Lots of people are sceptical about the Treasury's apocalyptic warnings, including the public, economic experts and most of the Remain campaign
‘When you hear those kind forecasts of a recession, half a million job losses in the next two years . . . youth unemployment rising by ten per cent. Just answer yes or no: do you believe those economic forecasts?’
When Victoria Derbyshire asked this question at the first of the BBC’s EU referendum debates last night, the decisive answer was no.
The response was, unsurprisingly, loudest from the Leave side, but spread across into the undecideds, and included a smattering of Remain voices.
This is just one indication among many that George Osborne and David Cameron’s apolcalyptic Brexit warnings are not believed by the public, and may be diminishing trust in the Remain campaign.
Today, the think-tank Civitas has published a report — ‘Economic With The Truth‘ — claiming that the Treasury’s claims are based on a false premise.
The Financial Times has published analysis of the latest Treasury report suggesting that, while it’s reasonable to forecast a severe economic shock post-Brexit, the Treasury’s methodology is suspect.
It seems to be reverse-engineering its analysis to ensure politically advantageous findings (much as Osborne has done with his promise to balance the budget in 2019/20).
‘Put bluntly,’ the authors conclude, ‘the Treasury has made up the numbers but not exaggerated wildly.’
It’s perhaps unsurprising, then, that the Government’s colleagues on the Remain campaign are unwilling to defend the Treasury’s figures.
In last nights debate, Alan Johnson glossed over Osborne’s forecasts, pointing instead to all the other, more measured, economic warnings, from the IMF, the OECD, the Bank of England and the IFS.
Earlier this week, Nicola Sturgeon openly attacked the Treasury, calling their figures ‘overblown’ and accusing the Conservatives of ‘fear based campaign that starts to insult people’s intelligence.’
Sturgeon believes that this sort of campaigning will have a negative effect, and the evidence already, to some degree, bear that out.
A YouGov poll published this week shows that 69 per cent of people don’t trust Cameron’s claims on the EU, and that the number is increasing as the campaign progresses.
Last week, Evening Standard/Ipsos MORI polling found that 55 per cent of people absolutely reject the prime minister’s claims on security, and some of the biggest laughs in last night’s debate came when audience members sceptically invoked his warnings of World War Three.
Of course, the Conservatives have previously been well-served by their unique blend of scaremongering and arbitrary numbers — see the Scottish referendum, the general election and half a decade of austerity — but Downing Street needs to seriously consider the cracks that are starting to appear.
Since a core plank of the Leave campaign is to peddle conspiracy theories about the anti-Brexit elite, and to cast doubt on economic facts, the numbers used by the Remain campaign must be persuasive to the public, and must stand up to scrutiny.
At present, the Conservative campaign is not meeting that standard, is feeding the rhetoric of the Leave side, and may be undermining the Remain campaign as a whole.
Niamh Ní Mhaoileoin is editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow her on Twitter.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
2 Responses to “Are Osborne’s ‘overblown’ Brexit numbers doing more harm than good?”
NHSGP
Neither is Labour.
In particular the claim that migrants pay their way is false. The evidence usually presented is the UCL Cream study.
That assumes that all the common costs are lumped on Brits to pay and Migrants don’t have to contribute a penny. Racist? I think so.
Instead if everyone pays a fair share then the average migrant, EU or otherwise is a cost. Not particularly surprising. Migrants aren’t ubermensch, and the average Brit doesn’t pay their way, there is a deficit.
Even the evidence on wages shows for single people that there is very little difference between migrants and brits. If you look at migrants with children, its dire. Migrants earn far less than the equivalent Brit.
Read the small print is the key.
Foot note to table 4b is the reference in the Cream report
Alex
Immigrants pay far more into the economy than they take from public services. Since when did the right to healthcare come down to whether you’re a migrant or not? That’s blisteringly anti-human.
The only migrants who are paid less than the minimum wage are undocumented, so why aren’t you calling for them to be made documented, so that they a. get a fair wage, b. are treated fairly by their employers (and don’t have deportation dangled over their heads), and c. pay their fair share of taxes.
Why do fiscal conservatives almost always victim blame, and rarely actually address the real issues like how we’ve used neoliberal austerity for too long, and have allowed corporations to avoid paying hundred of billions of pounds in taxes? How about a return to Keynesian economics where wages are raised to increase demand which, in turn, increases the number of jobs. You know, the economics which were the gold standard from WWII to the 80s.