Labour friends have been sidling up to me in recent weeks, claiming that the Tories are so desperate not to talk about the economy that they pile in to build up any passing controversy that distracts the public – from Baby P to the Damian Green affair. Are they right? I didn't think so, but am no longer so sure.
This morning my chums will point to the Populus poll for the Times which shows Labour closing the gap on the Conservatives, their lead 39:35:17% compared with a 41:35:16% lead over Labour and the Lib Dems a month ago.
Potentially more significant, Brown and Alistair Darling are rated better men to manage the economy than David Cameron and George Osborne, by 40% to 31% - a 6% shift in the Labour lead since the much-leaked (not by ministers) pre-budget report on November 24.
Does this matter much? Not really at this stage, though it is consistent with other polls. Since the recession started biting hard in September Brown has found a stronger sense of purpose on a policy focus he is comfortable with, and Darling is nothing if not calm. Etc etc etc.
But these are early days, and even if Labour delivers its declared hope to deliver the economy from a short, shallow recession – a pretty big if – voters in 2010 may blame it for the big boom and bust and decide the country needs new management.
For Brown to defy political gravity in 2010 the Tory team would really have to screw up. Incidents like yesterday's disgrace of David Ross, Carphone Warehouse tycoon and ally of Cameron and Mayor Boris, don't help, but they are rarely remembered for long – unless they pop up once a week.
I didn't take much notice of Labour's conspiracy theory until last week when Osborne, still in post-Corfu recovery phase as shadow chancellor, attracted headlines for denouncing the Brown government for seriously contemplating membership of the eurozone when opportunity arises.
Oh really, George, give us a break! It's nonsense and I can't believe you believe it. The Tory excuse is that José Manuel Barroso, Portuguese president of the European commission, claimed the other day that some of his British friends had told him they'd have been better off during the current crisis inside the eurozone.
That's traditionally a cue for Fleet St to blame Peter Mandelson, whose return to the cabinet table reopens the popular sport of Mandy-bashing.
The business secretary, whose old pre-1994 intimacy with Brown now seems restored, obliged with a radio tease: he remains pro-euro, but the government has other priorities, he said. The first half was more widely reported.
City analysts disagree over the relative performance of the Bank of England and the European Central Bank during the financial meltdown. Both have been more cautious than the US Federal Reserve in cutting interest rates and taxes to try and kick-start their struggling economies. Neither has earned a gold medal.
But there's scope for trying policies in varying measure. That's how you find out what works. Osborne's speech – made to the North East Economic Forum in Newcastle – did more than euro-bash, though he was stretching it when he claimed that the UK boom and bust would have been even worse inside that tearaway euro.
He also set out Tory differences with Labour, including the emphasis on curbing spending and borrowing – a monetary policy priority over fiscal policy – instead of Darling's short-term £20bn stimulus. Most economists are currently pro-stimulus.
Osborne is on stronger ground when he says the Treasury is charging the banks too much (12%) for its loans and this is perpetuating the credit freeze. The US and EU loans are cheaper.
Cameron is revisiting the territory with a big speech this morning, and defended his ground – cutting spending and borrowing is the priority – against an economically more literate Evan Davis on Radio 4's Today.
The real eurozone battle is the one Brown and President Sarkozy of France discussed in London yesterday, how to get Germany on board for the kind of fiscal stimulus which President-elect Obama is promoting. "We're not ganging up on you," they said. But they are really.
As a creditor country – with an export surplus, high savings and low domestic demand – Angela Merkel's coalition in Berlin is under pressure to stimulate home demand and spend those surpluses, acquired at the expense of debtor countries like the US and UK.
Why should they? Because the recession/slump will gobble them up too if they don't is the consensus answer. But, like everything else, it's disputed. "Will the pound survive its current battering?" I asked one Whitehall official. "Will the euro?" he answered.
