As the chancellor himself said: ‘You may have noticed this is an exciting time to be chancellor of the exchequer. And frankly I could have done without some of the excitements. I’ve had to deal with the unexpected like missing computer discs and difficulties caused by events far, far away.’

The latter, of course, an allusion to the US sub-prime lending that has caused (or at least highlighted) Northern Rock’s fragile financial position. He did stray off topic but rarely anywhere specific.

An announcement on capital gains tax reform would be ‘soon’ and made to the House of Commons once responses to his initial proposals had been reflected upon.

The Treasury was considering all options on Northern Rock, would prefer a private sector solution was found but ‘would see it through’ and take ‘whatever action, however difficult’. (Nationalisation is the only the interpretation of that remark).

Meanwhile the Treasury – which he acknowledged had been driven by too many targets in the past - would continue to be involved in the detail of government policy where it needs to take a view - economic or moral.

But it was a throwaway remark about what the role of the Treasury should not be that struck me as most remarkable.

‘It’s possible to look at the Treasury as a finance officer function – almost acting as a club treasurer,’ he said. ‘I don’t think you can possibly act in that way.’

What he seemed to be saying was that he needed to be involved in financial managing and in strategy. And how, by implication, that wasn’t really the role of the government’s senior finance officer. I couldn’t disagree more.