The public's right to know
Fraser Nelson 5:24pm
The Treasury have just banned transcripts of the all-important briefing they give to journalists after the budget. Coffee House broke the mould after the April budget by producing the first-ever transcript – releasing to the public the spin which journalists are given in the precious few hours they have to write up the Budget. This shows how journalists were wrongly told that there were no spending cuts, when there were in fact cuts of 7 percent over three years.
Here is an example of their misleading briefing last year
The IFS found the cuts hidden in the small print the next day, as CoffeeHouse reported. I challenged Brown about it at a press conference (YouTube here). We produced a table for these cuts (below).Q: Why are you cutting spending by more?
A: By more? (quizzical look on his face)
Q: Well not reducing the rate of growth by more than you are. It is not that big a reduction given the scale of the problems you are facing.
A: We have taken on board the efficiency reports that were published yesterday which set out the scales of efficiencies that should be deliverable and we’ve made and assessed a judgement on the growth of spending in the light of that report and clearly we want to maintain real growth in public spending, which this does, 0.7 a year and no doubt when it comes to providing detailed plans for the next spending review period the government will need to demonstrate that it is still allocating resources to its priorities.
But not a single newspaper noticed the cuts that day - not surprising, after they were explicitly told there hadn't been any cuts. This is the basis of the great Budget game under Labour: the joy of leading journalists on a wrong scent (remember the 2p tax cut, which hid the abolition of the 10p tax rate?), knowing that have four hours max to read, digest, and then offer final judgement on this complex piece of economics. The media is never more susceptible to spin than it is between 1pm and 5pm on Budget day.
My point: that it is within the public interest to release the transcript, to shed light on how the Treasury communicates with the public whose money they are spending. Their decision to not allow a transcript of this year's briefing to be released hardly inspires confidence.
Previous
strapworld
December 9th, 2009 5:57pm Report this commentMr Nelson. Break that embargo. It cannot hold up in a court of law. PRINT AND BE DAMNED!
Ian Walker
December 9th, 2009 5:58pm Report this commentSo will you publish and be damned? There's a big petard with "NightJack's identity" written on it that redefined "public interest" - why not pop it at the gates of the Treasury and light the touchpaper?
(with apologies to Amnesty International for the inhumane treatment of that metaphor)
Naomi Muse
December 9th, 2009 5:59pm Report this commentFraser, what a revelation. It is hardly surprising that now that A Campbell is back inside no 10, the game plan has changed.
Shall I apply under Freedom of Information Act?
It is almost a question like 'Does the PM believe in Santa Claus?' where he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Do you have a recording of the press briefing? If so, then issue your own transcript and it can then be in the public domain with a certification on it that it was the PBR press briefing and then it can be compared with the real PBR statement to find those knotty little variances, which add up to so much.
It also, at its basest level means that they have a lot to hide and intend to use all the smoke and mirrors available.
Michael Booth
December 9th, 2009 6:03pm Report this commentThose in receipt of public money have a duty to be open and transparent and are accountable. This is the mantra the government use with regard to all public services such as Health, Education and Social Services. Why then does it not apply to the government?
Cato
December 9th, 2009 6:12pm Report this commentWhat form does this "banning" take? If you publish the transcript what will they do? Put you in prison? Kick you out of the lobby? Call you unpleasant names? Cry? If not the first of these, then bring on the transcript.
Liz Brown
December 9th, 2009 6:23pm Report this commentWHAT THE F*** is that all about? We pay these bastards - or have they conveniently forgotten that. That information belongs to us...........
Chuck Unsworth
December 9th, 2009 6:40pm Report this commentThe fact of banning transcripts is a direct admission that they are lying to the public. The dishonesty and mendacity is all pervasive. These people should be sacked immediately. They are public servants who have got completely out of hand. Fire them. Now.
Tanuki
December 9th, 2009 6:45pm Report this commentIn these times of net-connectedness there's an easy solution to this.
1] Someone posts a copy of the transcript to 'Wikileaks'.
2] Someone then tips-off the media.
3] Someone in the government then tries to force (by injunction or other legal clunking-fist) Wikileaks to remove the article.
4] Someone at Wikileaks discloses the government's attempt at censorship.
5] The "Streisand Effect" kicks in and the details of the transcript become known to millions who would otherwise never have become informed.
Number7
December 9th, 2009 7:13pm Report this commentIs it this one?
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/prebud_pbr09_pressindex.htm
Boudicca
December 9th, 2009 7:39pm Report this commentI think you should be flattered that they are so frightened of you pulling apart the PBR and exposing their lies. They're frit!
Nick
December 9th, 2009 7:54pm Report this commentI just watched the BBC news. You've had a reporter asking a person did they think the debt of 175 bn was a lot.
Talk about Pravda. 175 bn is Darlings underestimate of the deficit. It's a con. Us the word deficit and people think you are talking about debt.
Ask them what they think of 2000 bn of government bond debt?
Ask them what they think of 8,000 bn of total government debt
Nick
Tankus
December 9th, 2009 9:12pm Report this commentWell ..if the EU can get away for years without being signed off by accountants ,Its small wonder that Brown thinks that's a pretty good wheeze.
What's the point in reality , when fiction sells so much better !
Back to top