Forget austerity, the Budget buzzword for this decade is infrastructure. Just six months ago (yes, really) we had Osborne promising "long-term solutions to long-term problems" with cash for road upgrades and HS3. His successor Philip Hammond has hinted he'll be investing further in projects that boost productivity. So this week it was the turn of John McDonell, the Shadow Chancellor to trump that with a pledge to earmark a whopping £250bn on infrastructure.
Actually (much like his living wage and in the habit of Chancellors on both side of the divide) it's a re-announcement. But there's no doubting the appeal of extra cash for example for more housing, improved rail capacity or faster national broadband. It's not just about making life easier but boosting growth and incomes. (Although it's no quick fix.)
But questions about where the money would be spent - and the benefits - have been drowned out by those about where the it would come from.
Mr McDonnell said Labour would pledge £250bn of government funding over 10 years. That's in addition to £100bn for new public national and regional banks. "Ruinous" was the retort of critics, who point out that would be the equivalent of massive hikes in taxes - for example least another 5% on VAT every year.
Labour's suggestion is that the answer might be to borrow, making the most of those historic low interest rates. Sounds sensible. But we're already shelling out more on the interest of our national debt - close to £50bn per year - than we do on defence.
In addition, Mr McDonnell hopes the private sector would chip in too. As the last Chancellor found, big companies and pension funds can actually be incredibly cautious when it comes to stumping up cash.
Loosening the purse strings and shoring up our economy for the longer-term, particularly in this unprecedented era, has much going for it. Both main parties seem to acknowledge that. But a nod to Gordon Brown's old mate, Prudence, might not go amiss.