You describe revolutionary changes at the Treasury but ascribe this general situation to Gordon Brown. This could be the classic false correlation. Brown becomes Chancellor, Treasury behaves eccentrically, therefore Brown is cause. But this might not be so, indeed the way you describe it actually suggests otherwise, since it all seems to be revenue-based. Could it be that the Treasury has got it’s hands on a revenue source which has encouraged this independent thought and action? It seems disturbingly likely. If so how will this be ‘explained’ when Brown leaves?

Henry Percy, London, UK

This is an excellent article, which illustrates how both Blair and Brown - despite their poor personal relations - operate in the same way through top-down interference and micromanagement. Blair and his No. 10 policy unit cannot let members of the cabinet have any independence; Brown cannot let individual spending departments control the way they allocate their own resources. Both these men are examples of rigid centralisation and control.
The Blair/Brown 'target' system is reminscent of communist programmes before 1989, which produced the same inefficiencies and waste in the Soviet bloc as a result. Instead of forcing professionals - like doctors and teachers - to operate according to government directives, they should be allowed to set their own priorities. But the 'new socialism', as wedded to controlling human lives as the 'old socialism', cannot tolerate this. George Osborne has seen this link between 'old' and 'new' and I think his article deserves close reading.

Dr. Mark Corner, Brussels, Belgium

Nice clear article George. There certainly is a lot to criticise justifiably in Brown's methods at the Treasury.

But the big question for you is, after dismantling the Brown system, how would YOU focus on value for money effectively? Please tell us how you would actually do it.

Marek, London,

A problem with ‘top-down’ spending targets is that by defining the increase in the sum to be spent, in order to use up the allocation, the spending may be used in a non-cost-effective way.

Better by far to use a ‘bottom-up’ approach, driven by ‘shop-floor’ feedback from users and providers as to where limited funds might be productively deployed, and exactly how much would be needed for what..

That way, a value-for-money result might be obtained, with detailed costing of specific improvements affordably met, rather than a rush to spend preset funds before the allocation is used up – or withdrawn.

dr venables preller, Warminster, UK

Why oh why does the Opposition not point out, again and again, how Brown sold a huge amount of our gold at the very moment that gold was at its lowest price for years?

H L Foxworthy, Forfar, Angus

This is an excellent article, which illustrates how both Blair and Brown - despite their poor personal relations - operate in the same way through top-down interference and micromanagement. Blair and his No. 10 policy unit cannot let members of the cabinet have any independence; Brown cannot let individual spending departments control the way they allocate their own resources. Both these men are examples of rigid centralisation and control.
The Blair/Brown 'target' system is reminscent of communist programmes before 1989, which produced the same inefficiencies and waste in the Soviet bloc as a result. Instead of forcing professionals - like doctors and teachers - to operate according to government directives, they should be allowed to set their own priorities. But the 'new socialism', as wedded to controlling human lives as the 'old socialism', cannot tolerate this. George Osborne has seen this link between 'old' and 'new' and I think his article deserves close reading.

Dr. Mark Corner, Brussels, Belgium

Any business has targets. You will not get performance without targets, if people set their own, they will never stretch, always be in the comfort zone.

Targets are Labour's equivalent to Mrs Thatcher's capping of local government. - an externally provided test for the orgaqnisation to meet.

I find it odd that the Tories - the party of efficiency and what works allegedly - want to eliminate the one thing that has stretched the public services to achieve more for our money.

John Wheatley, Witney, UK

Gordon Brown has been a total failure. He has squandered billions and the taxpayer will pick up the tab in the years to come. Be in no doubt that taxes will continue to rise irrespective of which political party is running the country. We'll collectively be paying the interest on the eyewatering levels of pulic sector borrowing for decades to come. If totally lost faith in the political institutions of the UK. Very little is guaranteed anymore but there are a handful of certainties that will stand true under all the political parties.

1. We will be in more debt
2. We will pay higher taxes
3. We will see our freedom and democracy further eroded by paranoid politicians, the hijacking of our media for political ends and the power of the wealthy corrupting our politicians.

You can keep it mate. I'm leaving the UK for good

I'd rather live as a debt free pauper in some other part of the world

Matt Myers, Redhill, UK

We've long sensed that Gordon Brown effectively hijacked most areas of Government except perhaps foreign policy. Why have we waited so long to hear the Opposition spell this out so clearly in the way George Osborne has effectively done so here ? There's clearly been a fundamental shift in the way that Cabinet Government functions ( or more accurately, malfunctions): what we now have is something not dissimilar from a French cohabitation, ie the President (TB) handles foreign policy, and the de facto PM (GB) the domestic side of things. One is reminded of the old joke: my wife makes the domestic decisions, like where we live, which school to send the kids, make and colour of car, holiday destinations etc. I make the important decisions, like who we vote for at elections.

Colin B, Antibes, France

So right. It was Brown that sponsored Kate Barker's housing report, the need for concreting over the south east to accommodate the migrants that are boosting our economy. This has set a key note that has drizzled down to councils who now propose building whatever as 'the' source of social resurgence. At a time when Britain is at the top of her economic cycle it is far more indebted than it should be and if recession kicks in what then? It is self-evident that hoards of new hands are not solving the real economic issues and may well prove to be that straw looking for a camel! We are now told that Britain, generally, needs five million new houses (I say houses and not homes because houses are a coinage today and not a focus for social stability). The Barker number is an extrapolation of the S-E figure, the 'Ten Year Plan' sort of generality that centralism encourages. Put local needs first, not Commissar B's wish fulfilment. Miss B opposed a development near her own home, wise woman.

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England