Brexit Leaflets - Legit Use of Tax Payer Funds?

[peterb]

there's nothing to stop the out campaign from doing the same thing - to which they actually did before the announcement of the discussed leaflet, and that had it's own criticism too

Well there is, because they would not get public funds to do so. Both positions can spend up to £7M of campaign funds (which is not public money) during the campaign, and public funds cannot be spent during the ten weeks leading up to the referendum.

This is an additional £9M of additional public funding which the Government is using to publicise its position.

I will look forward to reading it - with a degree of scepticism, but I would also like to see the alternive view, in the same depth.

[peterb]

who would a complaint about this use of funds be sent to??

A complaint has been made to the electoral commission who have declared that is not breaking electoral law.

[scaryjim]

And not for the first time. Like when we voted for one Labour manifesto, then Blair quits/gets forced out, Brown takes over and immediately announces a "change of direction", but doesn't seem to think he needs a mandate for that.

*shrug* There's precedent for it throughout Parliamentary History, AFAIK, and certainly for the stretch that I've been personally aware of. There is no good public mandate for the governance of the UK, because you can't have a good mandate for single-point rule over 60 million people. Bundle in Westminster-style governance and a FPTP voting system and you're basically set for the majority of the population wondering how on earth the current government got in, and who they're meant to represent. And of course, that's a lot of where I come from on this whole issue - if I'm going to be governed by an organisation that in no way represents me, why do I care where that organisation sits?

[Zak33]

may I pose a question?

Smoking could kill you. So could alcohol. And driving fast too.

But it's acceptable to use tax payers money on advertising campaigns to stop those things, even though millions of people like them and DON'T die or cause pain to others.

So why the big fuss about a referendum IN brochure?

The government that was voted in by the masses, is running the country the way it sees fit and it wants to spend money (and 9m is peanuts on a national postal campaign.. I know businesses that would die happy to do that!!) telling the people what it thinks is the best option. ie it's doing what it thinks is best

To ask for equivalent funds to do the opposite is like asking for a National Start Smoking TV campaign, and a National Drive Fast is Mid Wales leaflet drop campaign, or a Drink Yourself Into a Casualty Ward Campaign on Talk Sport.

ie ... not

And to say "but smoking IS bad for you!" or "drinking IS bad for you" is not a good enough answer, because it's a "it's POSSIBLY bad for you" argument in reality. With smokers enjoying a ciggy and not always dying of it, and drinkers controlling stress with "self medication" and drivers getting places fast safely but at illegal speeds.. it's never a simple WRONG.

It's 9m quid.

Wayne Rooney pays more in tax in his life time. Stop worrying.

[peterb]

may I pose a question?

Smoking could kill you. So could alcohol. And driving fast too.

But it's acceptable to use tax payers money on advertising campaigns to stop those things, even though millions of people like them and DON'T die or cause pain to others.

So why the big fuss about a referendum IN brochure?

The government that was voted in by the masses, is running the country the way it sees fit and it wants to spend money (and 9m is peanuts on a national postal campaign.. I know businesses that would die happy to do that!!) telling the people what it thinks is the best option. ie it's doing what it thinks is best

To ask for equivalent funds to do the opposite is like asking for a National Start Smoking TV campaign, and a National Drive Fast is Mid Wales leaflet drop campaign, or a Drink Yourself Into a Casualty Ward Campaign on Talk Sport.

ie ... not

And to say "but smoking IS bad for you!" or "drinking IS bad for you" is not a good enough answer, because it's a "it's POSSIBLY bad for you" argument in reality. With smokers enjoying a ciggy and not always dying of it, and drinkers controlling stress with "self medication" and drivers getting places fast safely but at illegal speeds.. it's never a simple WRONG.

It's 9m quid.

Wayne Rooney pays more in tax in his life time. Stop worrying.

True, but smoking is a matter of public health and the evidence was unequivocal.

The exit from the EU is not as cut and dried. There are risks and consequences whichever way the vote goes. Smoking generally affects the individual, whereas the decision to remain in the EU or leave has a long term impact.

[Galant]

Could it be compared the governing party using government funds for a general election campaign?

The parties themselves need to fund their own campaigns.

So too, could/should it not be argued that the various parties, groups and individuals should organise and fund their own campaigns here? Would that not, in fact, make for a much better, diverse, and robust function of democracy?

As for the 'factually false' requirement, that's just frustrating. Stick could/would/should in a sentence and all of a sudden you have a safety net. I'd imagine it's logically impossible to falsify most claims any side wanted to put forward. For that reason, I'm not sure 'factually false' should be the main concern.

[Galant]

New Pro-EU campaign slogan - "Stay in Europe - Because democracy is so much better when the government's in control." Disclaimer at bottom "This propaganda dutifully paid for by you."

[kalniel]

So too, could/should it not be argued that the various parties, groups and individuals should organise and fund their own campaigns here? Would that not, in fact, make for a much better, diverse, and robust function of democracy?

Don't you mean oligarchy?

I think in this case, the govt. decided (and 'we' voted for) a referendum with the associated costs thereof, therefore the govt. should give an equal funding pot to both sides.

[scaryjim]

Could it be compared the governing party using government funds for a general election campaign? ...

I don't think so; this isn't a party political issue - so it's not the Conservative Party issuing a statement that we should stay in Europe, it's HM Government. It's a fine line, but it's one I think they're on the right side of. Similarly if they government were pro-Out I think they'd be justified using public funds to send a pro-Out leaflet, although I'm not sure I wouldn't complain if it happened It probably helps the Tories that they have an in-party split over the issue: that makes it more obviously a non-party-political move.

Out of interest, anyone know if any public funds were spent during the AV referendum campaign? That's the only thing I can think of recently that would be comparable...

[Galant]

I don't think so; this isn't a party political issue - so it's not the Conservative Party issuing a statement that we should stay in Europe, it's HM Government. It's a fine line, but it's one I think they're on the right side of. Similarly if they government were pro-Out I think they'd be justified using public funds to send a pro-Out leaflet, although I'm not sure I wouldn't complain if it happened It probably helps the Tories that they have an in-party split over the issue: that makes it more obviously a non-party-political move.

Out of interest, anyone know if any public funds were spent during the AV referendum campaign? That's the only thing I can think of recently that would be comparable...

Hmmm, I think I disagree. Isn't everything, potentially, a party political issue? That is to say, all parties - or at least the major ones - might have something to say to their members on all issues, especially big ones? If so, wouldn't it seem proper for parties to determine their own process of investigation and debate in terms of looking at or determining a possible party position, or at least, to inform their members of how a given issue, i.e. Brexit, might/could/would affect the issue the party and it's members care about? Even if a particular party decides not to look at an issue, other parties surely will, and whatever approach those parties take - pro/anti/balanced - would it not seem proper that those parties are then able to disseminate information in support/defense/persuasion of their views? It might even prove to be an opportunity for parties to try to attract new members by relating to them on an issue that affects them. That to me, would seem to be a good way to handle things. Certainly, if none of the parties can find a way to present or effect a unified front on this issue, other groups have been formed, perhaps across party lines, to do the same thing, and that, it seems to me, is again a good and right way to go about this. Let the groups, the parties, the people, create, innovate and fund the investigation and communication.

You state that is isn't party political but rather HM Government issuing the statement. Yet it's clear that HM Government is divided on this issue, so how have they formulated this decision? Did they vote on it themselves? It strikes me as bearing the rubber stamp of the government but coming instead from individuals within the government, using tax-payer funds to push their opinion. And in this instance, it doesn't seem right. I still see this as something along the lines of the general election analogy. It's a public vote on an issue, and we have a government that is supposed to arise from the public. In that way this looks like some members of the public (who happen to be in government) making use of their unique access to tax-payer funds in order to communicate their opinion. It's a vehicle others do not have.

[Unique]

Well there is, because they would not get public funds to do so. Both positions can spend up to £7M of campaign funds (which is not public money) during the campaign, and public funds cannot be spent during the ten weeks leading up to the referendum.

This is an additional £9M of additional public funding which the Government is using to publicise its position.

I will look forward to reading it - with a degree of scepticism, but I would also like to see the alternive view, in the same depth.

when I said the same thing, I mean send out leaflets etc, I wasn't referring to the funding aspect. but basically two sides have issued information prior to the restrictive deadline, and both sides can continue to do so prior to then. it's not a one sided thing

[Galant]

Daniel Hannan in The Guardian

Highlights:

"The Remain and Leave campaigns are limited by statute to spending £7m each. Yet ministers are spending no less than £9.3m of taxpayers’ money to prop up their faltering campaign."

"The government’s defence – that it is giving us facts which just happen to bolster a Remain vote – is almost too absurd to merit serious refutation. By the same logic, it would be OK for ministers in an election year to send every household a state-funded booklet setting out the “factual” case for re-electing the Conservatives."

"When the referendum legislation went through parliament, the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, told MPs: “It will be for the yes and the no campaigns to lead the debate in the weeks preceding the poll. I can assure the house that the government has no intention of undermining those campaigns.”

David Lidington, the likeable Europe minister, was even more emphatic: “Let me repeat that we have no intention of legislating to allow the government to do things such as mailshots, paid advertising or leafleting.”"

"Why, then, have ministers gone back on their words? Why have they chosen to ignore both Britain’s Electoral Commission, which has declared its unhappiness, and the basic rules on the conduct of referendums required by the Council of Europe, which states: “The use of public funds for campaigning purposes must be prohibited in order to guarantee equality of opportunity and the freedom of voters to form an opinion”? Why have they annoyed neutrals and quite a few Remain campaigners by so flagrant a disregard for fair play?"

"Yet pro-EU campaigners seem stuck in their doom-and-gloom strategy. It’s not just that they seem to have nothing positive to say about Britain. They don’t even have anything positive to say about the EU. The last thing they want to discuss is the paltry deal Brussels was prepared to offer in the renegotiation. All their talk of “reform” has dried up. Instead, they deploy an intrinsically pessimistic argument: “Yeah, the EU is a bit crappy, but change is risky.” "

"If nothing else, this latest stunt vindicates one of the Leave side’s main objections to the EU: that it debases the ballot. The objective of European integration is held to be more important than the integrity of the democratic process – as the Greeks found after their referendum last year and, I suspect, as the Dutch, too, will find after their “no” vote this week. In the words of Jean-Claude Juncker: “There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties”.

Is he right? Having fought a civil war in this country to establish the principle that only our elected representatives may pass laws or raise taxes, do we still care? We’ll find out on 23 June."


“Yeah, the EU is a bit crappy, but change is risky.” " - This. Democratic issues are ignored or deemed irredeemable. In fact, just about every other question seems to be ignored apart from the economy, and on that the only approach seems to be fear and risk with 'out', versus things will continue on swimmingly with 'remain'.

For me, it's the absence of a proper discussion of the pros and cons of 'remain' that strikes me as significant. With 'out' we get to see the cons of economic risk, but also the pros of the sovereignty/democracy/identity issues. With 'remain' I don't know that I've heard even two words about it.

[Macman]

Could you add a poll?

Who wants to remain, leave, on the fence? Just curious.

[ik9000]

Could you add a poll?

Who wants to remain, leave, on the fence? Just curious.

But what no-one is asking is "want to remain, but with some changes" and then what those changes are. Apparently this democratic process doesn't extend to asking people what they actually want out of the EU relationship...

[Macman]

But what no-one is asking is "want to remain, but with some changes" and then what those changes are. Apparently this democratic process doesn't extend to asking people what they actually want out of the EU relationship...

Would simply get too messy if we wanted to remain but with some changes.

X amount would want these changes.
Y amount wouldn't want X changes but these changes.
Z amount would want 1 or 2 of X changes and 1 of Y.

It's hard to please everyone which is pretty much the same issue for a lot of things?

And to me... I think the EU decision, is really going to suit the people with money, the elite members I mean. Bankers, CEOs etc etc.

What do I personally want? I'm still on the fence.

[Macman]

Always curious about other peoples thoughts, rather than listening to some duffer on the TV telling me why I SHOULD vote YES/NO.

It's better coming from people who are affected by it. i.e. Scotland going independent, I'd rather listen to Joe Bloggs tell me his side, why is he/she voting Yes/No? Gives you another angle to think on, "Oh aye, didn't see it like, he/she does/doesn't make a valid point". You get the idea.

So.. my question to people here, why are you voting YES to remain / NO for exit, and indicate just one strong reason supporting your vote.

(Cheers Kalniel lol)