Some commentators have predicted that last week's budget will be Gordon Brown's last as Chancellor and within the next twelve months he will take over from Blair as Prime Minister.

Personally, I'm not so sure it will be his last.

What we do know, however, is that the budget was his tenth and, like the previous nine, he has emphasised the need to create a strong economy and a fair society, where there is opportunity and security for all.

I doubt that anyone would question the desirability of these objectives; we can, however, question the progress that has been made

For instance, we know that inequality exploded in the 1980s - when the incomes of the richest 20 per cent rose almost ten times as quickly as those of the poorest 20 per cent - but an analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has concluded that inequality has been left virtually unchanged since Labour came to power (though the IFS praises Labour for its actions on child poverty).

The levels of poverty and inequality are also reflected in regional differences in economic performance.

Although the Chancellor can point to sustained economic growth, the nature and scale of the growth vary across regions.

An analysis by the Financial Times, two days before the budget, highlighted underperformance in those regions the Government wishes to revitalise, including the North East.

Increased Government spending may be justified socially and economically, but it has contributed to Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the North East all becoming more dependent on the public sector.

At the same time, private sector growth in these regions has been below average. In the North East, for instance, average annual private sector growth between 1997 and 2003 was 1.3 per cent (public sector growth was more than four per cent), compared with four per cent in London and 3.5 per cent in the South East.

These figures are also worrying when considered against international data. According to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), between 1996 and 2001 only Turkey of the 30 OECD countries had a bigger spread of growth rates between its strongest and weakest regions.

A stable economy and fairness for all are commendable objectives, but need to be demonstrated across all regions.

Perhaps this something for the Chancellor to think about as he contemplates becoming Prime Minister.