The result of the EU referendum:

[ProfessorDavey]

I accept that potentially we might not grow as fast and we might grow faster,

Yet again - please provide me with a credible independent economic organisation that thinks that we might grow faster, either in the short term of the longer term (e.g. to 2030) if we leave compared to staying.

You are repeating the same old disingenuous non-sense, somehow implying that slower growth or faster growth are equally credibly predicted likelihoods. They aren't there is effectively unanimity amongst credible independent economic organisations that growth will be slower if we leave than if we stay - sure there is some variation as to the extent of that negative difference if we leave compared to staying, but all of them conclude that the economy will be weaker if we leave compared to staying.

[L.A.]

One thing here that makes me skip over posts is the constant concern about whether we will all be richer. If that's all they worry about then I think it is very sad. Of course it is much better not to have personal worries over money and to live in a country where things run quite well overall, but to focus on being richer is one of those single issues which should not make people vote in or out. I have thought right from the start that the top, most important issue is to maintain contact, communication, co-operation to the best of all EU countries' abilities. There is no perfect situation - human nature just doesn't work that way - but improved conditions for all is much more likely to become more possible with remaining in the EU group.

There was something on the radio at lunchtime about young people finding it a bit tricky to register to vote on line because of having to give Nat Ins number. I don't know about that, but hope very much that as many as possible will be on that register in time to vote.

Yes but - if the economy does badly,  most of us suffer one way or another, and there is great potential for damage to the economy if there is a Brexit vote.

[jakswan]

I am your leader - look at my wealth of experience - I'm 67, I've been in public life for 42 years since I was elected to Islington council, I've been an MP for 33 years - here is a list of all my major leadership roles:

Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands

Oh - that's it ...

I agree with NS (rare) but he has massive mandate from his own party. Livingston and McDonnell are too abrasive, Corbyn being a nice chap does take the edge of the hard left ideology.

Its sad we don't have a credible opposition, I hope the LibDems can make it back, I know Clegg got mauled because of tuition fees but I think he was a good leader and they took the edge off the Tories.

[L.A.]

I agree with NS (rare) but he has massive mandate from his own party. Livingston and McDonnell are too abrasive, Corbyn being a nice chap does take the edge of the hard left ideology.

Its sad we don't have a credible opposition, I hope the LibDems can make it back, I know Clegg got mauled because of tuition fees but I think he was a good leader and they took the edge off the Tories.

We have no functioning opposition at the moment, Corbyn appears to be living in another universe. All my Labour friends become quite distressed if I even mention his name.

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree with NS (rare) but he has massive mandate from his own party. Livingston and McDonnell are too abrasive, Corbyn being a nice chap does take the edge of the hard left ideology.

Its sad we don't have a credible opposition, I hope the LibDems can make it back, I know Clegg got mauled because of tuition fees but I think he was a good leader and they took the edge off the Tories.

I agree that he has a massive mandate from the party - albeit he didn't gain 50% in either the membership section (came very close) and was rejected overwhelmingly by his MPs.

But this is the latest in a serious of examples where a party membership seem incapable of picking anyone remotely electable and seem to go for the worse possible choice in terms of acceptability to the wider electorate. So we've had the Tories selecting Hague (over Clarke) and IDS over either Clarke or Portillo.

And there is a major disconnect here - a party leader has to, first and foremost, command the respect of his or her parliamentary party - that is the bread and butter, his or her day job. Secondly to be successful he or she must connect with the wider electorate. So we run the risk (and have seen and are seeing now) a leader who has no respect amongst his MPs, cannot connect behind a narrow block of the electorate and certainly not widely enough to be electable, yet is very popular in the tiny, and self electing group of Labour members.

[ProfessorDavey]

We have no functioning opposition at the moment, Corbyn appears to be living in another universe. All my Labour friends become quite distressed if I even mention his name.

I think we have also seen 'peak Corbyn' in terms of Labour membership levels. Sure there has been a big surge, but bit by bit we are now seeing disillusioned long standing members not renewing (including me) and of course all those who joined last summer will be coming up for renewal - sure some will but I suspect many others won't. Certainly most of those 'new' Corbynista members are very much of the armchair sort, never likely to get involved in the real political activism of leafleting, canvassing, standing in council elections etc etc. They are semi-detached members and I suspect many won't renew this summer and we will begin to see membership levels drop off.

Contrast with the last time Labour saw membership levels soar - through the 90s - that didn't start to fade until a couple of years into a Labour government - not much chance of that happening again, unless there is a change of leader.

[Rhiannon]

For me it's not wealth that matters so much as stability.

As for Corbyn, I think his value is in that he offers something different. And he appears to be principles-driven. We know what Corbyn stands for. I've no idea what Cameron stand for at all, not least because all 'his' policies are Osborne's.

[jakswan]

Yet again - please provide me with a credible independent economic organisation that thinks that we might grow faster, either in the short term of the longer term (e.g. to 2030) if we leave compared to staying.

You are repeating the same old disingenuous non-sense, somehow implying that slower growth or faster growth are equally credibly predicted likelihoods. They aren't there is effectively unanimity amongst credible independent economic organisations that growth will be slower if we leave than if we stay - sure there is some variation as to the extent of that negative difference if we leave compared to staying, but all of them conclude that the economy will be weaker if we leave compared to staying.

Please calm the hysteria.

Why would it matter?

I think Open Europe did one
http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/

Also IOD said a similar thing.

As I've written previously I think predicting GDP is a lottery at the best of times, all reports predict we'll be richer than we are now if we leave and that is good enough for me.

[wigginhall]

Yes, I like Corbyn, whereas most Labour people seem like zombies to me.   

Anyway, we are panicking about polls showing a Leave majority.   Say it ain't so. 

[SusanDoris]

#1569 Prof D

I seem to have attributed your post to NS. I'll just double check, but apologies.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think Open Europe did one
http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/

Since when are 'Open Europe' a credible and independent economic organisation?!?

And even then there 'middle case' scenario also predicts we will be worse off if we leave compared to staying. Indeed their most recent report summarises the likely scenario as follows:

'The growing economic evidence suggests that there would be a small negative economic result from Brexit, probably in the region of 0.5% – 1.5% of GDP in the long run, presuming a reasonable trade agreement is struck between the UK and the EU.'

Hmm so even the report from a non credible and non independent non economic organisation that you have cherry picked agrees with me, that GDP will be lower in the long run if we leave compared to staying.

[Shaker]

It's beginning to look suspiciously as though the only credible sources are the ones who say what you agree with, while a source that says otherwise becomes non-credible by definition.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's beginning to look suspiciously as though the only credible sources are the ones who say what you agree with, while a source that says otherwise becomes non-credible by definition.

Open Europe is a think tank with a particular remit (promoting right wing uber deregulation free market capitalism) - it isn't an economic organisation, independent or otherwise, credible or otherwise. Think tanks are ten a penny - I'm not talking about the views of think tanks, but of credible independent economic organisations.

You know like the IMF, the World Bank, the Bank of England, the OECD, the IFS, the G7, the Treasury etc etc.

But even though Open Europe isn't an economic organisation but a think tank it still accepts that the economic effects of Brexit are likely to be negative.

[Shaker]

You seem still to be using 'credible' much as a drunkard uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination.

[ProfessorDavey]

Also IOD said a similar thing.

Really?!? News to me. Link please.

Firstly I'm wast aware that the IOD were an economic organisation - I thought they were a body that represented Directors of companies in the UK. Secondly I'm not aware that they have conducted their own research into the economic effects of Brexit - which isn't surprising given their remit. I do know that they have conducted surveys of their members and their views on Brexit, which have overwhelmingly shown their members to be concerned about the effects of Brexit on their own companies and in favour of remaining.

[L.A.]

Yes, I like Corbyn, whereas most Labour people seem like zombies to me.   

Anyway, we are panicking about polls showing a Leave majority.   Say it ain't so.

I'm sure that as an eccentric university professor he would be a great character to have a pint with in the student bar - but as the leader of a major political party he just a disaster. He speaks to no one but a narrow clique of activists, even long-standing Labour voters despair. As leader, he should be presenting a powerful case for Remain, and he can't even be bothered to do that convincingly.

Corbyn has been a disaster for Labour and he threatens to be a disaster for the Country if he can't present some positive arguments for Remain.

[Nearly Sane]

Are these positive arguments like World War 3 as Dave did? Personally I find much of the argument for either side ridiculously negative and unnuanced.

[L.A.]

I think the standard of debate has been pretty poor from both side so far, but Corbyn's great line "that the Conservative Party was a bigger threat to the country than the European Union was" ought to take some kind of prize.

You get the impression that he really just doesn't give a damn - which is maybe just what the Scots want? Brexit might be a good excuse for a second independence referendum?

[Nearly Sane]

It's an opinion, you seem to think he shouldn't express it because it might lose votes. I think it might gain votes from people who would like some honesty.


As for another referendum on independence, from a personal viewpoint, just please no. With the last one, the GE, the Scottish (and other) elections, and now this, i'm fed up and I'm a political geek. Time for campaigning to stop and a bit of governing to happen

[SusanDoris]

The 5:30 in/out item on Radio 4's PM programme has just finished. David Milliband and Nick Clegg had a few seconds on the in side, but the rest of the time appeared to be for the out side. This is extremely annoying.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's an opinion, you seem to think he shouldn't express it because it might lose votes. I think it might gain votes from people who would like some honesty.


As for another referendum on independence, from a personal viewpoint, just please no. With the last one, the GE, the Scottish (and other) elections, and now this, i'm fed up and I'm a political geek. Time for campaigning to stop and a bit of governing to happen

I must admit it is all very strange - we seem to have a range of people leading campaigns who I'm not convinced actually believe the line they are selling.

So I'm not convinced that David Cameron would be campaigning to remain if he were a back bencher rather than the PM.

I'm not convinced that Boris would be campaigning for Brexit except for the fact that he sees this as his best route to number 10, likewise Michael Gove.

For all three of them they seem to have gone from hedging their bets to nailed on to one side or the other in months - it simply doesn't seem credible.

And I'm not convinced that Jeremy Corbyn really believes in staying and he might just think that Brexit vote and the inevitable Cameron departure just might get him to number 10.

Then we have Sturgeon, who I genuinely believe is in favour of staying, but might see Brexit as the best way to achieve her greater ambition of independence.

It seems that the actual issue is being treated as a political football for other purposes and political ambition. Perhaps we need to hear more from respected figures with no axe to grind or overt political ambition. Some respected political elder statesmen (and women) perhaps.

[L.A.]

It's an opinion, you seem to think he shouldn't express it because it might lose votes. I think it might gain votes from people who would like some honesty.


As for another referendum on independence, from a personal viewpoint, just please no. With the last one, the GE, the Scottish (and other) elections, and now this, i'm fed up and I'm a political geek. Time for campaigning to stop and a bit of governing to happen

The general idea was that the referendum was to transcend party politics - and the silly sod comes up with a statement effectively saying the the EU wasn't as bad as the Tory party! - Was that supposed to convince undecided voters to opt for Remain? - or was he just demonstrating to his leftie clique what a radical he is.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't really see how Nicola fits in that post
 She is for Remain and has argued for making a more positive case. That a Leave vote might trigger another independence referendum doesn't put her in a position that you think the others are in.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't really see how Nicola fits in that post
 She is for Remain and has argued for making a more positive case. That a Leave vote might trigger another independence referendum doesn't put her in a position that you think the others are in.

I think I made it clear that I genuinely believe that Sturgeon is in favour of the EU, but she is also passionately in favour of scottish independence - do you really not that she recognises the massive opportunities for her prime goal of independence in a Brexit vote.

Her dream scenario, surely would be a marginal overall Brexit vote but a very strong scottish vote to remain. Perfect for her to use this as a trigger for a referendum, which could easily be won with a backdrop of the UK government shifting considerably rightwards, with Cameron gone and a new cabinet packed out with Brexiters.

Put it this way, she hardly seems to be as passionate in her defence of the EU than she was in favour of independence for scotland.

[Rhiannon]

And in the meantime the electorate gets manipulated into playing their games.