problem. Spending has run out of control. Bear this in mind when you next hear the Prime Minister trying to bluff his way through awkward questions on budget cuts with waffle about additional levies on top-end earners. The new 50p tax rate will, according to the Treasury's calculations, bring in just £2 billion – little more than a rounding error.  One writer in yesterday's Mirror asked if parts of Labour have a death wish. It's a reasonable question. The party's leaders have, after all, murdered Britain's finances.
The public needs to be told exactly what is to be done about our gaping budget    deficit, says Jeff Randall.