Three-voices Labour continues on its incoherent round of static ring-fenced saving cuts spending maintenance.

The announcement by Lord Mandelson today that the science budget would be ‘sacrosanct’ conflicts in a diametric sort of manner with the Treasury’ insistence that 2011 would have to see ‘efficiency savings’ in that very same budget. “I have drawn a line in the sand” said Mandy. Until the tide comes in this evening, that is.

There have long been three views about Britain’s economy under Gordon Brown, because there are three people trying to run it. These comprise two different ideas about how the engine works (Darling and Brown) and no idea at all about anything except jam tomorrow and circuses today (Mandelson).

The Business Secretary demonstrated this yesterday when he said banks should loosen lending conditions for new science companies. He also said they must cut the price of loans, rather than use the “fig leaf” argument that companies were not seeking to borrow. Your interpretation options for this remark are ‘liar’ and ‘idiot’. The answer’s probably both.

However, Mandy is ever the opportunist: he takes his chances, and nothing is left to chance. The reason the Business Minister has decided to ringfence science spending is that, this very week, the Royal Society published The Scientific Century, a document arguing ‘the need to place science and innovation at the heart of the UK’s long-term strategy for economic growth’. Dare I say that arriving at such a conclusion is hardly rocket science?

The Treasury is rather more concerned with the enormous black hole in this, the tenth year of the Century.

I’m told the hint from the Treasury corner is ‘efficiency’. While Peter Mandelson has been busy covering up the 76% write-off of the regional innovation scheme over the last few months, chaps working for Alistair Darling have been trying – at long last – to get some value for money for the taxpayer. Listen, ten seconds to midnight is better than never.

My usual Mole in this Whitehall region suggests that Darling and his chums will find it pretty damned hard trying to lasso the ether that is science and its contribution to our wellbeing.

For one thing, there is no science involved at all in the measurement of what contribution science actually makes to our income as a nation – let alone its culture. Lord Rees (the Royal Society’s boss) says we will be ‘left behind’ without the appliance of science, but then we always have been. The problem as always with Britain is lots of ideas and lousy marketing. Plus – when times get tough (eg, now) we sell the Rights, the chocolate factory, the port of Dover,our electricity industry, and anything else we can offload to pay for spending madness.

Even how much we spend on scientific research is a nightmare number to find. And there is also the question as to whether governments should be doing it at all. Given the track record in that area, my answer would be ‘usually, no’. But this is merely the same answer I’d give to anything innovative involving government: you could show a Time Machine to public servants, and they’d use it to go back into the past to reconfigure their contribution to the present. (For politicians, insert ‘legacy’ for contribution).

Anyway, according to the BBSRC it gets about £450 million a year. Now I know that sounds like a lot, but let’s put it into perspective.

It’s almost exactly half what we spent invading Iraq in a three-month period.

It’s just under 5% of what we spend on prescriptions. If we means-tested prescriptions (at even the most generous level) we could treble science spending and not feel a thing.

It’s under 3% of what Patricia Hewitt spent on a Connecting for Health project that neither connected anyone nor contributed anything to the national wellbeing – although it did bankrupt three IT suppliers.

I think you take my point: Mandy’s line in the sand is more a drop in the ocean. Or pissing on a Tsunami.