The fourth estate is all the stands between the general public and Brown's lies

There is much praise for Phil Hammond in the Conservative blogsphere today for his appearance opposite government apologists over the 10% cuts that are programmed into the current governments financial projection, but which they refuse to admit to ( they are essentially just lying straight to people's faces ).

The Mandelson/Brown plan now looks clear. They want to run the same campaign Gordon always runs, good Labour against evil Tories who want to cut Nurses / Doctors / murder fluffy kittens etc.

To do this they need the story that the Conservatives will make cuts ( which will be 'opposed' by all those affected ) vs vague hints Labour might raises taxes peppered with examples of number involving millions that will go up over the next few years. They will talk of tough choices, but mention no specifics - except of course the ones that make up about Conservative proposals. If pushed they will try to suggest that Gordon purely pitiful raise of top tax to 50% was a tough choice, where as we all know it was a stupid choice as it will actually reduce the tax take ( except it wasn't a financial decision at all but one from the spite and bile of Brown dark heart as he reaches out to stab at his enemies regardless of the cost to the people he claims to represent ).

There are a few blocking tactics Labour can use to filibuster interviews from people who know what they are talking about in terms of the government fiances:

1) Just talk about past 'investment' (unfocused spending on consumption to you and me that will actually reduce future spending on public services due to the debt that must be serviced).
2) Talk about Tory cuts - as if your implying Labour might make cuts surely the Conservative ones will be greater ?
3) Bluster with Tractor production stats.
4) Deny the figures and claim those asking the hard questions don't understand them. Discussions on Net vs Gross, Capital spending etc etc amortisation, inflation costs - attack the "assumptions" ( unemployment rates etc etc ) meaning those figures can't be right ( but of course their own invented ones that prove monstrous Tory cuts are ).

For this tactic to work it relies on the collusion of the unofficial branch of our governing system, the Fourth Estate, The Media, or the MSM to us bloggers.

In 97 many journalists had grown up during the Thatcher years and saw it as their sacred duty to bring down the Conservative govt. Radio 4 leaked to Labour HQ, and Labour HQ told the media what to say. Everyone was loyal to the sacred "project".

Perhaps up to the war launched on a lie (Iraq) the media were in Labour's pocket. The BBC especially. After 97 Radio 4 stopped doing the sort of interview where Government minister met their opposite numbers in the studio ( after all who cared about the Tories ). If an 'opposition spokesperson ' had to be included there was always the Lib Dems - who win most of their seats from the Tories, so that all helped the Project also.

But I suspect it is no longer the case.

Last night the BBC expert commentators supported the Conservative line that government published spending plans supported the claim of a 10% cuts in departmental spending away from the NHS and overseas development.

Conservative home reports that much of the media just won't play along with Labour's lies this time. If you want to see a truly pathetic attempt to mislead the public and betray the interests of the people who elected you listen to the worm of a man Liam Byrne slim and smear his way around the simple proposition that Labour were going to have to make large cuts. [ You can listen again here 2:10 min in aprox - though the articles from 2:00 are worth listening to as they directly contradicts what Byrne says latter and show more Labour minister just lying ]

Labour have studied media interviews, and expensed the tax payers to train their ministers never to answer questions in a way that passes on any useful information.

The real question is, once the dust settles from the local and Euro elections and Brown straight lies to the camera and a room full of people who knew for a fact he was lying about wanting to keep Alistair Darling as Chancellor fade, will the media do its job or will the revert to their loyalty to the project ?

If its the latter then all that stands between our country and a conspiracy between the lies of Gordon Brown and the collusion of the MSM will be the new media.

This is going to get very nasty indeed.

See also Steve Green's The Daily Referendum post which deals with Brown's lies at PMQs on spending and refers to Fraser Nelson's article "The truth behind that 10% cut" on this subject at the Spectator Coffee house ( now is that MSM or new media I wonder ? ). Fraser is one of the journlaists who is not letting Brown's Liebour of the hook, and ideed may have started this whole debate about the 10% cuts. Intrestingly he thinks that blogging may make it much harder for Labour to get away with the lies as more people are intrested int he details that the MSM used to worry would put their mass readership off - see clip from his article below:

"Little did I imagine, when I calculated that the Tory spending parameters would involve a 10 percent cut in non-NHS departments, that it would attract such an audience. Brown repeaed it on Marr, as if it were an official Tory figure. But when Andrew Lansley mentioned it this morning as an official Tory figure then, I guess, it becomes Tory policy. A great battle ensured in PMQs: whose cuts are they? Tory cuts or Labour cuts? Real or fake? Brown loves such battles, thinking that no journalist can be bothered to go do the maths by themselves. He will be wrong here, I suspect, as the maths is pretty easy."

Full article over at the Spectator Coffee House.

See also Stephanie Flander's blog Stephanomics post today that includes the following:

"Given the Treasury's own forecasts for inflation and the IFS's forecasts for spending on social security and debt interest over the period, these new figures confirm that if you freeze the NHS and DIFD budgets in real terms from 2011-2013, other spending will see a 10% cut in real terms.

That's what Andrew Lansley should have said to the Today programme this morning, had he not tripped up on the question of spending for education and whether it was protected.

The bottom line is that the government's own numbers imply a 10% real cut in spending on other departments between 2011 and 2013, if the NHS and DIFD are protected."

Full article at Stephanomics blog here.

Credit where credit is due - Stephanie's blog post and her comments on BBC TV yesterday is the Fourth estate doing exactly what is has to do for our democracy to function. I don't believe she is sympathetic to the Conservative cause, and I'll be shocked if she has ever voted for us - but she has done her job which is to use her expertise to give the public some insight into an issue where one party is deliberately muddying the waters.

Updates:

See Wat Tyler at Burning Our Money with his post "Electors Have A Clear Choice - Truth Or Lies", and he knows what he's talking about.

Iain Dale is asking if "Tories Should Not Be Defensive About Spending Restraint" - but I think Iain is missing the point. We first have to pin Brown for lying and expose his deceit for what it is to the whole country. Only then can an honest and informed debate take place.

Dizzy has done his home work here - there's a consensus in the blogsphere developing here .