Tory Remainers think you can bring large numbers in without building more houses or spending more on the NHS.
Nicola is right that people are concerned with immigration because of its effects on public services: strengthen the public services and a lot of the issue goes away.
I have to admit, I do wonder if the meme that the £350m line is a "lie" might really damage the Leave Campaign (sticking to the real figure of £200m or whatever it is would've been damaging enough).
I dunno. I wonder how many people understand the gross/net thing? I can imagine some people not being impressed with Remain being outraged about Leave using the gross figure and by association condoning the net figure.
remain women trying to gang up on Boris is clearly a tactic, much like last year with Wood, Sturgeon and Bennett attacking Farage. Luckilly he has Andrea to help blunt the attacks
Eagle got a good hit in: "get that lie off your bus"
First applause from the audience
Ah, I post something 'positive' for Remain, and up you pop.
Why not - I would concede leave are better on this part but their problem that keeps haunting them is the 350 million lie splashed for all to see on the bus
I have to admit, I do wonder if the meme that the £350m line is a "lie" might really damage the Leave Campaign (sticking to the real figure of £200m or whatever it is would've been damaging enough).
I dunno. I wonder how many people understand the gross/net thing? I can imagine some people not being impressed with Remain being outraged about Leave using the gross figure and by association condoning the net figure.
I have to admit, I do wonder if the meme that the £350m line is a "lie" might really damage the Leave Campaign (sticking to the real figure of £200m or whatever it is would've been damaging enough).
I dunno. I wonder how many people understand the gross/net thing? I can imagine some people not being impressed with Remain being outraged about Leave using the gross figure and by association condoning the net figure.
I don't think, if it is to have an impact, that details like gross or net will come into it. If what people take in is 'X says it is 350, but Y says it is really 200, that's still way too much' it won't do leave that much harm. If that takeaway is 'X says it is 350, but apparently that's not true' then it may do harm, even though it means basically the same thing. It's a question of if people accept the claim is not correct and then whether they care more about how what it is is too much or that they were misled.
Armstrong: "If Britain exits you're going to see the same thing everywhere. The Swiss were petitioned to join the EU and rejected it. Poles so against Merkel for what she's done (opened door to immigration) - 2/3rds of Germans want Merkel out"
I have to admit, I do wonder if the meme that the £350m line is a "lie" might really damage the Leave Campaign (sticking to the real figure of £200m or whatever it is would've been damaging enough).
I dunno. I wonder how many people understand the gross/net thing? I can imagine some people not being impressed with Remain being outraged about Leave using the gross figure and by association condoning the net figure.
I don't think, if it is to have an impact, that details like gross or net will come into it. If what people take in is 'X says it is 350, but Y says it is really 200, that's still way too much' it won't do leave that much harm. If that takeaway is 'X says it is 350, but apparently that's not true' then it may do harm, even though it means basically the same thing. It's a question of if people accept the claim is not correct and then whether they care more about how what it is is too much or that they were misled.
I don't think people are going to follow the intricacies of whether it's a gross or net figure - but I do think it's possible the perception that they're "lying" might cut through, and that thereafter people would disregard ANYTHING they say about the cost of the EU (even if they revised it to a lower figure) as not to be trusted on the topic.
I have to admit, I do wonder if the meme that the £350m line is a "lie" might really damage the Leave Campaign (sticking to the real figure of £200m or whatever it is would've been damaging enough).
I dunno. I wonder how many people understand the gross/net thing? I can imagine some people not being impressed with Remain being outraged about Leave using the gross figure and by association condoning the net figure.
I don't think, if it is to have an impact, that details like gross or net will come into it. If what people take in is 'X says it is 350, but Y says it is really 200, that's still way too much' it won't do leave that much harm. If that takeaway is 'X says it is 350, but apparently that's not true' then it may do harm, even though it means basically the same thing. It's a question of if people accept the claim is not correct and then whether they care more about how what it is is too much or that they were misled.
I actually think the net figure is relevant, but obviously not the whole story. What you say is absolutely right - but I honestly don't know how people see it. What's worse - Leave being a bit economical with the whole truth, or Remain basically saying that £200m a week is no big deal?
Armstrong: "Overlooked part of Syria conflict is Genie Oil and all the oil found underneath the Golan Heights with Larry Summers and Dick Cheney on the board amongst others"
Andrea has a lovely manner - reassuring, warm and credible.
I love her.
totally agree. I think she's been the star of the leave campaign. I might be biased but I feel remain have got their tone all wrong so far tonight, Rudd is gurning her face off.
I have to admit, I do wonder if the meme that the £350m line is a "lie" might really damage the Leave Campaign (sticking to the real figure of £200m or whatever it is would've been damaging enough).
I dunno. I wonder how many people understand the gross/net thing? I can imagine some people not being impressed with Remain being outraged about Leave using the gross figure and by association condoning the net figure.
I don't think, if it is to have an impact, that details like gross or net will come into it. If what people take in is 'X says it is 350, but Y says it is really 200, that's still way too much' it won't do leave that much harm. If that takeaway is 'X says it is 350, but apparently that's not true' then it may do harm, even though it means basically the same thing. It's a question of if people accept the claim is not correct and then whether they care more about how what it is is too much or that they were misled.
What's worse - Leave being a bit economical with the whole truth, or Remain basically saying that £200m a week is no big deal?
The big question indeed. I think Danny565 is right to flag up the potential risk of such a strategy, although I think they'll get away with it. Dislike of giving anything to the EU may overcome dislike of misleading statements.
Armstrong: "If the structure of the EU is so great, then why is everyone saying don't leave! ..... Because they know deep down that it will set off a contagion"
FPT at the request of PTP from @CasinoRoyale John_M said: » show previous quotes Well, given that the front page of the report acknowledged that it was funded by the ESRC through the 'UK in a changing Europe', it's at least a point.
I think we'll have to disagree; it doesn't quantify the risks in any meaningful way, lay reader or not. It just asserts there are risks.
I don't have a particular issue with the IFS report per se. My concern is that modelling has an inglorious record (to save others trawling through the report, the forecasts for Britains GDP in 2030 range from -9.5% to +0.6% compared to noBrexit, ie the opportunity cost ranges from ~.75% p.a. to very slightly positive). If financial models were better, I'd have more confidence in them. The intro tickled me where he basically says we all got the 2008 crash wrong, but we all agree now, so listen to us this time.
Paul Johnson has spent his whole career in the civil service, think-tanks, or academia, including several big papers during the New Labour years.
I'm not saying he's been bought, or paid for, but that does breed a certain kind of thinking. And the IFS, in particular, has a real hold over Government, despite reaching questionable conclusions in the past. For example, it has came out basically saying marriage doesn't matter a few years ago.
The Spectator was right in 2011:
"There is no great conspiracy here, but a simple truth: organisations which rely on tax money will always make the case for higher taxes. The ‘institutes’ funded by research grants (which means, usually, tax money) will always argue for more expensive meddling by the state. These groups dislike the idea that society will be better and stronger if people are given greater freedom, and allowed to keep more of their money. Freedom, to the institutes, is messy and chaotic. There must be projects, judged by complicated spreadsheets, with billions in taxpayers’ money behind them.
The most striking example is the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It has tremendous influence over government life, and in the era where Gordon Brown was concealing basic facts from the people whose money he was spending, it was relied upon to give a clearer picture. But the sheer volume and quality of its reports gave it power over the government that is not, even now, understood. Its device for measuring poverty — to calculate how many millions were above and below a ‘poverty line’ — took over the entire debate. Instead of tackling poverty, Brown tried to manipulate the IFS spreadsheets, so those just beneath the poverty line could be nudged above it and described as being ‘lifted out of poverty’. Those affected would be amazed to find themselves so described."
FPT at the request of PTP from @CasinoRoyale John_M said: » show previous quotes Well, given that the front page of the report acknowledged that it was funded by the ESRC through the 'UK in a changing Europe', it's at least a point.
I think we'll have to disagree; it doesn't quantify the risks in any meaningful way, lay reader or not. It just asserts there are risks.
I don't have a particular issue with the IFS report per se. My concern is that modelling has an inglorious record (to save others trawling through the report, the forecasts for Britains GDP in 2030 range from -9.5% to +0.6% compared to noBrexit, ie the opportunity cost ranges from ~.75% p.a. to very slightly positive). If financial models were better, I'd have more confidence in them. The intro tickled me where he basically says we all got the 2008 crash wrong, but we all agree now, so listen to us this time.
Paul Johnson has spent his whole career in the civil service, think-tanks, or academia, including several big papers during the New Labour years.
I'm not saying he's been bought, or paid for, but that does breed a certain kind of thinking. And the IFS, in particular, has a real hold over Government, despite reaching questionable conclusions in the past. For example, it has came out basically saying marriage doesn't matter a few years ago.
The Spectator was right in 2011:
"There is no great conspiracy here, but a simple truth: organisations which rely on tax money will always make the case for higher taxes. The ‘institutes’ funded by research grants (which means, usually, tax money) will always argue for more expensive meddling by the state. These groups dislike the idea that society will be better and stronger if people are given greater freedom, and allowed to keep more of their money. Freedom, to the institutes, is messy and chaotic. There must be projects, judged by complicated spreadsheets, with billions in taxpayers’ money behind them.
The most striking example is the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It has tremendous influence over government life, and in the era where Gordon Brown was concealing basic facts from the people whose money he was spending, it was relied upon to give a clearer picture. But the sheer volume and quality of its reports gave it power over the government that is not, even now, understood. Its device for measuring poverty — to calculate how many millions were above and below a ‘poverty line’ — took over the entire debate. Instead of tackling poverty, Brown tried to manipulate the IFS spreadsheets, so those just beneath the poverty line could be nudged above it and described as being ‘lifted out of poverty’. Those affected would be amazed to find themselves so described."
Armstrong: "Its Europe that going to collapse, its an anti-democratic structure.....and the people of the EU can't vote to change this. Its a DICTATORSHIP!"
Very surprised by Remain - they sound rattled and rude.
There is clearly something weird going on with those in the Remain camp. It could just be they expected to be 10-15% ahead by now and it is actually really tight. Or maybe private polling showing something else.
I don't know exactly why it is, but I and virtually everyone I've spoken to (admittedly virtually 100% English) has a problem with Nicola Sturgeon. I suspect she's a liability to the REMAIN cause on a programme such as this.
Comments
Tory Remainers think you can bring large numbers in without building more houses or spending more on the NHS.
Nicola is right that people are concerned with immigration because of its effects on public services: strengthen the public services and a lot of the issue goes away.
Has Nicola said "Little Englander" yet?
Gisela superb - calm, measured, wise.
http://globalriskinsights.com/2016/03/pressure-building-golan-heights/
It's very odd and personal.
But in person I'd be worried she'd be about to give me a damn good whipping.
Nicola's references to Whoppers are surely product placement for Burger King?
Boris: "Sorry, I missed the insult"
*more applause*
Masterful.
Come on Nicola you know you want to...
Can't see it myself.
Andrea Leadsom however ...
Remain 1.34 at 8pm. Still 1.34 now.
They're actually fighting a coherent Vote Leave team on the arguments.
Nice one from Gisela about leadtimes for training doctors and planning for population.
Urgh - Eagles now at Tory bashing stuff too.