Tom Richmond: Glenys trips up Brown over double dealing on security

From that moment onwards, his electoral hopes were, mercifully, sunk and the couple – complete with assorted family members – had to make their living out of the EU (at our expense).

I'm not a fan. By all accounts, Lady Kinnock – she was elevated to the Lords during last summer's reshuffle when Gordon Brown was left without a Europe Minister – does not have many.

But her admission that the Foreign Office was facing a 110m budget shortfall as a result of currency fluctuations, and that the programmes being cut included counter-terrorism initiatives in Pakistan and anti-narcotics work in Afghanistan, has performed a vital national service.

For, just hours earlier, the Prime Minister had stood up – in a statesmanlike manner by his standards – and told the Commons how the Government was having to strengthen this work as a result of a major re-appraisal following the failed Christmas Day plot to blow up a transatlantic aircraft.

"Since 2001, we have reformed domestic defences against the terrorist threat, trebled our domestic security budget, doubled the staff in our security services and reformed our security structures to bring greater co-ordination across government," said Brown with flourish.

There was no mention of budget shortfalls – just the impression that more money was being spent on national security, an issue that is, frankly, too important for party politics.

This is not good enough.

In case it has escaped the Government's attention, Britain is on the brink of a General Election – the backdrop of which will

be the biggest budget deficit in history.

Inevitably, its defining theme will be the economy and fiscal competence. The next Parliament will be dominated by spending cuts. The only difference of opinion is whether they're implemented at the rate suggested by Bank of England governor Mervyn King, the Chancellor Alistair Darling and his Tory opposite George Osborne – or whether Brown's delaying tactics hold sway.

Yet, while the Liberal Democrats have shown admirable candour in scaling back their aspirations, this has not stopped the ambition that has been shown, thus far, by Labour and the Conservatives during the pre-election skirmishes.

Far from being restrained, these exchanges – such as Conservative plans to offer tax breaks for married couples – have paid scant regard to the need that taxes will have to go up to fund not just the colossal interest payments on the budget deficit, but any new policy commitments that are actually implemented.

And while both talk about the need for reductions in the public sector payroll – "efficiency savings" is the euphemism used – they are reluctant to acknowledge that the redundancy costs will be, potentially, astronomical and that the Treasury will lose out if out-of-work bureaucrats cannot find alternative employment.

It is why some candour needs to be introduced to the electioneering.

Whenever a policy pronouncement is made, it should be incumbent on the politician concerned to explain how it will be funded. If it means existing services being scaled back, they need to name the policies concerned.

If, for example, a scheme is dependent upon the economy reaching a pre-determined level of growth, they need to make that clear. The litany of false promises, one of the abiding characteristics of the New Labour years, is not acceptable.

There's now the suggestion that Tory tax plans to support marriage will be financed by the raising of fuel duty, and a new levy on flights. A Shadow Minister floated this idea to see if it attracted support. George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, distanced himself from this. But has this really been discussed? We need to be told. Osborne may say "no", but someone from within his inner-circle disagrees.

And, if budgets are subject to factors such as currency fluctuations, this needs to be made clear to voters – as exemplified by the shambles over reductions to spending in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan which the Prime Minister has repeatedly described as the "crucible of terrorism" and where Osama bin Laden reportedly hides.

Once the numbers start stacking up – and yes it will be a challenge for those who are not accustomed to such spending scrutiny – voters will be slightly more informed when it comes to deciding which party is

best placed to take on the nation's finances.

Of course, they will not like this – especially the three main party leaders, and all those MPs, whose misuse of Parliamentary expenses has been so ruthlessly exposed.

In short, many claimed for money which they were not entitled. The pre-election phoney war is being conducted on similar lines – Ministers and prospective Ministers outlining spending plans for money which the country does not have at its disposal.

This double dealing cannot continue. And, if there's a sea-change over the financial transparency of politics, the country has Baroness Kinnock to thank for further exposing Gordon Brown's dishonesty.