The Chancellor spoke in his Pre-Budget Report yesterday of the importance of the “long-term” initiatives that he was undertaking. Yet, politically, it is the short term that enabled him to deliver his address from a position of strength. The 2.75 per cent growth expected this year and the 2.75 per cent to 3.25 per cent expected in 2007 imply rising living standards for most of the country. George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, made a number of legitimate points about the manner in which the “big clunking fist” has managed the economy, but the reality is that after a decade of consistent and stable growth, most voters will continue to conclude that their prosperity is safe in Gordon Brown’s hands. Gross domestic product is a better indicator of General Wellbeing than it is fashionable to acknowledge.

A relatively secure economic base enabled Mr Brown to make announcements, which, while not revolutionary in character, are likely to be comparatively popular. His extension of Isa allowances, for example, is welcome, although the ceiling on what can be saved needs to be lifted sharply if this scheme is to fulfil its potential. Few will object to the notion that skills and training can be improved (whether the Working Time Directive and other regressive EU laws will allow the creation of jobs for young people is doubtful).

The concern expressed across the spectrum about climate change made the rise in airline passenger duty and an increase in petrol duty all but inevitable. On the whole, though, the “green” proposals promoted by Mr Brown have the merit of being rooted in market mechanisms and an optimism about what technological change can achieve, not the draconian anti-growth instincts of the extreme environmental doom-mongers. Mr Brown will have done little harm to enterprise as a result of yesterday’s statement.

The more relevant question, nevertheless, is whether he did much that it is actively good for wealth creation. The growth rates that he set out are respectable but they do not represent the limit of what is achievable. The City of London is experiencing an extraordinary surge in funds, in large part because of a flight from restrictions imposed on capital in other financial centres. These are times of genuine plenty in the capital, but, paradoxically, not for many ordinary citizens elsewhere whom Mr Brown aspires to champion.

Extra capital investment in schools and a more forensic approach to skills and training are valuable but of themselves are no guarantee of a decent income. The small and medium-sized enterprises that are crucial to our future have cause to protest that they were peripheral to the Pre-Budget Report. For them, the intrusive as well as the extensive nature of regulation and the cost and complexity of employment law are reasons to be wary before they look to expand their workforce. Their situation would have been eased by a reduction in the corporate tax burden, but, very sadly, no cut in taxation materialised. This omission should be dealt with at the next Budget.

The next occupant of the Treasury will thus receive an inheritance that is neither as magnificent as Mr Brown proclaims nor as malign as the Opposition pretends. It will be an economy that has performed well by (distinctly dire) historical standards and again in contrast to (somewhat sclerotic) continental neighbours, yet is vulnerable to the challenges posed by China and India. For real “long-term” prosperity depends ultimately upon dynamic companies far more than an undoubtedly clever Chancellor.