THERE was a lot of trouble with spin yesterday. How the Tories mocked when, early in his speech, Chancellor Gordon Brown tumbled over his words and proposed "three policy announcements to underspin the economy". He meant, of course, to underpin the economy - but, as everyone knows, this is a government so obsessed by spin that it sneaks in to every thought.

Everyone, but Michael Portillo. For in the Shadow Chancellor's reply, he slipped up and said it was "a government obsessed with skin".

Yet the spin and the leaks had proved correct. Despite spending £24m a second at the Despatch Box, when Mr Brown sat down he had dished out the predicted £43bn on the predicted areas of defence, education and transport.

However, what the spin had not made clear in advance was how yesterday's announcement is going to polarise the parties in the run-up to the election.

''We have made our choices," concluded Mr Brown. "It is now for those who oppose our spending plans to state clearly where their cuts would fall.

''This Government has been prudent for a purpose. Our choice is stability, employment and sustained long-term investment.''

But in his reply, Mr Portillo countered boldly with: "I believe that hard-working families and pensioners should pay less tax because governments often waste money. I do not believe it is morally superior to take money away from parents who might have spent it on putting a decent meal on the table."

This is going to be the great debate: is it morally preferable to take money away from tax-payers (Mr Portillo reckoned that Mr Brown's spending spree would cost each tax-payer £600 a year) and invest it in schools, housing, hospitals, roads?

Mr Portillo's task is tough: how to reconcile caring Conservatism which supports extra money for public services with tax-cutting Conservatism that must take it away.

His task is made even tougher because, at the end of his spending spree, Mr Brown will not be taxing exorbitantly - the 40 per cent of GDP taken in tax is about the same as the Tories were taking under John Major.

Yet Mr Brown has a tough task, too. First he has to counter public cynicism. New Labour has a history of double announcing cash promises, sometimes triple announcing. This money must be new and must bring new benefits.

His second problem is that the public has been waiting three years to see additional money flowing into schools and transport. It is coming - but will the results be in time for the election?

Mr Brown thinks by making this spending programme last until 2004 he is tying the electorate into a second term. But unless there are results it will be a very trusting electorate that gives New Labour a second victory.

And so the age of spin - or "skin" - must surely pass. Now must be the age of delivery. Alan Milburn, David Blunkett and Jack Straw must spend up and be counted.

l Additional reporting by MIKE PARKER