And even if if you believe that the rest of the EU would make our exit as painless and friendly as possible, as many who want to leave the EU do, it is inconceivable that EU governments would offer us unchanged single market access, with no budget contributions and insulation from all future Brussels legislation.
To do so would be to publicly announce the end of the EU - because which other country would rationally wish to continue paying their subs to the EU club, if we were granted all club privileges for free and forever?
So just dismiss the idea that there will be no reduction to trade, investment and growth from leaving.
I've been talking to a few people about the lack of the single market for services in Europe, the consensus is that it's going to be impossible to achieve for a lot of areas. Law was cited as one of the major sticking points. Creating a single market is just code for harmonisation of standards, for goods that isn't difficult, but for services it is a gulf that may not be overcome.
And even if if you believe that the rest of the EU would make our exit as painless and friendly as possible, as many who want to leave the EU do, it is inconceivable that EU governments would offer us unchanged single market access, with no budget contributions and insulation from all future Brussels legislation.
To do so would be to publicly announce the end of the EU - because which other country would rationally wish to continue paying their subs to the EU club, if we were granted all club privileges for free and forever?
So just dismiss the idea that there will be no reduction to trade, investment and growth from leaving.
If other countries buy as much from the EU as we do, then presumably they would get the the same deal.
How many of those are there?
I'm sure, 'pour encourager les autres' will be part of the EU's thinking in any negotiation
I don't doubt it will, but this would lead me to question whether we want our future to be tied to this organisation more rather than less. 'Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.'
And even if if you believe that the rest of the EU would make our exit as painless and friendly as possible, as many who want to leave the EU do, it is inconceivable that EU governments would offer us unchanged single market access, with no budget contributions and insulation from all future Brussels legislation.
To do so would be to publicly announce the end of the EU - because which other country would rationally wish to continue paying their subs to the EU club, if we were granted all club privileges for free and forever?
So just dismiss the idea that there will be no reduction to trade, investment and growth from leaving.
That's been one of the most persuasive arguments all along. We're in the dastardly EU, but the dastards are going to shower us with no end of goodies when we saunter off and potentially blow their precious club to smithereens in the process. The Leavers' faith in their sworn enemies' redemption is touching. Sorry, but I'm more of a cynic. The thing you least want is the most likely to go ahead and happen.
"European Commission has signed up to the change and will put forward proposals next week"
If those proposals come forward, and if they are acceptable to the UK, then in several years when they are approved by all the relevant bodies, including a vote in the EU Parliament, THEN it will be a victory... Of course we might be a little past the referendum by then and it might not be quite the priority it was.
Reading the Treasury report, the in scenario assumes full implementation of the single market for services, the digital single market, the single energy market and new trade deals with the U.S., Japan, India, ASEAN and Mercosur. The out scenarios assume we don't sign any other trade deals. It is an exercise in fantasy.
No it doesn't, but don't let that stop the echo chamber repeating your incorrect point.
Reading the Treasury report, the in scenario assumes full implementation of the single market for services, the digital single market, the single energy market and new trade deals with the U.S., Japan, India, ASEAN and Mercosur. The out scenarios assume we don't sign any other trade deals. It is an exercise in fantasy.
No it doesn't, but don't let that stop the echo chamber repeating your incorrect point.
Another fact filled response Mr N., or are we supposed to take your word for it ?
Nah, that's why he used Kinnock and Ashdown as human shields last week to show this referendum isn't about kicking Dave nor the Government.
Plus Wilson sitting out the EURef, all that did was not resolve the issue, and less than a decade later, Labour fought a general election on withdrawing from the EC.
Regardless of the result on June 23rd, that should settle the issue in the Tory Party for a generation.
No it really won't.
You are correct because all the guff about democracy and sovereignty is hogwash and the right have no intention of accepting the will of the people if it doesn't go their way.
I am sure Leave have every intention of accepting the will of the people. That doesn't mean we won't continue to campaign to leave, particularly as the situation worsens and it becomes clear that the Eu has no intention of letting us sit on the sidelines.
A Remain vote will settle nothing in the medium to long term because the EU have no intention of maintaining the status quo no matter how much people like you might pretend otherwise.
And even if if you believe that the rest of the EU would make our exit as painless and friendly as possible, as many who want to leave the EU do, it is inconceivable that EU governments would offer us unchanged single market access, with no budget contributions and insulation from all future Brussels legislation.
To do so would be to publicly announce the end of the EU - because which other country would rationally wish to continue paying their subs to the EU club, if we were granted all club privileges for free and forever?
So just dismiss the idea that there will be no reduction to trade, investment and growth from leaving.
That's been one of the most persuasive arguments all along. We're in the dastardly EU, but the dastards are going to shower us with no end of goodies when we saunter off and potentially blow their precious club to smithereens in the process. The Leavers' faith in their sworn enemies' redemption is touching. Sorry, but I'm more of a cynic. The thing you least want is the most likely to go ahead and happen.
As opposed to you, saying 'These people are going to trash our economy, at our expense as well as their own, out of spite, so let's stay in a union with them for the next 40 years, what could possibly go wrong?'
Reading the Treasury report, the in scenario assumes full implementation of the single market for services, the digital single market, the single energy market and new trade deals with the U.S., Japan, India, ASEAN and Mercosur. The out scenarios assume we don't sign any other trade deals. It is an exercise in fantasy.
No it doesn't, but don't let that stop the echo chamber repeating your incorrect point.
Another fact filled response Mr N., or are we supposed to take your word for it ?
No, just read the document, or at least the executive summary:
These estimates are based on the EU as it is today, without further reform. The total cost of leaving is likely to be higher. The new settlement for the UK negotiated by the Prime Minister in February 2016 included an ambitious agenda of economic reform in the EU. This will include the next stage of development of the Single Market, with a focus on bringing down the remaining barriers to trade in services, energy and digital, alongside completing major ongoing trade deals. If the economic benefits of reform are realised this could increase UK GDP by up to a further 4% – which equates to £2,800 for every household in the UK. With the UK outside the EU these economic reforms would be less likely to happen. So the cost of exit in terms of the potential loss of GDP would be correspondingly greater.
Bristol residents are campaigning to stop a blue movie studio being turned into flats over fears it will attract migrant workers because they prefer the porn stars.
"To her critics, she's a racist troll who harasses her opponents, and she offers rewards to those who dox - reveal personal information about - her enemies."
From the BBC article:
'Her name is Andie Pauly... ~ She lives in Joliet, a city of 150,000 people in Illinois about an hour's drive from Chicago, and is married to a Joliet police officer, Michael Pauly.'
And even if if you believe that the rest of the EU would make our exit as painless and friendly as possible, as many who want to leave the EU do, it is inconceivable that EU governments would offer us unchanged single market access, with no budget contributions and insulation from all future Brussels legislation.
To do so would be to publicly announce the end of the EU - because which other country would rationally wish to continue paying their subs to the EU club, if we were granted all club privileges for free and forever?
So just dismiss the idea that there will be no reduction to trade, investment and growth from leaving.
Betting post. Andrea Leadsom 69/1 next PM. Betfair. Much more impressive than Stephen Crabb on WATO. Martha to be congratulated on her preparation about the immigration numbers. Anyone considering backing Crabb (28/1) needs to re-play the interview particularly the last part.
Reading the Treasury report, the in scenario assumes full implementation of the single market for services, the digital single market, the single energy market and new trade deals with the U.S., Japan, India, ASEAN and Mercosur. The out scenarios assume we don't sign any other trade deals. It is an exercise in fantasy.
No it doesn't, but don't let that stop the echo chamber repeating your incorrect point.
Another fact filled response Mr N., or are we supposed to take your word for it ?
No, just read the document, or at least the executive summary:
These estimates are based on the EU as it is today, without further reform. The total cost of leaving is likely to be higher. The new settlement for the UK negotiated by the Prime Minister in February 2016 included an ambitious agenda of economic reform in the EU. This will include the next stage of development of the Single Market, with a focus on bringing down the remaining barriers to trade in services, energy and digital, alongside completing major ongoing trade deals. If the economic benefits of reform are realised this could increase UK GDP by up to a further 4% – which equates to £2,800 for every household in the UK. With the UK outside the EU these economic reforms would be less likely to happen. So the cost of exit in terms of the potential loss of GDP would be correspondingly greater.
Page 8.
If of course one takes the statement at face value.
However we still haven't had the CAP reform promised to Blair, or the free market in services promised since 1992, and the new settlement made by the PM, well he won't be there to champion it through as he goes inn 2019/20.
I am finding Cameron and Osborne 's approach to this referendum and the very deliberate misuse and abuse of the machinery of state to produce an unlevel playing field deeply dishonourable. I did really rate Cameron as at bottom a decent sort of chap.but it is clear i was misguided. Similar toBlairand Iraq. My fault i suppose. Fool me once shame on you. . Fool me twice etc etc
Cameron and Blair essentially feel that you play to win, using any means within the law to achieve it.
More scrupulous politicians do exist, but tend not to prosper. It comes back to our debate at the time of the Labour leadership election - is politics PRIMARILY about arguing for what you believe in, or about winning? The "realist" school just assumes it'll be good if you win, and everything else is a side-issue.
Betting post. Andrea Leadsom 69/1 next PM. Betfair. Much more impressive than Stephen Crabb on WATO. Martha to be congratulated on her preparation about the immigration numbers. Anyone considering backing Crabb (28/1) needs to re-play the interview particularly the last part.
I agree. and I never ever thought I'd write those words. ho hum
One of the few NICE things about the referendum is that we are all finding unexpected bedfellows at times, people who we thought were always wrong (I don't remember agreeing with you on anything before either). I'm sure it's good for us. :-)
And even if if you believe that the rest of the EU would make our exit as painless and friendly as possible, as many who want to leave the EU do, it is inconceivable that EU governments would offer us unchanged single market access, with no budget contributions and insulation from all future Brussels legislation.
To do so would be to publicly announce the end of the EU - because which other country would rationally wish to continue paying their subs to the EU club, if we were granted all club privileges for free and forever?
So just dismiss the idea that there will be no reduction to trade, investment and growth from leaving.
The Leavers' faith in their sworn enemies' redemption is touching.
They are Schrodinger enemies to some LEAVErs - simultaneously evil and malice incarnate and also reasonable, helpful and forgiving.....
Whereas for Remain, the EU is a lovely friendly bunch wanting to build a fairer, more equal world BUT IF YOU LEAVE THEY WILL RAIN DOWN HELL UPON YOU.
What sort of advert do you feel that is for the organisation?
In fact, it summarises the entire Remainer argument for decades - 'Stop banging on about it, its influence is clearly exagerrated, only loons are interested, nothing to see here' and as soon as there's a prospect of leaving, the world will LITERALLY END if we do. Where's the credibility? You've been telling us for years this organisation is of marginal importance.
Reading the Treasury report, the in scenario assumes full implementation of the single market for services, the digital single market, the single energy market and new trade deals with the U.S., Japan, India, ASEAN and Mercosur. The out scenarios assume we don't sign any other trade deals. It is an exercise in fantasy.
No it doesn't, but don't let that stop the echo chamber repeating your incorrect point.
Yes. It does. Although I don't really see how these statements without reasons help.
But I look at it from a different angle. One of the things I find odd about the current debate is that there is indeed a very broad consensus that membership of the EU is an economic decision. Almost no one (maybe Nick is an exception) claims any love for the EU. We either hate it or tolerate it in exchange for an economic benefit.
There are stats on that - a poll a few days ago found that Remain supporters were evenly divided between people who LIKE the EU and people who wouldn't go that far, and merely think it's better to stay in.
As for love, I'm with President Heinemann, soon after the war. "I do not ‘love’ any nation, I love my wife.” Like your country or the EU, wish it well, sure. Love? Nah.
The reality as I see it is that having thrown his lot in with Remain Cameron is fighting for his political life. To that extent what Ken Clarke said was no more than a statement of the obvious. Even if he remained in office he certainly would not be in power.
What Leavers have underestimated is the ferocity that Cameron always brings to bear when his political life is threatened. He plays to win and always has. There are worse traits in a politician. This is one leaver who remains a supporter even though I disagree with him on the referendum. But then, as I have already said, I don't feel that passionately about this.
Yes, I'm sure Dave is haunted by the miserable figure of John Major in all this - a decent man insulted by the Right and mocked by the Left, locked in a death spiral of his own pragmatism and dithering as the forces without tore him apart. Dave has decided to fight on his own terms and to hell with his detractors. They eurosceptic Right clearly don't like it. They'd much rather have a Major figure they can kick around.
He is a different class of politician than John Major. I also think he thinks that the sceptics have damaged his party enough and it is time they were confronted. Whether he is right in that assessment in anything other than a "we had to destroy the village to secure it" kind of way only time will tell.
And even if if you believe that the rest of the EU would make our exit as painless and friendly as possible, as many who want to leave the EU do, it is inconceivable that EU governments would offer us unchanged single market access, with no budget contributions and insulation from all future Brussels legislation.
To do so would be to publicly announce the end of the EU - because which other country would rationally wish to continue paying their subs to the EU club, if we were granted all club privileges for free and forever?
So just dismiss the idea that there will be no reduction to trade, investment and growth from leaving.
If other countries buy as much from the EU as we do, then presumably they would get the the same deal.
How many of those are there?
I'm sure, 'pour encourager les autres' will be part of the EU's thinking in any negotiation
Why? who else shows any signs of wanting to leave?
One reason for that is that they don't see the EU the way we do - they are signed up to the political aspects of the project.
Just look at Greece - listening to the EU's advice/orders/diktats has led to the Greek economy being crushed over the last five years. GDP hasn't fallen 1% or 5% but 25%.
This is a decline almost unprecedented outside war time. The policies followed have not only been wrong, they have been catastrophically wrong.
Yet Greece is still desperate to remain 'in Europe'. Similar situation in Portugal. And Cyprus.
If we leave we will in my view do a bit better economically than if we stay in, over 15-20 years. But the difference will not be so stark as to lead to a stampede from the door. Not when massive declines in GDP in some Eurozone countries over the last few years haven't led to this.
I am finding Cameron and Osborne 's approach to this referendum and the very deliberate misuse and abuse of the machinery of state to produce an unlevel playing field deeply dishonourable. I did really rate Cameron as at bottom a decent sort of chap.but it is clear i was misguided. Similar toBlairand Iraq. My fault i suppose. Fool me once shame on you. . Fool me twice etc etc
Cameron and Blair essentially feel that you play to win, using any means within the law to achieve it.
More scrupulous politicians do exist, but tend not to prosper. It comes back to our debate at the time of the Labour leadership election - is politics PRIMARILY about arguing for what you believe in, or about winning? The "realist" school just assumes it'll be good if you win, and everything else is a side-issue.
That is right. Cameron and Blair are equally unscrupulous charlatans. Anyone who believes in moral decency in office should oppose them.
I agree. and I never ever thought I'd write those words. ho hum
One of the few NICE things about the referendum is that we are all finding unexpected bedfellows at times, people who we thought were always wrong (I don't remember agreeing with you on anything before either). I'm sure it's good for us. :-)
Nick, one of the positives of the referendum for me is that more people are realising what a nasty little spiv Cameron is. Furthermore, his mate, Osborne, is being shown up in his true colours, not only nasty but incompetent with it.
Shame your lot, being led by a complete buffoon, are not able to capitalise on the Conservatives newly exposed weaknesses. A well run opposition should be powering ahead right now.
I am finding Cameron and Osborne 's approach to this referendum and the very deliberate misuse and abuse of the machinery of state to produce an unlevel playing field deeply dishonourable. I did really rate Cameron as at bottom a decent sort of chap.but it is clear i was misguided. Similar toBlairand Iraq. My fault i suppose. Fool me once shame on you. . Fool me twice etc etc
Cameron and Blair essentially feel that you play to win, using any means within the law to achieve it.
More scrupulous politicians do exist, but tend not to prosper. It comes back to our debate at the time of the Labour leadership election - is politics PRIMARILY about arguing for what you believe in, or about winning? The "realist" school just assumes it'll be good if you win, and everything else is a side-issue.
That is right. Cameron and Blair are equally unscrupulous charlatans. Anyone who believes in moral decency in office should oppose them.
Anyone who believes in moral decency in office should just give up now. It does not exist. Too many nasty compromises have to be made, too may fibs told to hold the line.
Annex A a23 shows how arbitrary this analysis is. Different studies show EU membership increase trade from anything between 31% and 104% and that the average FTA increases trade by anything between 58% and 89%. The entire model depends on which numbers you pick.
Eicher and Henn find the EU increases trade by 37% while the EEA increases it by 34%. Yet Osborne claims a 9% reduction in total trade (including non-EU) by being in the latter.
And even if if you believe that the rest of the EU would make our exit as painless and friendly as possible, as many who want to leave the EU do, it is inconceivable that EU governments would offer us unchanged single market access, with no budget contributions and insulation from all future Brussels legislation.
To do so would be to publicly announce the end of the EU - because which other country would rationally wish to continue paying their subs to the EU club, if we were granted all club privileges for free and forever?
So just dismiss the idea that there will be no reduction to trade, investment and growth from leaving.
That's been one of the most persuasive arguments all along. We're in the dastardly EU, but the dastards are going to shower us with no end of goodies when we saunter off and potentially blow their precious club to smithereens in the process. The Leavers' faith in their sworn enemies' redemption is touching. Sorry, but I'm more of a cynic. The thing you least want is the most likely to go ahead and happen.
With respect Peston's argument is complete tosh. If we remain in the single market we may have to pay some money to the EU as other countries do. So we would. At that point the assumptions in Osborne's projections which assume we are not in the Single Market become fantasy.
So there does not need to be any reduction in trade, investment and growth from leaving the EU (other than short term uncertainty costs) but it was untrue to claim all of the money currently paid to the EU was going to be available to bribe more doctors with a bit of platinum (since gold is no longer sufficient ) to stay in the NHS.
I am finding Cameron and Osborne 's approach to this referendum and the very deliberate misuse and abuse of the machinery of state to produce an unlevel playing field deeply dishonourable. I did really rate Cameron as at bottom a decent sort of chap.but it is clear i was misguided. Similar toBlairand Iraq. My fault i suppose. Fool me once shame on you. . Fool me twice etc etc
Cameron and Blair essentially feel that you play to win, using any means within the law to achieve it.
More scrupulous politicians do exist, but tend not to prosper. It comes back to our debate at the time of the Labour leadership election - is politics PRIMARILY about arguing for what you believe in, or about winning? The "realist" school just assumes it'll be good if you win, and everything else is a side-issue.
That is right. Cameron and Blair are equally unscrupulous charlatans. Anyone who believes in moral decency in office should oppose them.
Anyone who believes in moral decency in office should just give up now. It does not exist. Too many nasty compromises have to be made, too may fibs told to hold the line.
He has done extensive research on children and lying. Lee set up an experiment in a video-monitored room and would tell children there’s a toy they can have that’s behind them, but they can only get it if they don’t peek. Then the adult is called out of the room, returns a minute later and asks if they peeked.
By 5 or 6, 90 percent of the kids lie and Lee said he worries about the 10 percent who don’t. This is universal, Lee said.
~~~~~~~~~~
“People want their politicians to lie to them. The reason that people want their politicians to lie them is that people care about politics,” said Dan Ariely, a professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University.
I am finding Cameron and Osborne 's approach to this referendum and the very deliberate misuse and abuse of the machinery of state to produce an unlevel playing field deeply dishonourable. I did really rate Cameron as at bottom a decent sort of chap.but it is clear i was misguided. Similar toBlairand Iraq. My fault i suppose. Fool me once shame on you. . Fool me twice etc etc
Cameron and Blair essentially feel that you play to win, using any means within the law to achieve it.
More scrupulous politicians do exist, but tend not to prosper. It comes back to our debate at the time of the Labour leadership election - is politics PRIMARILY about arguing for what you believe in, or about winning? The "realist" school just assumes it'll be good if you win, and everything else is a side-issue.
That is right. Cameron and Blair are equally unscrupulous charlatans. Anyone who believes in moral decency in office should oppose them.
Anyone who believes in moral decency in office should just give up now. It does not exist. Too many nasty compromises have to be made, too may fibs told to hold the line.
You are in a position of leadership, Mr. Observer. Do you lie to and mislead your people?
The group least represented on here are working class labour voters, there's 1 or 2 Islington types and a few champagne socialists but nobody who speaks for the millions from northern labour strongholds. These people loathe everything that Cameron and Osborne stand for, its bred into them, they're also ambivalent about the EU.
I've been saying for weeks what the thread header says, Cameron is relying on people that hate him to keep him in a job, that can't be a good idea.
“People want their politicians to lie to them. The reason that people want their politicians to lie them is that people care about politics,” said Dan Ariely, a professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University.
I think I'd have been in that 10%..
Bernard: But surely the citizens of a democracy have a right to know. Sir Humphrey Appleby: No. They have a right to be ignorant. Knowledge only means complicity in guilt; ignorance has a certain dignity.
Brian Reading of Lombard Street Research has posted this on the FT
'The Brexit debate is riddled with fallacies. The EU is a customs union, a free trade area protected by a common external tariff. This results in good trade creation within and bad trade diversion from outside to home, most notably behind the 18% import duties on agricultural products. The balance of advantage from trade creation and trade diversion is uncertain. To move outside with no trade deal cannot be assumed to be detrimental. The correction of trade diversion is a positive and can outweigh the loss of trade creation within a slow growth region. To claim to be able to quantify the balance of advantage in 15 years time is ridiculous- fiction not facts. '
Brian is of course correct.
And this is why the 'literature' on this issue has evolved over recent years from focusing on the effects of changing trade flows to impacts on productivity, usually via supposed impacts on foreign direct investment.
Older literature focusing on trade did not produce very big numbers, nor a convincing +/- in front of the number.
So inspired by the call 'why can't we make the numbers bigger' some of the newer studies have started to claim there would be massive negative effects on productivity growth, usually via huge declines in FDI.
But these estimates are, to put it charitably, not very robust. Uncharitably, they are rubbish. Not only are the estimates of what might happen to FDI dubious, but the link from that to changes in productivity growth are even more tenuous.
In the 1980s and early 1990s the EC sponsored a whole pile of studies which they hoped would 'prove' that exchange rate fluctuations damaged trade - an attempt to provide some intellectual back-up for the move to the euro.
In general, the studies showed no such thing - the EU reaction was 'well we think there is something in it anyway, let's press on'.
I'm sort of enjoying the irony of remainers telling people on a betting site that they shouldn't make a bet.
It depends on the odds, dunnit?
the odds on this one aren't actually that high despite the hype. The debate is more about how fast do we grow not how big a hole do we fall in to.
The only people facing a crash will be a handful of politicians on either side.
I don't think that is true in the short-term, i.e. the period between a potential Leave result being announced on June 24th, and the news conference where some future PM and the key EU leaders announce that a UK-EU deal has been agreed. That period of business uncertainty - anything from two years to several years, depending on what deal we try for and how the negotiations pan out - could be really quite damaging.
I'd be interested to see various population forecasts under EU, EFTA/EEC, "completely out" scenarios.
Certainly economic catastrophe is a very effective way of reducing population.
"I am not saying for one moment that Britain couldn’t survive outside the European Union – of course we could. No one doubts that Britain is a proud, successful thriving country. A nation that has turned round its fortunes through its own efforts. A far cry from the ‘sick man of Europe’ at the time we entered the European Economic Community four decades ago. Whether we could be successful outside the European Union is not the question. The question is whether we would be more successful in than out?" - David Cameron, November 2015
“People want their politicians to lie to them. The reason that people want their politicians to lie them is that people care about politics,” said Dan Ariely, a professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University.
I think I'd have been in that 10%..
Bernard: But surely the citizens of a democracy have a right to know. Sir Humphrey Appleby: No. They have a right to be ignorant. Knowledge only means complicity in guilt; ignorance has a certain dignity.
And amusing as it is, I hate that. Ignorance isn't bliss as far as I'm concerned - I want people in control of their health, their wealth, and their politics. I want a Swiss scenario, where people have the keenest possible sense of their civic rights and responsibilities. Then we can't be taken for a ride by sleazy politicians and corporations. We're a long long way from it right now, and leaving the EU won't do it, but it's a step in the right direction.
I am finding Cameron and Osborne 's approach to this referendum and the very deliberate misuse and abuse of the machinery of state to produce an unlevel playing field deeply dishonourable. I did really rate Cameron as at bottom a decent sort of chap.but it is clear i was misguided. Similar toBlairand Iraq. My fault i suppose. Fool me once shame on you. . Fool me twice etc etc
Cameron and Blair essentially feel that you play to win, using any means within the law to achieve it.
More scrupulous politicians do exist, but tend not to prosper. It comes back to our debate at the time of the Labour leadership election - is politics PRIMARILY about arguing for what you believe in, or about winning? The "realist" school just assumes it'll be good if you win, and everything else is a side-issue.
That is right. Cameron and Blair are equally unscrupulous charlatans. Anyone who believes in moral decency in office should oppose them.
Anyone who believes in moral decency in office should just give up now. It does not exist. Too many nasty compromises have to be made, too may fibs told to hold the line.
He has done extensive research on children and lying. Lee set up an experiment in a video-monitored room and would tell children there’s a toy they can have that’s behind them, but they can only get it if they don’t peek. Then the adult is called out of the room, returns a minute later and asks if they peeked.
By 5 or 6, 90 percent of the kids lie and Lee said he worries about the 10 percent who don’t. This is universal, Lee said.
~~~~~~~~~~
“People want their politicians to lie to them. The reason that people want their politicians to lie them is that people care about politics,” said Dan Ariely, a professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University.
I think I'd have been in that 10%..
Politicians lie because it gets them the votes they need to win.
If telling the unvarnished truth won elections then politicians would tell the unvarnished truth.
The £4,300 claim is from dividing 2030 GDP in 2030 by the number of households in 2015. So all the income going to new EU migrants is being allocated to present UK families. What illiterates.
I'm sort of enjoying the irony of remainers telling people on a betting site that they shouldn't make a bet.
It depends on the odds, dunnit?
the odds on this one aren't actually that high despite the hype. The debate is more about how fast do we grow not how big a hole do we fall in to.
The only people facing a crash will be a handful of politicians on either side.
I don't think that is true in the short-term, i.e. the period between a potential Leave result being announced on June 24th, and the news conference where some future PM and the key EU leaders announce that a UK-EU deal has been agreed. That period of business uncertainty - anything from two years to several years, depending on what deal we try for and how the negotiations pan out - could be really quite damaging.
Well I don't think you'll find too many leavers denying there won't be some disruption but the mega doom forecasts really don't carry that much credibility, and as with all risk there are odds of an upside.
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
2nd busiest week of my work year, so no time for comment reading until this evening, but I think TC is bang on with this article.
Getting not only the Govt machinery but also the figurehead of the Tory party behind the Remain campaign might prove (whether we Remain or Leave) to be the worst political decision made by a leader of the Tory party since the Poll Tax.
I see George & the Treasury has been watching the Thick of It over Easter...this report today is like that episode when shit has hit the fan and the order comes from Tucker to release stats, more stats, bury them under stats...
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Even using a lower net immigration figure than the current run rate, the REMAIN campaign is now nailed to a forecast of 3 million more immigrants. That is a big figure to seek to win voters to back REMAIN.
“People want their politicians to lie to them. The reason that people want their politicians to lie them is that people care about politics,” said Dan Ariely, a professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University.
I think I'd have been in that 10%..
Bernard: But surely the citizens of a democracy have a right to know. Sir Humphrey Appleby: No. They have a right to be ignorant. Knowledge only means complicity in guilt; ignorance has a certain dignity.
And amusing as it is, I hate that. Ignorance isn't bliss as far as I'm concerned - I want people in control of their health, their wealth, and their politics. I want a Swiss scenario, where people have the keenest possible sense of their civic rights and responsibilities. Then we can't be taken for a ride by sleazy politicians and corporations. We're a long long way from it right now, and leaving the EU won't do it, but it's a step in the right direction.
Yep, we've seen Cameron exposed without the human punchbag Clegg to fight his battles, now let's see us governed without the get out/fallback of Brussels. Let's make these servants earn their money, after all we pay their wages.
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
I'm alarmed that we're all to become £4.3bn worse off every year if we leave the EU. The only plus side is the dummy variable CHUMBAWUMBA, which means that, although we'll get knocked down, we will get back up again.
Well I don't think you'll find too many leavers denying there won't be some disruption but the mega doom forecasts really don't carry that much credibility, and as with all risk there are odds of an upside.
My own view, FWIW, is that the mega-doom forecasts for the long term are overdone (depending obviously on what deal we end up with), but that if anything people are much too complacent about the short-term damage.
I can't see any economic upside however you play it. At best we'll be able to negotiate full access to the Single Market and replicate EU trade agreements ourselves, so with luck it could be neutral in the long term. Of course, there are non-economic arguments for leaving.
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
I honestly think the £4,300 figure is going to have less cut through than if it were £430. People just won't believe it. Obviously Osborne subscribes to the go big or go home school, but I think it is obvious to even the least economically literate that the £4,300 figure is a fantasy. If it were a small, modest figure then people might be inclined to believe it.
Also, when you take into account that the figures rely on 180k of net migration per year for 14 years there will be a lot of Labour voters who might think twice. Not everyone is as unbothered by immigration as the Blairite/Cameroon wings like us. The fear campaign is preaching to the converted, sure, but it is also preaching to those who are already going to vote.
As for Banks, the man is a complete and utter fool. Someone needs to find him and lock him into a box somewhere for the next two and a bit months.
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
Banks a prominent Leaver? Nobody outside of this blog has ever heard of him.
You know you're pitching for a job with Crosby - must do better.
@bbclaurak: Paul Johnson, one of few really independent voice on economy + #euref says .......
@bbclaurak: "everyone who's worked in this area has come to same conclusion: the result would be negative. Exactly how negative? Much more difficult..."
That simply isn't true. Both Open Europe and Capital Economics are both independent and have not reached that conclusion.
Even using a lower net immigration figure than the current run rate, the REMAIN campaign is now nailed to a forecast of 3 million more immigrants. That is a big figure to seek to win voters to back REMAIN.
the problem for Leave, is if you reduce immigration, the economic numbers get even worse
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
Banks a prominent Leaver? Nobody outside of this blog has ever heard of him.
You know you're pitching for a job with Crosby - must do better.
Sir Lynton couldn't afford me.
So you're telling me no one in UKIP has ever heard of Arron Banks?
@bbclaurak: Paul Johnson, one of few really independent voice on economy + #euref says .......
@bbclaurak: "everyone who's worked in this area has come to same conclusion: the result would be negative. Exactly how negative? Much more difficult..."
That simply isn't true. Both Open Europe and Capital Economics are both independent and have not reached that conclusion.
Re Paul Johnson and IFS
from Wiki, I couldn't help but feed the conspiracy theories :-)
Notable former members of the IFS include Evan Davis and Stephanie Flanders (BBC journalists), Chris Giles (Financial Times Economics Editor), Tom Clark (Guardian columnist),[17] Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister) and Rupert Harrison (Chief of Staff to Chancellor George Osborne).
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
Banks a prominent Leaver? Nobody outside of this blog has ever heard of him.
You know you're pitching for a job with Crosby - must do better.
Sir Lynton couldn't afford me.
So you're telling me no one in UKIP has ever heard of Arron Banks?
Yeah, very few people who vote Ukip have heard of Aaron Banks. You live in a narrow world of political obsessed CCHQ toadies, try pulling the curtains and having a look around. There's loads of holes to pick in Leave, bleating on about Banks is futile, if it wasn't Osborne would be doing it.
Even using a lower net immigration figure than the current run rate, the REMAIN campaign is now nailed to a forecast of 3 million more immigrants. That is a big figure to seek to win voters to back REMAIN.
the problem for Leave, is if you reduce immigration, the economic numbers get even worse
utter tosh.
we'd just do something different like focus on productivity which as Stuart Rose pointed out would lead to higher salaries and higher GDP per head.
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
Banks a prominent Leaver? Nobody outside of this blog has ever heard of him.
You know you're pitching for a job with Crosby - must do better.
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
Even if these well baked figures turned out to be correct, it's £4,300 by 2030, or £300 a year for the next 14 years if you like, an amount smaller than the Government tweaks to personal taxation of the average family each year.
Further that's for additional income they might have had, not cuts to existing income that they already have.
In or out we are all going to be much better off by 2030.
Looks like George Osborne approach is all about Remain voters, to boost their turnout.
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
Doubtless, but is Osborne really going to do that? As people have pointed out, Remain are rerunning the 2015 election campaign and the Tories got 37% of the vote which was considered a good result. It's a narrow focus on a few Conservatives that may be swayed by economic reasoning and ignores the vast number of Labour voters that aren't really swayed by ensuring big business gets to post higher profits.
It's about Labour voters too.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
Banks a prominent Leaver? Nobody outside of this blog has ever heard of him.
You know you're pitching for a job with Crosby - must do better.
Sir Lynton couldn't afford me.
So you're telling me no one in UKIP has ever heard of Arron Banks?
Afternoon TSE,
That link I posted earlier, could you tell me which parts are untrue please.
Even using a lower net immigration figure than the current run rate, the REMAIN campaign is now nailed to a forecast of 3 million more immigrants. That is a big figure to seek to win voters to back REMAIN.
the problem for Leave, is if you reduce immigration, the economic numbers get even worse
Taking that argument to its logical conclusion the population will have to grow exponentially.
In other words, you're talking more bollocks. We need more production, not more people.
Even using a lower net immigration figure than the current run rate, the REMAIN campaign is now nailed to a forecast of 3 million more immigrants. That is a big figure to seek to win voters to back REMAIN.
the problem for Leave, is if you reduce immigration, the economic numbers get even worse
Actually on a per capita basis they don't. The immigration multiplier is about 0.7 in this country because we mainly import unskilled workers.
Even using a lower net immigration figure than the current run rate, the REMAIN campaign is now nailed to a forecast of 3 million more immigrants. That is a big figure to seek to win voters to back REMAIN.
the problem for Leave, is if you reduce immigration, the economic numbers get even worse
Not really. Mass immigration boost overall GDP, not GDP per head, which is the number that matters.
Even using a lower net immigration figure than the current run rate, the REMAIN campaign is now nailed to a forecast of 3 million more immigrants. That is a big figure to seek to win voters to back REMAIN.
the problem for Leave, is if you reduce immigration, the economic numbers get even worse
utter tosh.
we'd just do something different like focus on productivity which as Stuart Rose pointed out would lead to higher salaries and higher GDP per head.
I keep saying: Vote Leave should put that quote in Remain's pipe and smoke it.
It might be time for me to bother Matthew Elliot again.
Even using a lower net immigration figure than the current run rate, the REMAIN campaign is now nailed to a forecast of 3 million more immigrants. That is a big figure to seek to win voters to back REMAIN.
the problem for Leave, is if you reduce immigration, the economic numbers get even worse
Not really. Mass immigration boost overall GDP, not GDP per head, which is the number that matters.
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545479/The-Government-s-hidden-time-bomb-debt-cost-Briton-astonishing-53-000-defuse.html
"European Commission has signed up to the change and will put forward proposals next week"
If those proposals come forward, and if they are acceptable to the UK, then in several years when they are approved by all the relevant bodies, including a vote in the EU Parliament, THEN it will be a victory... Of course we might be a little past the referendum by then and it might not be quite the priority it was.
A Remain vote will settle nothing in the medium to long term because the EU have no intention of maintaining the status quo no matter how much people like you might pretend otherwise.
These estimates are based on the EU as it is today, without further reform. The total cost of leaving is likely to be higher. The new settlement for the UK negotiated by the Prime Minister in February 2016 included an ambitious agenda of economic reform in the EU. This will include the next stage of development of the Single Market, with a focus on bringing down the remaining barriers to trade in services, energy and digital, alongside completing major ongoing trade deals. If the economic benefits of reform are realised this could increase UK GDP by up to a further 4% – which equates to £2,800 for every household in the UK. With the UK outside the EU these economic reforms would be less likely to happen. So the cost of exit in terms of the potential loss of GDP would be correspondingly greater.
Page 8.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/18/residents-oppose-plans-to-turn-porn-studio-into-houses
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35813994 - From her public profile all you get is @andieiamwhoiam, location Chicago Illinois
"To her critics, she's a racist troll who harasses her opponents, and she offers rewards to those who dox - reveal personal information about - her enemies."
From the BBC article:
'Her name is Andie Pauly... ~ She lives in Joliet, a city of 150,000 people in Illinois about an hour's drive from Chicago, and is married to a Joliet police officer, Michael Pauly.'
However we still haven't had the CAP reform promised to Blair, or the free market in services promised since 1992, and the new settlement made by the PM, well he won't be there to champion it through as he goes inn 2019/20.
So I suppose it's caveat emptor.
More scrupulous politicians do exist, but tend not to prosper. It comes back to our debate at the time of the Labour leadership election - is politics PRIMARILY about arguing for what you believe in, or about winning? The "realist" school just assumes it'll be good if you win, and everything else is a side-issue.
What sort of advert do you feel that is for the organisation?
In fact, it summarises the entire Remainer argument for decades - 'Stop banging on about it, its influence is clearly exagerrated, only loons are interested, nothing to see here' and as soon as there's a prospect of leaving, the world will LITERALLY END if we do. Where's the credibility? You've been telling us for years this organisation is of marginal importance.
As for love, I'm with President Heinemann, soon after the war. "I do not ‘love’ any nation, I love my wife.” Like your country or the EU, wish it well, sure. Love? Nah.
One reason for that is that they don't see the EU the way we do - they are signed up to the political aspects of the project.
Just look at Greece - listening to the EU's advice/orders/diktats has led to the Greek economy being crushed over the last five years. GDP hasn't fallen 1% or 5% but 25%.
This is a decline almost unprecedented outside war time. The policies followed have not only been wrong, they have been catastrophically wrong.
Yet Greece is still desperate to remain 'in Europe'. Similar situation in Portugal. And Cyprus.
If we leave we will in my view do a bit better economically than if we stay in, over 15-20 years. But the difference will not be so stark as to lead to a stampede from the door. Not when massive declines in GDP in some Eurozone countries over the last few years haven't led to this.
Shame your lot, being led by a complete buffoon, are not able to capitalise on the Conservatives newly exposed weaknesses. A well run opposition should be powering ahead right now.
Eicher and Henn find the EU increases trade by 37% while the EEA increases it by 34%. Yet Osborne claims a 9% reduction in total trade (including non-EU) by being in the latter.
So there does not need to be any reduction in trade, investment and growth from leaving the EU (other than short term uncertainty costs) but it was untrue to claim all of the money currently paid to the EU was going to be available to bribe more doctors with a bit of platinum (since gold is no longer sufficient ) to stay in the NHS.
He has done extensive research on children and lying. Lee set up an experiment in a video-monitored room and would tell children there’s a toy they can have that’s behind them, but they can only get it if they don’t peek. Then the adult is called out of the room, returns a minute later and asks if they peeked.
By 5 or 6, 90 percent of the kids lie and Lee said he worries about the 10 percent who don’t. This is universal, Lee said.
~~~~~~~~~~
“People want their politicians to lie to them. The reason that people want their politicians to lie them is that people care about politics,” said Dan Ariely, a professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University.
I think I'd have been in that 10%..
I've been saying for weeks what the thread header says, Cameron is relying on people that hate him to keep him in a job, that can't be a good idea.
The only people facing a crash will be a handful of politicians on either side.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: No. They have a right to be ignorant. Knowledge only means complicity in guilt; ignorance has a certain dignity.
Brian Reading of Lombard Street Research has posted this on the FT
'The Brexit debate is riddled with fallacies. The EU is a customs union, a free trade area protected by a common external tariff. This results in good trade creation within and bad trade diversion from outside to home, most notably behind the 18% import duties on agricultural products. The balance of advantage from trade creation and trade diversion is uncertain. To move outside with no trade deal cannot be assumed to be detrimental. The correction of trade diversion is a positive and can outweigh the loss of trade creation within a slow growth region. To claim to be able to quantify the balance of advantage in 15 years time is ridiculous- fiction not facts. '
Brian is of course correct.
And this is why the 'literature' on this issue has evolved over recent years from focusing on the effects of changing trade flows to impacts on productivity, usually via supposed impacts on foreign direct investment.
Older literature focusing on trade did not produce very big numbers, nor a convincing +/- in front of the number.
So inspired by the call 'why can't we make the numbers bigger' some of the newer studies have started to claim there would be massive negative effects on productivity growth, usually via huge declines in FDI.
But these estimates are, to put it charitably, not very robust. Uncharitably, they are rubbish. Not only are the estimates of what might happen to FDI dubious, but the link from that to changes in productivity growth are even more tenuous.
In the 1980s and early 1990s the EC sponsored a whole pile of studies which they hoped would 'prove' that exchange rate fluctuations damaged trade - an attempt to provide some intellectual back-up for the move to the euro.
In general, the studies showed no such thing - the EU reaction was 'well we think there is something in it anyway, let's press on'.
Whether we could be successful outside the European Union is not the question. The question is whether we would be more successful in than out?"
- David Cameron, November 2015
Catastrophe ?
64% of REMAIN voters tell ComRes that economy most important #EUref vote issue compared with 33% of LEAVE voters
There's a difference between reporting something and reading that as a prediction.
If telling the unvarnished truth won elections then politicians would tell the unvarnished truth.
Aaron Banks is a complete irrelevance, he has as much influence on this referendum as you or I.
Getting not only the Govt machinery but also the figurehead of the Tory party behind the Remain campaign might prove (whether we Remain or Leave) to be the worst political decision made by a leader of the Tory party since the Poll Tax.
Leave cannot win without winning of a decent segment of 2015 Lab voters, £4,300 is what £350 a month, Labour voters were really motivated by the cost of living crisis.
With a prominent Leaver saying it is a bargain, it will help get Labour voters out for Remain.
I'm alarmed that we're all to become £4.3bn worse off every year if we leave the EU. The only plus side is the dummy variable CHUMBAWUMBA, which means that, although we'll get knocked down, we will get back up again.
I can't see any economic upside however you play it. At best we'll be able to negotiate full access to the Single Market and replicate EU trade agreements ourselves, so with luck it could be neutral in the long term. Of course, there are non-economic arguments for leaving.
Also, when you take into account that the figures rely on 180k of net migration per year for 14 years there will be a lot of Labour voters who might think twice. Not everyone is as unbothered by immigration as the Blairite/Cameroon wings like us. The fear campaign is preaching to the converted, sure, but it is also preaching to those who are already going to vote.
As for Banks, the man is a complete and utter fool. Someone needs to find him and lock him into a box somewhere for the next two and a bit months.
You know you're pitching for a job with Crosby - must do better.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/18/eu-referendum-reality-check-uk-households-worse-off-brexit
So you're telling me no one in UKIP has ever heard of Arron Banks?
Re Paul Johnson and IFS
from Wiki, I couldn't help but feed the conspiracy theories :-)
Notable former members of the IFS include Evan Davis and Stephanie Flanders (BBC journalists), Chris Giles (Financial Times Economics Editor), Tom Clark (Guardian columnist),[17] Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister) and Rupert Harrison (Chief of Staff to Chancellor George Osborne).
we'd just do something different like focus on productivity which as Stuart Rose pointed out would lead to higher salaries and higher GDP per head.
Further that's for additional income they might have had, not cuts to existing income that they already have.
In or out we are all going to be much better off by 2030.
That link I posted earlier, could you tell me which parts are untrue please.
Quite important I am sure you would agree.
In other words, you're talking more bollocks. We need more production, not more people.
It might be time for me to bother Matthew Elliot again.