Jonathan Reed: Darling lives to fight another day after his Budget balancing act

Hours before delivering his third Budget, Mr Darling amused his

colleagues at the morning Cabinet meeting by comparing his position to that of a North Korean finance minister who was executed by firing squad for bungling a currency reform.

However bad the UK public finances may be, Mr Darling knows the price of accountability is much lower in this country than that faced by Pak Nam Gi in the secretive Asian state. But after fighting off various failed efforts to move him from the Treasury last year, Mr Darling has been able to stand his ground much more firmly against the pressures from next door.

Yesterday, Mr Darling – whose position is likely to come under threat if Labour clings on to power, with Gordon Brown likely to seek to

reward close ally Ed Balls – proved he had fought off any demands to use the savings from lower-than-expected unemployment and extra income from the bankers' bonus to go on a pre-election spending splurge.

Instead, he lived up to his promise of a "workmanlike" statement, which offered no pre-election "giveaways", by only slipping in a handful of small sweeteners such as removing stamp duty for most first-time buyers, staging the fuel duty increase and funding the increased level of winter fuel allowance for pensioners for another year.

Rather than spending the 11bn extra that has surprisingly been left in the Treasury coffers because the worst fears of the Government were not realised, he wisely pocketed most of it as he set out to steady nerves in the City and claim the economy is safe in Labour hands. The

balancing act was difficult to pull off. Yet, with such limited room for manoeuvre, he was entitled to reflect that he had managed it pretty well.

With an election so close, it was no surprise that politics oozed from every sentence. Huge chunks of the lengthy 58-minute speech were a justification of the Government's approach to the economic crisis – and a dig at their Tory opponents.

Labour backbenchers lapped up the announcement that Mr Darling was preparing to sign a deal to clamp down on tax avoidance in three countries, including Belize, where Tory deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft is based. There was a pointed decision to freeze the inheritance tax threshold – driving deeper the dividing line with Tory plans to abolish inheritance tax on all estates under 1m. Every sentence was laced with dividing lines designed to paint a picture of a Government that had taken "decisive" action and made the right calls fighting against a Tory opposition that would threaten the economic recovery still "in its infancy".

But seasoned Budget experts know all too well that the questions are often as much about what is missing from the Chancellor's statement as what is in there. Only when the 228 pages of the "Red Book" (a glossy white document, incidentally) are pored through does the real picture emerge. No mention in the Budget of the freezing of personal tax allowances which will leave those lucky enough to get a pay rise

handing over a bigger proportion of their income to the taxman. Yes, it may have been included in December's Pre-Budget Report, but inflation was virtually zero then. Now it tops three per cent.

No mention, too, of a 2.2 per cent increase in the minimum wage, which will rise to 5.93 an hour. This is normally the sort of thing a Labour government would shout about, but the Chancellor preferred to keep it quiet because businesses say it is "sheer madness" to throw money around.

What, too, of the figures in the Budget documents that suggest the abolition of stamp duty for first-time buyers on properties below 250,000 are only planned in for two years – while the five per cent rate for properties over 1m is a permanent measure? Are we to expect a Government of another colour would be any more open and up front with those measures which can cause a little discomfort – and even detract from the more favourable headlines that are being hunted? Maybe not, but that's not the point.

Even the promised detail of how Whitehall departments were going to find the 11bn of efficiencies the Government pledged last year turned out to be damp squib.

By the time the information was released, it became evident there was little more detail on offer than promises to make savings in "procurement administration costs" – or even, most frustratingly, by "improving efficiency".

The reality is that while Labour will claim to have identified 11bn of savings, the big questions over how spending cuts will impact on

savings will come after the election. This Budget was all about

appealing to both voters and the City – and simply getting through to the election.

Last night, Mr Darling could reflect on making the best of his hand. And, no doubt, he will also have reflected that whatever reception his Budget receives today, life could be a lot worse.

Jonathan Reed is the Yorkshire Post's political editor.