Brexit Leaflets - Legit Use of Tax Payer Funds?

[Galant]

The Independent - EU referendum: Government to spend £9m of taxpayers' money on leaflets warning of 'damage' Brexit would cause


"The publication, which will start arriving on doorsteps next week, makes the case for why the Government believes that "voting to remain in the EU is the best decision for the UK".

But in a move that will be attacked by critics as an escalation of Downing Street’s "Project Fear" tactics, the leaflet also warns that leaving the EU would cause an "economic shock" and increase the prices of household goods.

It goes on to say that British voters would lose access to cheap flights and face higher mobile roaming charges when travelling if they back a Brexit, and that "over three million UK jobs are linked to exports to the EU".

The pamphlet recalls a tactic used by Harold Wilson ahead of the 1975 referendum when an "independent" government analysis of his renegotiation was sent by voters alongside the pro- and anti- campaign literature.

It is being sent out now because the Government is able to spend an unlimited amount of money on its campaign to keep Britain in the EU ahead of the "purdah" period, which comes into force 28 days ahead of the June 23 referendum."

Does this seem right? The government using tax-payer funds to mass promote one side of a referendum issue?

[kalniel]

It's not right to get around agreed campaign limits. That's like.. say.. hiding money in an offshore based company to get around tax..

More information is good though. Both sides should be given one side of an A4 pamflet to fill, and have that posted to everyone.

[Unique]

I don't have the leaflet but looking at the online version it appears the news article has said "would" rather than "could" in respect of the article, whilst the online leaflet says "could"

I think it's important people get the facts. I think it's a good thing. the cost of this is a drop in the ocean compared to how much is at stake

[peterb]

I don't have the leaflet but looking at the online version it appears the news article has said "would" rather than "could" in respect of the article, whilst the online leaflet says "could"

I think it's important people get the facts. I think it's a good thing. the cost of this is a drop in the ocean compared to how much is at stake

Yes, but it should even handed. I realise this is the Government position, but if it is using public funds to push one side in a referendum it has called, the same opportunity should be given to put the alternative point of view.

[ik9000]

Yes, but it should even handed. I realise this is the Government position, but if it is using public funds to push one side in a referendum it has called, the same opportunity should be given to put the alternative point of view.

Exactly. What should be going on is a year of intensive study by the civil service into the full implications - pros , cons and neutral of leaving the EU. This should then be documented and debated in Parliament, on Question Time and in all the press. It should be summarised in unbiased leaflets, and presented to all via all the media available. Then the populace should decide in or out.

It is BS to claim democracy when the MPs decide what they think should happen and then try to ram it down everyone's throat in a biased manner. That is NOT democracy, and it does not help the public make informed decisions.

[scaryjim]

... Does this seem right? The government using tax-payer funds to mass promote one side of a referendum issue?

You could equally say "The government using government funding to communicate its official position..."

AFAIK the government is official pro-IN. Seems perfectly legit to me for them to use the government's money to support that position. You could equally ask if it's right to spend however much the referendum is going to cost just to sop to a rebel element within the party of government. It wouldn't be the first election promise that got broken if they changed their minds and refused to hold the referendum.

Detailed information of the amounts being spent on the out campaign seem hard to come by, but initial estimates reckoned they'd raise around £13m above the £7m they're officially allowed to spend, and that was before reports that a couple of hedge fund managers might be chucking their money into the ring too. Assuming most of that campaign money is being spent in the UK it must be providing a reasonable short term boost to some areas of the economy...!

[The Hand]

I imagine you could build a pretty good school or medical centre with £9 million... You could put the leaflet under the cat or dog's bowl if they are messy eaters etc.

[scaryjim]

I imagine you could build a pretty good school or medical centre with £9 million...

A quick google suggests that it might be possible to build and fit a school for that much, although projected average building costs per school in 2012 were £14m (reduced from £21m after the then coalition government recommended smaller footprints and room sizes for new school builds): http://www.theguardian.com/education...alition-budget

For most of the last decade the public expenditure on school building programmes has been in the region of £1bn/year, sometimes quite a bit higher. So £9m on leaflets would be at most 1% of the school buildings budget. Not really a significant amount.

Of course, the government spending money on leaflets is the same government the out campaign want to have greater control and freedom in running the country. Now there's a thought...

[Saracen]

You could equally say "The government using government funding to communicate its official position..."

AFAIK the government is official pro-IN. Seems perfectly legit to me for them to use the government's money to support that position. You could equally ask if it's right to spend however much the referendum is going to cost just to sop to a rebel element within the party of government. It wouldn't be the first election promise that got broken if they changed their minds and refused to hold the referendum.

Detailed information of the amounts being spent on the out campaign seem hard to come by, but initial estimates reckoned they'd raise around £13m above the £7m they're officially allowed to spend, and that was before reports that a couple of hedge fund managers might be chucking their money into the ring too. Assuming most of that campaign money is being spent in the UK it must be providing a reasonable short term boost to some areas of the economy...!

It's not government's money. It's ours.

It's also not just a sop to Tory rebels. Just about every poll showing it to be more or less neck and neck demonstrates that.

If there's going to be taxpayer money spent on this, then it ought to be even-handed. Perhaps a government-run mail campaign with an equal-sized, and equal-funded, leaflet from both official campaign groups .... when they're eventually nominated.

But this will just be typical propaganda, and I know of at least one that will go straight into recycling without being opened. I'd bet a lot of copies will.

There's also a distinct risk that it'll be counter-productive.

[scaryjim]

It's not government's money. It's ours.

It's sourced from you, but once it hits the government's coffers you don't get a single word on where it goes. Not until the next election, of course, when you could always vote for someone different if you don't like the way the country's being run

It's also not just a sop to Tory rebels. Just about every poll showing it to be more or less neck and neck demonstrates that.

Whether the country is behind the UK's membership of the EU or not is not why we're having a referendum though. We're having a referendum because it was put in the Tory election manifesto - I suspect against the wishes of most of the Tory leadership - to keep euro-sceptic Tories on board during an election that the Tories probably didn't expect to win, and certainly not as convincingly. As my better half pointed out to me recently, there are a few election promises currently coming home to roost that were probably only in the manifesto because the Tory leadership were expecting to be in coalition and therefore thought they could get away with not enacting certain promises and blaming it on their coalition partners. Given just how much the Tory party is unravelling only a year after a surprisingly successful general election, it's a theory that rings true to me.

As I understand it there's a £7m official campaign fund which I assume will be drawn from public funds. The most recent estimate for costs of the referendum itself that I can find is from 2013 and put the cost at £70m. The Scottish independence referendum cost over £15m, apparently. Referendums are not cheap *shrug*

If the out campaign wins I suspect Cameron will get his retribution a lot faster than the electorate could manage. We'll have a markedly different government to the one that actually won the election. But still the one we voted for, oddly enough. Hm.

[Unique]

Yes, but it should even handed. I realise this is the Government position, but if it is using public funds to push one side in a referendum it has called, the same opportunity should be given to put the alternative point of view.

https://www.eureferendum.gov.uk/q-and-a/

I haven't read the full thing, but I note from news articles a lack of anyone saying there is anything that is factually false, and imagine if there was then it would be mentioned

the site states the government has a requirement under the referendum act to publish data, and that's what they are doing. there appears to be no requirement to include data they haven't included - such as the other point of view. that does not however prevent anyone from stating their point of view, so the other side can still do so

in a nutshell there appears to be no laws or rules broken, the argument is simply a matter of opinion as to what is considered fair or not

[Unique]

Exactly. What should be going on is a year of intensive study by the civil service into the full implications - pros , cons and neutral of leaving the EU. This should then be documented and debated in Parliament, on Question Time and in all the press. It should be summarised in unbiased leaflets, and presented to all via all the media available. Then the populace should decide in or out.

It is BS to claim democracy when the MPs decide what they think should happen and then try to ram it down everyone's throat in a biased manner. That is NOT democracy, and it does not help the public make informed decisions.

it is democracy. people voted them in democratically, like them or not, and they are doing what they are legally entitled to do. that's the problem with democracy, not everyone agrees with the decision. other people are also free to send their own point of view out too

[HalloweenJack]

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

[Unique]

You could equally say "The government using government funding to communicate its official position..."

AFAIK the government is official pro-IN. Seems perfectly legit to me for them to use the government's money to support that position. You could equally ask if it's right to spend however much the referendum is going to cost just to sop to a rebel element within the party of government. It wouldn't be the first election promise that got broken if they changed their minds and refused to hold the referendum.

Detailed information of the amounts being spent on the out campaign seem hard to come by, but initial estimates reckoned they'd raise around £13m above the £7m they're officially allowed to spend, and that was before reports that a couple of hedge fund managers might be chucking their money into the ring too. Assuming most of that campaign money is being spent in the UK it must be providing a reasonable short term boost to some areas of the economy...!

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

[Unique]

I imagine you could build a pretty good school or medical centre with £9 million... You could put the leaflet under the cat or dog's bowl if they are messy eaters etc.

but then sometimes you spend so much money and in return to reap considerably more. or alternately spend so much money one something and end up losing considerably more

the governments position seems pretty clear in that they consider spending that money to be worth it, in that it may cost considerably more than that if there was a brexit. you don't spend more money on advertising than you would gain in return

[Saracen]

....

If the out campaign wins I suspect Cameron will get his retribution a lot faster than the electorate could manage. We'll have a markedly different government to the one that actually won the election. But still the one we voted for, oddly enough. Hm.

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.