Quote:
Originally Posted by plexiq
Getting a forecast wrong is not the same as making a factually wrong claim. The forecast was making assumptions based on then-government claims that ultimately didn't hold up, e.g. that article 50 would be triggered immediately after the vote. The BoE also did a (fairly unexpected?) rate cut shortly after the referendum, idk if that was already included in the forecast assumptions.
Bottom line: You can make an honest, competent, best-effort forecast and still be significantly wrong. That's just the nature of forecasting something so complex and uncertain. The 350m bus slogan is not an honest argument, ever.
I understand this but I think its a little more subtle than that. This was the Treasuries 'best case' from a set of scenarios which were much worse (implying it is the upper limit), and 'project fear' as well as the swathe of new middle class self-appointed economics experts portrayed this effectively as fact, called people idiots is they disputed it, etc.
There is nuance in the £350m figure too - that is the gross obligation, and given general trends in the EU, we can assume they had a target to get the lot in future, meaning it was on the table as a cost.
I think the treasury and the government and the remain campaign had as much duty to explain that the unemployment forecast was a speculative best guess with little hope of being accurate in their marketing communications (and there's nothing wrong with disputing it), as the leave campaign has of being clear about gross vs net on their bus. Particularly as one is the actual government and the other is just a campaign group with no real power or responsibility.
At the very least, those who are capable of righteous indignation about the bus ought to be capable of understanding this nuance throughout all the arguments of both sides of the campaign. They do not like to have that pointed out though.