Turn on thread page Beta

The UKIP manifesto is the only one to be fully costed & verified by the CEBR watch

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-...re-affordable/

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32312687

    The only party which numbers add up unlike the lying conman of Labour and Conservatives.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dumachi)
    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-...re-affordable/

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32312687

    The only party which numbers add up unlike the lying conman of Labour and Conservatives.

    I've read the repor
    t. There are a few oddities about it.

    C
    EBR were only asked to examine the budgetary impacts for the policies that UKIP gave them. They were not asked to examine the budgetary impacts of UKIPs entire manifesto:

    Cebr was commissioned by UKIP to assess the budgetary impacts of the policies specified in Table 1.

    While actual impacts may differ from this in practice, reflecting variations in economic performance among other things, we have no reason to believe that the impacts specified in Table 1 are significant under- or overestimates. The structure of the report is as follows:

    In Section 3 we provide an assessment of the individual policy costings
    that have been provided to Cebr by UKIP.

    Therefore it is entirely possible for UKIP to only have presented specific budget changing policies that they knew would balance and to have ignored the ones that won't. Having read their manifesto I can see that many policies have been ignored (eg, providing homes and opportunities to the homeless).

    As for savings, why have they included HS2? Work on HS2 has not yet begun, so they cannot factor long-term spending plans into current savings.

    CEBR have claimed that current defence spending is at 1.9% of GDP. However, according to official documentation current spending in defence is at around 1.5-1.6%. Therefore UKIP will need a additional funds of £12bn, not £1.4bn that CEBR have estimated.

    CEBR have considered the gross savings that could be made by scrapping the Barnett Formula but not the net savings as the costs associated with UKIPs planned ''system based on need'' have not been included.

    The section on fake charities is pretty useless as no exactly figures are presented and CEBR have made wild guesses:

    However, estimates propose that in total, at least £3.1 billion of large charities’ funds comes from public money, representing 24% of incoming resources. Realistically, the true figure could be as high as £6.5bn.

    ...UKIP currently forecast savings of £0.25bn in 2015-16, rising thereafter to £0.50bn in later years. Whilst the unreliability of recent data for charity funding makes it difficult to fully assess forecasts of savings, based on the latest range of estimates for large charities’ funding with public money (£3.1bn-£6.5bn), UKIP’s forecast savings appear broadly reasonable, representing a 5% - 10% clampdown on fake charities.
    If they want to claim that 5-10% of charities given funding by the government are fake charities then they should back that claim up with evidence. ''It's reasonable'' isn't evidence, nor is ''realistically, it could be...''. They have literally taken UKIPs estimate for granted.

    Speaking of the use of figures, why haven't they provided references/sources for the ones they use?

    Finally this report seems pretty biased. On multiple occassions CEBR have spent time trying to justify UKIP policy rather than assessing it's financial implication. EG: noting that other countries aim to spend 0.2% of GNI on foreign aid and not 0.7% like the current government, or how Japan, Australia and New Zealand require medical insurance. These comments are completely irrelevant and beg the question as to whether CEBR are truely acting as independents.

    That's my take on this at least.

    Sources:
    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1429295050
    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1429295669
    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...Accessible.pdf
    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...Accessible.pdf
    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...PPGDP&grp=0&a=
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    At least they've made some attempt to verify their numbers, unlike the Tories who pulled £8 billion of NHS funding out of a hat and haven't given even a vague indication of how it will be funded.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    At least they've made some attempt to verify their numbers, unlike the Tories who pulled £8 billion of NHS funding out of a hat and haven't given even a vague indication of how it will be funded.
    So what if they've tried? UKIP have not verified their numbers so they are in no better position than the Conservatives. The report by CEBR is useless and not only for the reasons I've described:

    http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...anifesto/20719
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    So what if they've tried? UKIP have not verified their numbers so they are in no better position than the Conservatives. The report by CEBR is useless and not only for the reasons I've described:

    http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...anifesto/20719
    In other words you disagree with it because its UKIP, lol
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Babada Boopy)
    In other words you disagree with it because its UKIP, lol
    No thats not the reason. I've listed the things wrong with the report in my first post on this thread. Please refer back to that.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    So what if they've tried? UKIP have not verified their numbers so they are in no better position than the Conservatives. The report by CEBR is useless and not only for the reasons I've described:

    http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...anifesto/20719

    At least some of it is costed. The Tories have made a massive £8 billion promise on a whim with no indication of how it will be paid for, alongside a deranged neo-Maoist right-to-buy policy which involves forcibly seizing property from private housing associations.

    The CEBR wouldn't even bother assessing those two policies if the Tories asked them to. They're knee-jerk insanity.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    At least some of it is costed. The Tories have made a massive £8 billion promise on a whim with no indication of how it will be paid for, alongside a deranged neo-Maoist right-to-buy policy which involves forcibly seizing property from private housing associations.

    The CEBR wouldn't even bother assessing those two policies if the Tories asked them to. They're knee-jerk insanity.
    2 wrongs to make a right.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I find it very telling that CEBR hasn't been used by other parties except UKIP
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The CEBR are not a respected think tank and I was unable to find any information on them or their political leanings, so it's meaningless to me I'm afraid.

    Labour have been demanding for some time that they should be allowed to have their policies vetted by the OBR, an official state organ set up by George Osborne. Each time Osborne has refused to allow it to be used because a key theme of the Tory campaign is that Labour are incompetent profligates. That's how you get credibility with these things: ensure the body is well known, respected, and either neutral or if anything biased against yourself.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    The CEBR are not a respected think tank and I was unable to find any information on them or their political leanings, so it's meaningless to me I'm afraid.

    You clearly haven't bothered to look them up at all, have you?

    Type "cebr" into Google, the first page of results gives you plenty of information about them as well as a Guardian article (not exactly a supporter of UKIP!) in which they are cited as a credible source.

    Seriously, stop making stuff up to suit your personal agenda. If you want to discredit UKIP then provide some robust evidence rather than pretending you've researched their chosen think tank when you haven't and making fabricated claims. It's embarrassing.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    2 wrongs to make a right.

    No, yet another poster wilfully missing the point of what I'm saying.

    Getting a think tank to test some of your policies but not all is in no way equivalent to promising £8 billion without giving any indication as to where it will come from and trying to resurrect authoritarian communist policies.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iwouldliketoknow)
    I find it very telling that CEBR hasn't been used by other parties except UKIP

    Labour: No think tank verification.
    Tories: As above
    LD: As above
    Green: As above
    SNP: As above
    UKIP: CEBR

    I think it's very telling. It tells us that one party is making the effort to get their policies independently verified while the others make any old rubbish up and expect us to believe it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    You clearly haven't bothered to look them up at all, have you?

    Type "cebr" into Google, the first page of results gives you plenty of information about them as well as a Guardian article (not exactly a supporter of UKIP!) in which they are cited as a credible source.

    Seriously, stop making stuff up to suit your personal agenda. If you want to discredit UKIP then provide some robust evidence rather than pretending you've researched their chosen think tank when you haven't and making fabricated claims. It's embarrassing.
    Yeah I have, newspapers use think tanks all the time Guardian or whoever, I don’t trust ANY think tank unless I can see something that gives me an idea who's behind them and what their political leanings are. Usually I look for a wiki article but they don't seem to have one?

    I don’t want to "discredit" UKIP, if anything I want right wingers to vote for them instead of the Tories, whom I hate.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Yeah I have, newspapers use think tanks all the time Guardian or whoever, I don’t trust ANY think tank unless I can see something that gives me an idea who's behind them and what their political leanings are. Usually I look for a wiki article but they don't seem to have one?



    I don’t want to "discredit" UKIP, if anything I want right wingers to vote for them instead of the Tories, whom I hate.

    CEBR are right wing, as you might have guessed.

    I don't really think having a Wiki article is relevant, what matters when determining credibility is that said think tank is frequently cited by the broadsheet media.

    CEBR are hence they get a tick in my book. That's not to say I will take everything they say as gospel, but I can trust them to be robust and credible in their methodology and findings.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    CEBR are right wing, as you might have guessed.

    I don't really think having a Wiki article is relevant, what matters when determining credibility is that said think tank is frequently cited by the broadsheet media.

    CEBR are hence they get a tick in my book. That's not to say I will take everything they say as gospel, but I can trust them to be robust and credible in their methodology and findings.
    I assumed so as usually when they have business in the name they are right wing. Not sure how this lends much credibility to the UKIP manifesto, you want a left-wing think tank to sign it off if anything.

    Why does being cited in the press mean anything? You really think journalists go through the data with a fine tooth comb? No way, they just grab the study and go and take it as a free headline. In any case I have never seen them cited in the press before, unlike say the IFS or CPS, and frankly if they don't even have a Wiki article where it's clearly set out their position and who is behind them etc, it is going to take a credibility hit.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniMastermindBOSS)
    High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc392234-c...#ixzz3YJU1jVLV







    lol..

    Because no prominent businessman or politician has taken Class A drugs, ever.

    Their leader smoked crack and was forced to resign, so what? Are the Lib Dems not a credible party because Charles Kennedy was pissed out of his mind while he was leader?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    At least some of it is costed.
    Once again why does this matter? If you look at all of UKIPs spending policies then they too will not have any indication as to how they'll be funded, so how are they in a different situation to the Conservatives?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    Labour: No think tank verification.
    Tories: As above
    LD: As above
    Green: As above
    SNP: As above
    UKIP: CEBR

    I think it's very telling. It tells us that one party is making the effort to get their policies independently verified while the others make any old rubbish up and expect us to believe it.
    The IFS have commented extensively on the main parties' manifestos, concluding they weren't specific enough. Real political parties who are actually the movers and shakers don't have to beg for think tanks to comment on them, the think tanks do it themselves.

    Plus that way there's no corruption. UKIP pays a think tank who could themselves do with the publicity a lot of money from its big business backers to go through its manifesto and lo and behold the think tank comes back saying it's all fine.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I assumed so as usually when they have business in the name they are right wing. Not sure how this lends much credibility to the UKIP manifesto, you want a left-wing think tank to sign it off if anything.



    Why does being cited in the press mean anything? You really think journalists go through the data with a fine tooth comb? No way, they just grab the study and go and take it as a free headline. In any case I have never seen them cited in the press before, unlike say the IFS or CPS, and frankly if they don't even have a Wiki article where it's clearly set out their position and who is behind them etc, it is going to take a credibility hit.

    They are not the most prominent think tank but that does not mean they are not credible. With no governing body or regulator for think tanks you have to rely on broadsheet media citations.

    Regardless, a manifesto part verified by a credible think tank is still more valid than one that hasn't had any verification at all.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 25, 2015

2,098

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.