Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Government spends almost £10MILLION of taxpayers’ money delivering its pro-EU 'propag

"Every household in the country will receive a taxpayer-funded leaflet on the referendum setting out the Government's pro-EU message from next week.Almost £10million is being spent producing, printing, delivering and promoting the leaflet which will set out why the Government believes Britain is better off in the EU."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3526776/Government-spend-10MILLION-taxpayers-money-delivering-pro-EU-propaganda-leaflet-home-country.html#ixzz454ZXIEU6

I think this is disgraceful. Since when is it a function of the government to tell people what to think and how to vote in a referendum? Imagine if, for example, the Tories spent taxpayer money on a leaflet like this to every household before the next general election to tell them how to vote.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 1

22.22

Information provision (assuming the information is accurate)? I agree with your sentiment however

Reply 2

plstudent

Original post by 22.22

Information provision (assuming the information is accurate)? I agree with your sentiment however

You can make literally any case with "provision of accurate information". There are very few things that couldn't be argued for by selecting statistics and facts.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/06/17/32E84DC400000578-0-image-a-86_1459961635192.jpg

^^ I didn't realize the government had a single opinion on the issue. Several ministers disagree, in fact.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 3

22.22

Original post by plstudent

I think with something as important as the upcoming referendum, the information provision argument is justified. Your second point is weak- if you take that line of argument then all statistics and facts are meaningless; the point is (in the referendum) one side may have valid statistics that may or may not be counterbalanced with opposing statistics.

In general I think it can be justified the government spending this much money on information provision as there are so many uniformed voters. As long as the information is correct, voters become more informed about an important referendum; money well spent, arguably. My main contention is whether sending a leaflet to each household is the most efficient way of doing it. It does seem strange spending this much and considering what else it could be spent on however... I guess you could say that about anything though

Reply 4

plstudent

Original post by 22.22

I think with something as important as the upcoming referendum, the information provision argument is justified.

To the contrary, in a matter as sensitive as a referendum, it is more important that the government don't try to persuade people to vote in either way.

Original post by 22.22

Your second point is weak- if you take that line of argument then all statistics and facts are meaningless; the point is (in the referendum) one side may have valid statistics that may or may not be counterbalanced with opposing statistics.

In general I think it can be justified the government spending this much money on information provision as there are so many uniformed voters. As long as the information is correct, voters become more informed about an important referendum; money well spent, arguably. My main contention is whether sending a leaflet to each household is the most efficient way of doing it. It does seem strange spending this much and considering what else it could be spent on however... I guess you could say that about anything though

They are not meaningless but they have to be contrasted with other information. The leaflet does not provide this. It is a partisan argumentation for one side of the referendum. A neutral lumping of information with the sole purpose of education would be very different and it should be composed by both leave and remain sides in conjunction to secure that a complete picture is given. This is pure and simple political propaganda.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 5

22.22

Original post by plstudent

To the contrary, in a matter as sensitive as a referendum, it is more important that the government don't try to persuade people to vote in either way.

They are not meaningless but they have to be contrasted with other information. The leaflet does not provide this. It is a partisan argumentation for one side of the referendum. A neutral lumping of information with the sole purpose of education would be very different and it should be composed by both leave and remain sides in conjunction to secure that a complete picture is given. This is pure and simply political propaganda.

Again, I agree with the sentiment, and in a well-educated society I would agree in practise. But as so many people are politically-apathetic, and as main stream news sources often use no facts, the provision of facts on the part of government is justified.

I've actually had a look now at the leaflet (there's another thread on this topic) and I agree with you now. I initially assumed it would be more factual and less propaganda-based (stupid of me I know). From what I've seen, it's misrepresentative. Ideally, the government would have sent a leaflet with one half their own case, and the other half written by the out case- but the government has its own agenda so that's unrealistic. In short I agree with information provision but only when its informed- I didn't know the leaflet had been released which was why I was initially defending it (and I enjoy being contrarian) but yes its certainly not an efficient means of information provision, and as you say it's political propaganda and arguably undemocratic.