Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Labour: The Party Of Remain?
51 Answers
https:/
what's the chances of:-
a) this being debated at conference?
b) being passed into a change of labour party policy?
what's the chances of:-
a) this being debated at conference?
b) being passed into a change of labour party policy?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“All that "project fear" really amounts to is pointing out this obvious truth.”
No it isn’t. It’s about painting a picture that portrays everything that could possibly go wrong actually going wrong. Clearly with even the most intransigent of negotiators on the EU side, the individual 27 remaining members will not allow that because they have interests in an orderly Brexit as well. But in one particular respect that I mentioned relating to Project Fear you are incorrect, Jim:
“2. In any case, it actually *was* leaving, rather than merely voting to leave, that was the "D-Day" of any negative consequences of leaving.”
Whilst much of Project Fear was directed to the UK’s situation after we had actually left, quite a bit of it related to what would happen immediately after a vote to leave. Most prominent among the prophets of doom in this respect was the then Chancellor, George Osborne. On 23rd May 2016 he espoused this:
“Today the Treasury is publishing its detailed and rigorous analysis of the immediate impact of leaving the EU on growth, jobs, prices, wages, house prices and our nation’s finances.”
You can read all 90 pages of the analysis here:
https:/
I have to admit I have not read it all because, having read the Executive Summary and realising what a load of garbage it was I didn’t see the need to delve into the details. However, to address your point, the report opened with this:
“This paper focuses on the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow.”
So, not what would happen after we had left but what was forecast to happen between the referendum and now.
Mr Osborne prattled on:
“The central conclusions of today’s Treasury analysis are clear – a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession.
Within two years the size of our economy – our GDP – would be at least 3% smaller as a result of leaving the EU – and it could be as much as 6% smaller.
We’d have a year of negative growth – that’s a recession.
The pound would fall in value – by between 12% and 15%. That doesn’t just mean it’s more expensive when you have a holiday abroad.It means everything we import becomes more expensive, which increases inflation and hits family budgets.
Within a year of the Referendum, inflation would be over 2% higher.
By 2018 house prices would be hit by at least 10% and as much as 18%.
So that’s what it means to vote to leave the EU.
Incomes fall.
Mortgage rates go up.
And the value of the family home falls too.
Behind all this – what people can afford to buy, where they can afford to live – are people’s jobs.
And so I want to talk to you about the impact on jobs too. The Treasury’s analysis published today finds that a direct consequence of a vote to leave the EU would be significant job losses across the UK. Within two years, at least half a million jobs would be lost. That’s 80,000 jobs in the Midlands. Over 100,000 jobs across the North. Over 40,000 in Scotland; over 20,000 in Wales; almost 15,000 in Northern Ireland. In London over 70,000 jobs would be lost. Here across the South, almost 120,000 jobs would go. And that’s the lower end of the estimates – across Britain as many as 820,000 jobs could be lost. Youth unemployment would rise by over 10%.”
I’ll leave you to compare the Treasury’s detailed and rigorous analysis with what actually happened. I’ll also leave you to ponder on why anybody should pay heed to Project Fear Mk 2 when the forecast impact of a large part of Project Fear Mk 1 was so profoundly incorrect. Of course it's important to plan for every eventuality. That's why the Government and Business should have planned for a "No Deal" exit from Day 1. But there's a big difference between planning for the worst and scaring the electorate witless.
No it isn’t. It’s about painting a picture that portrays everything that could possibly go wrong actually going wrong. Clearly with even the most intransigent of negotiators on the EU side, the individual 27 remaining members will not allow that because they have interests in an orderly Brexit as well. But in one particular respect that I mentioned relating to Project Fear you are incorrect, Jim:
“2. In any case, it actually *was* leaving, rather than merely voting to leave, that was the "D-Day" of any negative consequences of leaving.”
Whilst much of Project Fear was directed to the UK’s situation after we had actually left, quite a bit of it related to what would happen immediately after a vote to leave. Most prominent among the prophets of doom in this respect was the then Chancellor, George Osborne. On 23rd May 2016 he espoused this:
“Today the Treasury is publishing its detailed and rigorous analysis of the immediate impact of leaving the EU on growth, jobs, prices, wages, house prices and our nation’s finances.”
You can read all 90 pages of the analysis here:
https:/
I have to admit I have not read it all because, having read the Executive Summary and realising what a load of garbage it was I didn’t see the need to delve into the details. However, to address your point, the report opened with this:
“This paper focuses on the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow.”
So, not what would happen after we had left but what was forecast to happen between the referendum and now.
Mr Osborne prattled on:
“The central conclusions of today’s Treasury analysis are clear – a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession.
Within two years the size of our economy – our GDP – would be at least 3% smaller as a result of leaving the EU – and it could be as much as 6% smaller.
We’d have a year of negative growth – that’s a recession.
The pound would fall in value – by between 12% and 15%. That doesn’t just mean it’s more expensive when you have a holiday abroad.It means everything we import becomes more expensive, which increases inflation and hits family budgets.
Within a year of the Referendum, inflation would be over 2% higher.
By 2018 house prices would be hit by at least 10% and as much as 18%.
So that’s what it means to vote to leave the EU.
Incomes fall.
Mortgage rates go up.
And the value of the family home falls too.
Behind all this – what people can afford to buy, where they can afford to live – are people’s jobs.
And so I want to talk to you about the impact on jobs too. The Treasury’s analysis published today finds that a direct consequence of a vote to leave the EU would be significant job losses across the UK. Within two years, at least half a million jobs would be lost. That’s 80,000 jobs in the Midlands. Over 100,000 jobs across the North. Over 40,000 in Scotland; over 20,000 in Wales; almost 15,000 in Northern Ireland. In London over 70,000 jobs would be lost. Here across the South, almost 120,000 jobs would go. And that’s the lower end of the estimates – across Britain as many as 820,000 jobs could be lost. Youth unemployment would rise by over 10%.”
I’ll leave you to compare the Treasury’s detailed and rigorous analysis with what actually happened. I’ll also leave you to ponder on why anybody should pay heed to Project Fear Mk 2 when the forecast impact of a large part of Project Fear Mk 1 was so profoundly incorrect. Of course it's important to plan for every eventuality. That's why the Government and Business should have planned for a "No Deal" exit from Day 1. But there's a big difference between planning for the worst and scaring the electorate witless.
I think the giveaway there is in the reference to "the two years that follow". It's pretty obvious that this is based on the premise that Article 50 notification would have followed immediately, as David Cameron and others had indicated.
Clearly, this did not happen: the obvious concession I will make to Project Fear is that this was David Cameron and George Osborne's tactic: promising that they would force the UK into the worst of all possible worlds if we dared to vote the wrong way. Leave voters called their bluff on that occasion, but it doesn't undermine the fact that there is virtually unanimous consensus that the UK will be worse off, to some degree or other, in the event of our actually leaving.
Cameron and Osborne have a lot to answer for. They set up this mess, and then ran away from what they had created. But they are not in power any more, and we are *still* left with the potential damage of No Deal. Everyone who's important has already realised that "No deal is better than a bad deal" was empty rhetoric.
Clearly, this did not happen: the obvious concession I will make to Project Fear is that this was David Cameron and George Osborne's tactic: promising that they would force the UK into the worst of all possible worlds if we dared to vote the wrong way. Leave voters called their bluff on that occasion, but it doesn't undermine the fact that there is virtually unanimous consensus that the UK will be worse off, to some degree or other, in the event of our actually leaving.
Cameron and Osborne have a lot to answer for. They set up this mess, and then ran away from what they had created. But they are not in power any more, and we are *still* left with the potential damage of No Deal. Everyone who's important has already realised that "No deal is better than a bad deal" was empty rhetoric.
I should also add that the prediction of the pound's drop in value *was* accurate, and it's also accepted that 2017's growth was hit as a result of the vote to leave. But, since we have not left, the remaining predictions were based on a false premise. It remains to be seen how true they will be once we actually leave.
But the other point of the "Project Fear" mislabelling is also pretty obvious: it allows even a modest impact on economic growth o be somehow called "a success", because it wasn't as bad as some had feared. That's dishonest too.
No, all this screaming about "project fear" is just blinkered, as is your naive analysis of the Treasury report.
But the other point of the "Project Fear" mislabelling is also pretty obvious: it allows even a modest impact on economic growth o be somehow called "a success", because it wasn't as bad as some had feared. That's dishonest too.
No, all this screaming about "project fear" is just blinkered, as is your naive analysis of the Treasury report.
"No, all this screaming about "project fear" is just blinkered, as is your naive analysis of the Treasury report."
What is blinkered or naive about my analysis? I've simply recounted what the electorate was told would happen and what actually did. You can split hairs by saying that the two years did not begin until A50 was triggered (i.e. eighteen months ago) or whether it began on June 24th 2016. It makes little difference. The report was quite clear: "This paper focuses on the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow.”
It is quite clear that the paper and Mr Osborne's speech was designed to put the Fear of God into the electorate. In particular the dire forecasts of hundreds of thousands of job losses has proved just about as inaccurate as it gets.
"...it allows even a modest impact on economic growth o be somehow called "a success", because it wasn't as bad as some had feared. That's dishonest too."
The modest impact on economic growth (which may or may not be attributable to Brexit, who knows?) is a little different to the dire impacts that a Leave vote would see of recession.
It is by no means certain that the UK will be worse off (after the initial "shock" of leaving - with three years notice - has been mitigated allayed). But in any case, it is clear that the majority of those who voted were quite prepared for that because, despite the dire and unfounded warnings they were given by Osborne and Cameron, they still voted to Leave.
What is blinkered or naive about my analysis? I've simply recounted what the electorate was told would happen and what actually did. You can split hairs by saying that the two years did not begin until A50 was triggered (i.e. eighteen months ago) or whether it began on June 24th 2016. It makes little difference. The report was quite clear: "This paper focuses on the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow.”
It is quite clear that the paper and Mr Osborne's speech was designed to put the Fear of God into the electorate. In particular the dire forecasts of hundreds of thousands of job losses has proved just about as inaccurate as it gets.
"...it allows even a modest impact on economic growth o be somehow called "a success", because it wasn't as bad as some had feared. That's dishonest too."
The modest impact on economic growth (which may or may not be attributable to Brexit, who knows?) is a little different to the dire impacts that a Leave vote would see of recession.
It is by no means certain that the UK will be worse off (after the initial "shock" of leaving - with three years notice - has been mitigated allayed). But in any case, it is clear that the majority of those who voted were quite prepared for that because, despite the dire and unfounded warnings they were given by Osborne and Cameron, they still voted to Leave.
My understanding was that the (ill-advised imo) £9m Remain leaflets were funded by the government, which - unfairly or not - had a stance on the referendum result. I don't think it was part of the Remain campaign's spending (although the heads of govt were rather foolishly - but not illegally - simultaneously key figures in Remain).
That is of course rightly condemned as unfair, because it is. But it is not a crime. It is a reflection of the fact that the UK's system of government is not designed to accommodate referenda - and that they are therefore an extremely bad way to deal with these questions because we don't have the systems in place to run them properly and they are inconsistent with how our democracy is supposed to work.
What Leave did, however, was illegally channel funds through sub-groups in order to bypass electoral spending rules - which is a crime. They spent that money on some extremely dodgy and duplicitous data harvesting and targeted ad campaigns without which, they say, they could not have won.
I don't know what the right thing to do is in this situation, but I just can't see how it doesn't at least somewhat tarnish the legitimacy of the 2016 result if that result was obtained by breaking electoral law.
That is of course rightly condemned as unfair, because it is. But it is not a crime. It is a reflection of the fact that the UK's system of government is not designed to accommodate referenda - and that they are therefore an extremely bad way to deal with these questions because we don't have the systems in place to run them properly and they are inconsistent with how our democracy is supposed to work.
What Leave did, however, was illegally channel funds through sub-groups in order to bypass electoral spending rules - which is a crime. They spent that money on some extremely dodgy and duplicitous data harvesting and targeted ad campaigns without which, they say, they could not have won.
I don't know what the right thing to do is in this situation, but I just can't see how it doesn't at least somewhat tarnish the legitimacy of the 2016 result if that result was obtained by breaking electoral law.
To blame an overspend on the vote result is a bit rum. And tbh it doesn’t bother me that they overspent when the government spent £9m ‘just’ before and it ‘just happened’ to not be a problem.
Project fear was very vocal about the dire impact and how terrible a vote to leave would be. They took great pains to make everyone well aware of it. So if you think an over spend on the leave side made much difference then I think you are grasping at straws.
Labour turning into the party of remain will alienate their grass roots supporters, who apparently overwhelmingly voted leave, but won’t attract Tory voters in their place.
Project fear was very vocal about the dire impact and how terrible a vote to leave would be. They took great pains to make everyone well aware of it. So if you think an over spend on the leave side made much difference then I think you are grasping at straws.
Labour turning into the party of remain will alienate their grass roots supporters, who apparently overwhelmingly voted leave, but won’t attract Tory voters in their place.
//To blame an overspend on the vote result is a bit rum. And tbh it doesn’t bother me that they overspent when the government spent £9m ‘just’ before and it ‘just happened’ to not be a problem.//
One was illegal and the other was not, though. I understand that isn't particularly fair - but it's an inevitable result of running a referendum in a system that isn't designed to cope with them. No crime was committed with the £9m leaflets - but the VL overspend was a crime.
//So if you think an over spend on the leave side made much difference then I think you are grasping at straws. //
It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of Dominic Cummings, the director of Vote Leave, and Paul Stephenson, the Communications Director of Vote Leave. Or, to be more precise, it was their opinion about the thing that they spent the illegal money on:
https:/
This doesn't necessarily mean that all leave voters were swayed by (improperly-funded) targeted advertising. I'm sure plenty weren't. NJ made his mind up decades ago - for all I know, so did you. But the referendum was won by 4%. Is it really so improbable to suggest that the 4% of deciding votes could have been won by criminal tactics? The people who did it certainly seem to think so.
One was illegal and the other was not, though. I understand that isn't particularly fair - but it's an inevitable result of running a referendum in a system that isn't designed to cope with them. No crime was committed with the £9m leaflets - but the VL overspend was a crime.
//So if you think an over spend on the leave side made much difference then I think you are grasping at straws. //
It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of Dominic Cummings, the director of Vote Leave, and Paul Stephenson, the Communications Director of Vote Leave. Or, to be more precise, it was their opinion about the thing that they spent the illegal money on:
https:/
This doesn't necessarily mean that all leave voters were swayed by (improperly-funded) targeted advertising. I'm sure plenty weren't. NJ made his mind up decades ago - for all I know, so did you. But the referendum was won by 4%. Is it really so improbable to suggest that the 4% of deciding votes could have been won by criminal tactics? The people who did it certainly seem to think so.
