advertisement


Oh Britain, what have you done (part ∞+3)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
... the proven overspend was around £75k, so 10% ... This was considerably smaller than the Vote Leave budget of £7million, so the actual effect of the proven overspend, in context, can't necessarily be shown to invalidate the result.
Click to expand...

Seanm said:
We're talking here about a relatively small overspend. The idea that it influenced the vote is ludicrous,
Click to expand...

I think you need to be careful about drawing this kind of conclusion. I don't believe it is possible to determine any correlationship between amount of spend and effect of spend. Do you think that it would be possible, for example, to lease a coach, have it sign-written with a dishonest but effective message, and pay for it to be driven to campaign rallies around the country for a couple of weeks, all within a budget of £75k? I certainly think it would be. The spend is very modest, but the effect was quite likely very large. I'm aware that this particular example was actually the other Leave campaign's doing, but the point is clear enough. And yes, I agree you obviously can't say that it was the illegal spend that bought the highly effective advertising - the money is all fungible - so it would be nonsensical to hypothecate the overspend against any specific outcome. My point, therefore, is that there should be no requirement to demonstrate any sort of causal link, or indeed any sort of proportionality, between the illegally spent funds and the campaign's outcome. It is meaningless to try. If it has been shown that the campaign was conducted dishonestly, illegally, and potentially criminally, it is then perfectly legitimate to ask "how would people have voted if the campaigns had been conducted honestly?"
ML
 
monstrous lie said:
I think you need to be careful about drawing this kind of conclusion. I don't believe it is possible to determine any correlationship between amount of spend and effect of spend. Do you think that it would be possible, for example, to lease a coach, have it sign-written with a dishonest but effective message, and pay for it to be driven to campaign rallies around the country for a couple of weeks, all within a budget of £75k? I certainly think it would be. The spend is very modest, but the effect was quite likely very large. I'm aware that this particular example was actually the other Leave campaign's doing, but the point is clear enough. And yes, I agree you obviously can't say that it was the illegal spend that bought the highly effective advertising - the money is all fungible - so it would be nonsensical to hypothecate the overspend against any specific outcome. My point, therefore, is that there should be no requirement to demonstrate any sort of causal link, or indeed any sort of proportionality, between the illegally spent funds and the campaign's outcome. It is meaningless to try. If it has been shown that the campaign was conducted dishonestly, illegally, and potentially criminally, it is then perfectly legitimate to ask "how would people have voted if the campaigns had been conducted honestly?"
ML
Click to expand...
I take the point, and don't really disagree, but the problem with an argument that 'it's not what you spend, but how you spend it that counts' is that spending limits then become arbitrary, essentially meaningless, and its harder to make a cogent case that sticking to the limit matters. Which makes it harder to justify laws to set limits in the first place.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I take the point, and don't really disagree, but the problem with an argument that 'it's not what you spend, but how you spend it that counts' is that spending limits then become arbitrary, essentially meaningless, and its harder to make a cogent case that sticking to the limit matters. Which makes it harder to justify laws to set limits in the first place.
Click to expand...
Yes, fair point. But why are we fretting anyway? It's not as if there will be any effective action taken.
ML
 
This is just brilliant.

"EU negotiator Michel Barnier has reportedly told European ministers that neither of the UK’s customs option was realistic and that it was “unnecessary to fight” over two models that the EU would reject anyway.

Downing Street suggested the prime minister was undeterred by the comments. “As we’ve seen many times before, when you’re in a negotiation, you can expect people to set out their negotiating positions,” May’s spokesman said."

I suppose, as usual May says nothing of substance.

I wish we could apply Asimov's way of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

"In a rather simple way. It merely required the use of that much-neglected commodity – common sense. You see, there is a branch of human knowledge known as symbolic logic, which can be used to prune away all sorts of clogging deadwood that clutters up human language." (Federation Trilogy)

Stephen
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I take the point, and don't really disagree, but the problem with an argument that 'it's not what you spend, but how you spend it that counts' is that spending limits then become arbitrary, essentially meaningless, and its harder to make a cogent case that sticking to the limit matters. Which makes it harder to justify laws to set limits in the first place.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's quite clear that you get more "bang for your buck" with outright lies.
 
Nick_G said:
Trump threatens to use US trade talks to force NHS to pay more for drugs (Telegraph)

Still, at least we've taken back control, eh?
Click to expand...

Also sober reading from Harvard—Prospects for a US-UK Free Trade Agreement.

"UK won't benefit from free trade deal with US, say Harvard academics"

OK, one author is Ed Balls, so it'll be dismissed by Brexiteers.

"Many of the officials and experts we spoke with concluded that in reality, when taking into account the complexity of the technical issues, the interdependence with the UK-EU and NAFTA negotiations and the political constraints, it is hard to see how a US-UK FTA of the depth and breadth required to deliver significant economic benefits can be secured.

"Senior UK Government Policy Advisor: “Personally, I am very doubtful about the abilityof both governments to work through the domestic politics and politicalchallenges of this deal.”

"Senior US Government Official: “we already have a bilateral trade and investmentworking group with them [the UK] which means open and strong trading relations already exist, so it is unclear how much more there is realistically togain.”

"Professor Larry Summers, former US Treasury Secretary: “It is delusional to think that aUS-UK trade deal will happen anytime soon. It is simply not possible.”


Stephen
 
Last edited:
There certainly seems to be a lot of delusion around. I saw Lidington on the telly this morning, and he had obviously been briefed to look and sound positive, and ignore any difficult questions. The fact is, the guvmint are arguing amongst themselves about two options that can't possibly happen.

They're starting to take the piss.
 
Yes the government is basically off it's chump. Although Labour appears equally confused as well. I had been assuming it was tacitly accepting that we would stay in the SM and CU (because Kier Starmer and their policy says that we will retain all the current benefits we have) but now it seems this is not true and Jeremy believes in sunny uplands and unicorns just as much as May,
 
matthewr said:
Yes the government is basically off it's chump. Although Labour appears equally confused as well. I had been assuming it was tacitly accepting that we would stay in the SM and CU (because Kier Starmer and their policy says that we will retain all the current benefits we have) but now it seems this is not true and Jeremy believes in sunny uplands and unicorns just as much as May,
Click to expand...
It’s a simulation of government- a panto with the pretence of something being done. A kind interpretation might be they’re doing it for public consumption but I fear they might actually believe they are directing real strategy. I’ve never seen the likes. Just waiting for the boom crash wallop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top