Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LEAVE’s repeated refusal to accept that its £50m a day clai
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LEAVE’s repeated refusal to accept that its £50m a day claim is untrue could cause problems if it wins
This has been used consistently by the outers and it has formed the basis for the core message. It has been saying that “£50m a day saved” could go into the NHS yet the amount of the actual cash available would be far less. Post election the INNERS would have very strong ground for complaint and you could just see Cameron dismissing a LEAVE outcome.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
*This figure may be officially misleading...
What a suprise.
Ministers could no more refuse to accept the result on those grounds than Leave could refuse to accept a Remain result because it is based on project Fear.
That said I agree (and said weeks ago) that Leave were daft going with the £350 million a week figure. They should have knocked off the rebate.
Of course the IFS figure is also bollocks. At a minimum it is £168 million a week for last year based on our net contribution. More realistically the figure is £288 million a week since we should use the gross not net figure. You don't calculate your tax bill based on what you get back in services. Nor should we for the EU.
Never mind that the side that made claims commonly understood to include, inter alia, suggestions of World War 3, economic meltdown worse than that caused by World War 2, and refugee camps in Kent frankly is going to be laughed at, and the subsequently voted out, by the public if they try and bin the referendum result.
http://news.sky.com/story/1702853/brexit-warnings-wrong-on-trade-think-tank
But if the Leave campaign are "stretching the actualite" to the point where the Statistics Authority have to step in to correct, where's the power to stop them lying? The Leave campaign seem quite happy to blissfully ignore being caught out like this, and there's no way a letter from the ONS is going to get the same publicity as the figure on the side of the bus. So where's the power to compel them to take back such a misleading claim? I know the response will be to look at some of the nonsense the Remain campaign has come out with, but that's just a diversion - how do we stop an out and out lie when the people propogating it don't show any respect for the ONS?
Leave's big mistake is going so small on what they can do and how much they have to work with to ensure smooth transition.
Maybe not going so well for Remain as they would like us to believe ?
Gross Contribution (post rebate) = £13bn
Gross Contribution (without rebate) = £18bn
Imagine another Blair like rebate surrender. What's the bill?
The UK government has form for losing rebates and opt-outs.
And Cameron's trust ratings.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-hillary-clinton-campaign-loses-defeated-donald-trump-213924
Some of the scenarios are a real stretch. At the moment, for example, there is no way that I can see Trump winning in Wisconsin, where the GOP hate him. But the general drift of the article is plausible, especially given Hillary's expertise in running low energy, piss poor campaigns and her extraordinarily high negatives on trustworthiness with the 40% of the electorate who make up Independents.
'The public doesn't like being deceived. See the the Lib Dem for details.'
Don't think the public like being told by an un-elected bureaucracy on how £8 billion of their taxes can be spent.
Damned lies,
Boris & Osborne.
Northallerton South (Hambleton) result:
CON: 48.0% (-0.5)
LAB: 20.6% (-4.8)
UKIP: 19.7% (-6.5)
YFIR: 11.8% (+11.8)
Leave and Remain = Cat and Kettle
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10874230/Jean-Claude-Juncker-profile-When-it-becomes-serious-you-have-to-lie.html
All that money the EU spends of "opinion formers" to ensure it gets the right sort of coverage in exactly the BrExit sort of situation, is not only scandalous, but extremely unlikely to be replicated by a national government.
NO
Sorry Mike but that's just silly. If Leave wins by a single vote Dave will initiate the Brexit mechanisms that afternoon, at the same time as appointing Boris and IDS as the joint heads of his post-EU negotiation task force. He'll then sit back and enjoy the fun.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036097.stm#start
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8114108/Labour-MP-Phil-Woolas-loses-seat-over-election-lies.html
What is the correct figure - I hand the EU £20, the EU says I can have £3 in CAP back, and another £6 which must be given to a Scotsman, and only provided I give the Scotsman another £6 too? Because I think the EU projects are mostly in Scotland and Wales? Or have I got it wrong?
Yes you have it wrong big time. Westminster decide where the money is spent , ie last time they allocated 200 million to Scotland as poor area, UK gave it to English farmers.
I dont think I have ever seen the word "could" has been quite so often and with quite such abandon. In almost every case it would be replaced with "won't" without reducing accuracy of the statement in the slighest. Its so bad it's starting to be noticed even by the public!
If your own side says the figure is dodgy....
http://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/budget-european-union
The BBC's "More or Less" figure looked at this about a month back and came up with a figure of a net contribution of about £8.5 billion annually, in the same ball park of the figure of the IFS.
But I agree that the quality of the campaign has been dire.
it's your own side saying it.
@rafaelbehr: So Vote Leave promoting a bet that sounds like a treat but is in fact mathematically close to impossible. Could be a metaphor for something.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union
All the rich countries of the EU pay between 0.24% and 0.32% of GDP. We are 0.25%.
One class of people looking down on another for complaining that immigration is having big impact on their lives.
Who outnumbers who and how many will vote? anyone's guess.
If I lose and there is world war 3 - do you want the winnings sent to heaven, hell or purgatory?
It's not who spends it that really matters; it's whether it's spent well and on what, where the battle lies.
1. It's then difficult without being utterly contradictory to use the (true) claim that we pay in about 3 times as much to the EU as we get back in EU payments. The Remain campaign is going to great lengths to highlight all of the projects funded by various EU contributions, and the "3 times in than what we get back" is the obvious rebuttal to all that.
2. It also makes it harder for them to focus on the fact that it's the EU not the UK that dictates where those EU payments are and are not applied and the questionable nature of much of those payments on a harmonised one-size-fits-all basis (e.g. precisely how the EU chooses to deploy its farm subsidies in support of large scale agribusiness should be more than a little contentious.)
Historically.
Just wait until REMAIN squeak home on the votes of Celts and non-whites, and then hear the whines and rages...
Note that it should be past tense HAD rather than has.. Boris has been a berk.
Finally, in the wake of Sister Sledge, Alesha Dixon, East 17 and 5ive pulling out of Leave.EU’s campaign concert, who did the groups think might be drafted in as pro-Brexit replacements? “One of them two brothers. The Gallaghers.” “I think more like Chas and Dave”. “Morrissey, because he likes to be controversial.” “Sinead O’Connor would want us out.” “Jedward”. “The Spice Girls with their Union Jack.”
And on the remain side? “Paul McCartney, Bob Geldof, Bono, Sting, the likes of that.” “Cliff Richard.” Anyone else? “That Gary Barlow.”
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/05/turkey-migrants-the-euro-army-the-price-of-freedom-and-the-neutrality-paradox-my-referendum-focus-groups-in-leeds/
Dr Malawana - chairman of the committee - dismissed January’s negotiation talks overseen by the mediation service Acas as “rubbish” and “playing the political game of looking reasonable”.
Still, just 125 000 appts and operations were cancelled as part of their charade. Many of us said that the junior doctors would live to regret this - I never expected it would explode so messily. Who'd trust anything their union says ever again?