Gotcha. That's the one word summary of George Osborne's interview on the Today programme this morning.
At one level, the leaked Treasury figures confirm something we already knew: that the government plans to cut spending in real terms if re-elected. The Institute for Fiscal Studies teased that much out of the chancellor's budget numbers hours after they were published in April. Only the Treasury expects to have to squeeze even more than the IFS thought, by 9.3% rather than 7%.
The prime minister was then criticised in the summer for seeming to deny something implicit in his government's own numbers - when he contrasted Labour's plans to invest in public services with Tory plans to cut spending by 10%.
But the leaked figures show that officials have known since April that Labour's plans imply a similar-sized cut. It was not simply implicit - it was explicit, in the Treasury's own internal tables.
Mr Osborne said the PM had misled Parliament in contrasting Labour plans to invest with Tory plans to cut spending by 10%. I've looked back at the exact quote, and - as ever - Gordon Brown has a get-out. What he actually said, in a BBC interview, on 1 July was "I have always told the truth and I've always told people as it is". He was also quoted by the Tories as saying "we don't want to have the 10% cuts the Conservatives are talking about."
I guess he can always say (truthfully) that he doesn't want cuts. Even if he - and all at the Treasury - expect them. Or, of course, he can say that he doesn't want the same 10% cuts the Conservatives are talking about - he wants the 9.3% cut that Labour is (not) talking about.
Then again, if you need this many get-out clauses, perhaps you need to reassess the bit about "telling people as it is"...
So much for the politics. As I mentioned on Today, the most interesting thing about the leaked numbers from an economic standpoint is just how pessimistic the Treasury is being about the rise in social costs over the next few years and, especially, the rise in the cost of servicing government debt. The table in question shows debt interest payment rising from £27 billion this year to nearly £64 billion pounds in 2013-14. The IFS thought it was being fairly conservative in forecasting debt payments would rise to £52bn.
I had also wondered whether the IFS was being a bit gloomy about the growth in social security payments during that period, despite what you would assume to be a fall in unemployment after 2010. But it turns out that the Treasury is at least as gloomy, if not more so. The Treasury numbers show social security costs rising in real terms by 2.1%, as late as 2013-14.
Another part of the leaked memo actually shows the Treasury boasting about how conservative its forecasts are. It points out that almost all of the improvements in the structural deficit between now and 2013-14 is driven by policy. Government decisions in the Budget and pre-Budget report of 2008 will reduce the deficit by £56bn, it says. And even in 2013-14, revenues from the housing and financial sectors are expected to be "only 1% of GDP higher than in 2007/8", despite the announced rise in tax rates.
You might think this sits rather awkwardly against the economic forecasts built into the same Budget. The GDP forecast for 2009 and, especially, after 2010, has been widely criticised as over-optimistic. if they were being so cautious, why not expect growth to be lower as well?
The answer, I suspect, is that the two are related. Officials were put under immense political pressure to raise their growth forecasts. As a consequence - or in anticipation - Treasury officials made sure they were not expecting growth to do much of the work of cleaning up the public finances.
This tallies with what Treasury officials have told me privately, even if the linkage was never quite this explicit. They may have lost the battle on the growth forecasts, but they were going to make darn sure the budget numbers still added up. And in fact, I would say they largely succeeded. A number of independent commentators have suggested that the Treasury might be being too gloomy about the size of the structural hole in the public finances - ie the bit that won't go away, even with economic recovery.
If I were George Osborne, I'd have another reason to be pleased by this memo. As well as allowing an easy goal against the government - it might mean that, if the Tories are elected, being chancellor for the next few years might be slightly less awful than we previously thought.