One Fort in the Grave, with KEITH FORT

SEEING as we're all supposed to be standing shoulder to shoulder with America, I'm wondering why Gordon Brown failed to follow the US model in one important aspect of his budget.

He could have saved us pounds by presenting us with one simple tax concession.

Especially as his fiscal presentation was followed so closely by dire warnings of the nation's health through over-eating or devouring the wrong foods, particularly in the case of the young.

So why didn't he surprise us all by offering us tax deductible slimming?

Americans who are judged overweight by certain laid-down national standards will soon be able to claim tax concessions for training centre fees, fitness instruction -- even foods bought specially to slim. Holy callisthenics!

From the look of many Americans and from the huge numbers of Yanks reportedly obese, that could cost George Bush a sight more than he thinks.

The nation's coffers could be slimming faster than its folk

Well Gordon obviously decided to play it safe. What are his words? "Prudent and cautious." He plumped instead to charge us for the other end of the business, rescuing us from our obese, smoking, over-stressed and inbred excesses via the NHS.

We'll just have to carry on with our own nationally-devised plan for curbing eating excess -- dining by numbers.

People in this country -- women in particular -- don't eat what used to be described as a good wholesome meal any more. They eat points.

They have four points for breakfast, six points for lunch and between seven and nine points for dinner.

Oh, and you can have two points to drink.

That can mean anything from a glass of wine to a tonic water (but it has to be low calorie!).

If it all tots up to more than 16 or 18 points a day, depending on your rating, you've failed.

Strikes me that if you're no good at maths you're heading for a size I8.

After all the F-plans, the slimming soups, the slim-speedies, the grapefruit diets, the four-litres-a-day water diets, the fat-free diets, the starvation diets, this is what it's all come down to. Eating by numbers.

A pork chop isn't a pork chop any more. It's six points. A small egg one point. A large egg, two.

What worries me is that they say you can eat as much as you want as long as you don't exceed the points.

Given that most veg is zero it could be a touch unwise to devour a wagonload of carrots.

Then there's the general effect. It's slow, gradual and, as long as they don't eat any fat in the form of butter, cream, milk, meat and bacon fat, it seems to work for many women. Not all.

There's one young woman I know -- and she doesn't live in this region otherwise I'd have to employ a minder -- who has all the points ratings for food.

She also talks enthusiastically about the project but seems to get bigger every time I clap eyes on her.

I've concluded she's either cheating, secretly binge-eating or extremely poor at maths.

Thank goodness they didn't come up with a formula using algebra, trigonometry or even calculus, whatever that is.

No, whoever came up with this ingenious idea of rating all food by numbers deserves our gratitude (as long as it doesn't deprive us of a tax concession, eventually).

It's certainly better and more efficient than weighing everything, as people used to.

Still there are those who don't have the self-discipline and will-power to keep to the points system themselves.

They need the support of a slimming circle to encourage them along.

What does it matter as long as it gets the results?

Then, of course, there is the cheapest and simplest dieting plan of all -- just eat and drink less and exercise more.

But don't tell Gordon.