What alternative would you propose?
Except⌠They were not. They were mischaracterisations of the analysis, which ironically supports your original point about lying. The Treasury didnât lie. Osborne twisted the facts.
Again, it wasnât the Treasury analysis. If you re-read the paragraph you are quoting, that is nether the analysis by critics, nor by the OBR which is mentioned just preceding that.
This is quite clearly the reporter taking the house prices decline, and comparing it with what the OBR predicted for house prices. Not the analysisâ claim in and of itself.
Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80772140f0b62305b8b510/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf (page 22)
Those damned biased surveyors!
In any case, re-reading the analysis, Iâm not sure I can find any concrete details on their assumptions. They seem to have modelled two specific scenarios: a shock, and a severe shock, for which the assumptions at least seem to include uncertainty causing disinvestment, which may have been alleviated by precisely that political paralysis until 2019. They donât state how those scenarios then translated into their house price modelling, but I suspect they may not have accounted for the complexity of the interactions between the variables, such as the exchange rate decrease making UK property more attractive to foreign investors.
My personal hindsight-informed working hypothesis is that the exchange rate decreases led to an influx of overseas investors, but there doesnât seem to be any statistics with regards to this. Alternative explanations for why the prices may not have declined as much as expected may include the search for yield in a low-interest rate environment, with investors preferring property to bonds, as an example. The uncertainty that resulted from the vote may not have been as large as the analysis anticipated either, given all the squabbling that took place before Brexit was even defined.
If you look at the trend line as opposed to what is obviously an anomalyâŚ
âIâm neutralâ â goes on to mischaracterise the global financial crisis that was caused by the US banking system. Technically, if you want to talk about the banking crisis overseen by whom, youâd be looking at Clinton/Bush for presiding over financial deregulation in the US.
Are you going to tell me when you buy a home you think about what itâs value is going to be like in a few months, as opposed to having relief at finding a place to move to, without the additional stress of having to continue searching, worrying what the market will be like in a few months time, whether it goes up or down?
Just look at how many people were caught out by the mortgage rate increases, even though the low interest rates were a historical anomaly.
1 Like
I refer you to what I quoted. âYou still canât accept it can you?â
Here we go with âboth sidesâ again. If you look, there will always be liars on âboth sidesâ. Except, the magnitude to which one side deploys it was and is much larger than âthe other sideâ.
A lie is a lie, regardless of political alignment. Iâm not sure I would characterise Osborneâs speech as definitively a lie, but to me, it does cross the line.
Here are samples of some outright lies:
An attitude change does nothing. You canât pull yourself up by your bootstraps, because it is fundamentally physically impossible. In line with that,
And the facts are, the issues faced while being part of the EU are far dwarfed by the issues being faced by not being part of the EU. The result, no matter how you try to deny it, including by pointing towards how EU countries are suffering too, is that the UK has done worse by leaving the EU, while facing similar issues in addition because those issues are global. Germany and other EU countries have their own individual idiosyncratic issues, but it doesnât mean that their EU membership is the cause of it.
Thatâs the problem with the stereotypical Brexiteer mindset right here. Shooting oneself in the foot cheerily while saying âanything can be achieved with a positive attitudeâ. That may be true in isolation, but you sure as hell donât handicap yourself deliberately.
2 Likes
Thatâs literally my point
With respect, even the language used here is what Iâm trying, clumsily, to highlight. The US/UK invasions were âerrorsâ/âmistakesâ, whereas Russiaâs motivation is subjugation, territory, influence. The US invasions/regime change in Iraq, Afghan, Vietnam, Venezuela, Haiti, Libya etc had the same motivations of power and control
1 Like
Youâre still wrong.
Youâre are not defining what you mean by a lie. You seem to be defining a lie as anything a politician says that they subsequently donât/wonât/canât deliver. Thatâs obviously absurd.
Not being able to do something because you got in power and found the situation much more dire than everyone had been led to believe is not lying. Itâs annoying and unfortunate, you can even argue a bit incompetent - but you canât argue there was conscious intent to mislead or deceive. You canât argue it was motivated by personal gain or corrupt
Boris Johnson was a liar. A man so versed and routine in his lying, that it was just his nature. He lied to his partners, he lied to his colleagues, and he lied to the public. He lied as a journalist, as an editor and as a politician. He even lied about stuff he didnât need to lie about. He took lying to the level of psychosis. That set a standard in Parliament and his colleagues followed it.
There is simply no comparison here. Iâm not saying that Labour are not going to end up lying - Blair did, spectacularly - but for now, the idea they are all the same is patently nonsense, as is the suggestion we are blind to the lies told by our âown sideâ. Point me to something Labour have done in the first six months as egregiously untruthful as the Tories covid response, or the Rwanda scheme, or austerity, or Brexit and then we can talk.
3 Likes
Fair points.
But a bit like saying my turd doesnât smell as bad as yours, so is therefore not offensive.
They both have an offensive smell, just one is worse than the other.
Page 4 of how to win friends and influence people. Blokeâs a political buffoon.
I assume sometime after he said it otherwise heâd be locked up by now. With murderers kicked out of prison to make room for him.
5 Likes
Iâve been saying this to people at work all day.
Deadset genius.
Have you actually read my posts? I have actually defended Labour on the recent budget and if my memory serves me correct in a recent debate with you.
Iâm not defining anything, Infact my whole debate which highlights the hypocrisy in your statement is that the Leave side of the arguement couldnât deliver what they said because they werenât in power and yet you stand firm that everything they said is a lie.
So how about you define what a lie is? And be consistent with it.
I agree about Boris, Iâm not disputing this.
We all know that we are going to be lied to, whether intentionally, which is definitely a lie or unintentionally because of circumstances. Either way, the other parties will call them out as liars, and this will be mirrored by their supporters/voters.
Please state where I have said that the lies are the same level. Iv never argued that point, all Iv argued is that in my opinion lies are viewed differently depending on Party alignment and as of yet, you have done nothing to convince me otherwise.
In one of your recent posts, you implied that people who voted leave did so on the back of a quick search on Google. Where as you were more informed because you read up on it, etc.
Is this not the sameâŚyou consider Remainers to be educated and informed, but Leavers based their decision on reading a misleading report on the internet.
Both sides provided misinformation, both sets of voters were voting for something without knowing the potential fallout from it. In a sense it would have been easier for people to vote remain because it didnât involve change.
How can you ask me to provide something Labour have done in 6 months which is a complete lie compared to 14 years. Austerity is not solely a Tory or UK issue, the world as a whole has gone through some testing times since 2016, Brexit (mainly Europe), Covid, the invasion of Ukraine, US voting in Trump twice and recently the Middle East conflict.
Can I ask you a genuine question? Would you be happy if the Country was successful/thriving under a non Labour government?
I can hand on heart say that I wouldnât care which party was in Government as long as they were improving the lives of the people.
So, are you happy to agree that Osbourne, a remainer and the Chancellor lied? Or do you want to dismiss it as twisting the facts?
The report from the Treasury said âHouse Pricesâ would be 10% to 18% lower on a vote leave, relative to voting Remain. Osbourne has quoted this in his speech, yes or no?
I am quite happy for you to interpret this statement as Disinflation for the sake of your argument, so taking this into consideration were House prices reflective of this?
Them damned biased surveyors, how dare there be only a 5% increase in confidence of house prices increasing. Note it is a 5% increase on current expectations and is only a 3 month time frame.
An anomaly, quite a baseless defence. Spin it how you want, there has not been a negative since 2012. Nothing, quite as dramatic as what was suggested.
Where have I mischaracterised anything, I am stating a fact based on the Graph that you are using to support your argument. I didnât blame Labour for the banking recession did I?
Technically, it was an over aggressive funding by banks globally, I donât think you can blame any Government directly for the cause, but you can question the handling of said crisis - Nb I am speaking generally.
No I am not, but I may look at the price over a 2 year period, but if the Chancellor is going to twist facts and state that house prices are going to crash in 2 years time by 10-18% common trend is to buy a more expensive house, so a 10-18% drop is going to be greater the higher the value of the property.
Could the Mortgage rates increase be linked to people being poorer?
But in the same sentence you are happy to suggest UKâs downfall is a result of not being a EU Member.
Depends on whether you consider omission of a relevant portion lying. If you do, then Iâm happy to acquiesce to your definition.
Honestly, no idea? Because we donât have that counterfactual. If we had other information that could reliably predict house price trends, e.g. something that measures an underlying driver of house prices, then yes we could probably make a conclusion one way or another. The evidence seems to suggest though that the trend in house price growth did materially change post-referendum.
Once again, youâre missing the point. It wasnât predicted to go negative. You keep harping on house prices going negative, but they werenât predicted to go negative.
To be precise, the report examined a shock situation and a severe shock situation, and found that house prices would be 10-18% lower than where they would have been without a Brexit. It didnât claim a decrease. The decrease was just the projection from whatever other information was available at the time.
I think generally speaking, it has been largely attributed to the deregulation of the financial industry in the USA, permitting subprime mortgages to be marketed otherwise, while becoming a large enough issue for the balance sheets of many banks. And when this issue erupted, the contagion effects were enough to torpedo the rest of the world.
You might not have blamed them overtly, but I donât think you have a leg to stand on given the portion I quoted.
Yes but on the other hand you have a nice house that you were willing to pay the previous price to live in. Thatâs my point. People would value that, and the houses that they were buying, more than a supposed price drop in the future.
Look at how obsessed people are with âgetting on the property ladderâ â I think thereâs a blind faith in the UK that property prices will keep rising and are a good investment, regardless of whatever anything else says.
Youâre missing my point here. I referred to the mortgage rates increase solely to point out that people are not good at predicting the future nor accounting for changes in situations. People made affordability calculations and plans for the future based solely on what was in front of them at the time. Similarly, no one would think about a potential price decrease in general if it means they miss out on the house that they do have.
I could tell you all about the trade frictions, increased bureaucracy costs, export barriers, and things that actually lead to impacts on GDP.
You could Google economic analyses on whether there was a material negative impact of Brexit on GDP. But you wonât, because you keep claiming youâre neutral, but you just donât want to see your own bias. Instead, youâll keep looking at headline figures, and ignore all the different inputs tha tlead to that.
I will respond to your two previous posts later.
You could tell me all about the Trade frictions, increased bureaucracy costs, etc and I would listen and respond in kind.
I have never said that Brexit has been perfect or a success, I am also not going to claim that everything will be rosy in however many years. Unfortunately, I misplaced my crystal ball 
.
Again, you are making a false statement and using it in a way to undermine my point of view. I donât keep claiming to be neutral but do try and take a neutral view.
Although I am happy to reflect on the points you have raised, I do find it a bit hypocritical, when you say that I donât see my own bias, look at headline figures and ignore all the different inputs that lead to thatâŚ.
3 Likes
I donât really agree with your caveat but would be happy to agree to disagree.
[quote=âredalways, post:705, topic:4542â]
Honestly, no idea? Because we donât have that counterfactual. If we had other information that could reliably predict house price trends, e.g. something that measures an underlying driver of house prices, then yes we could probably make a conclusion one way or another. The evidence seems to suggest though that the trend in house price growth did materially change post-referendum.
[quote=âLynch04, post:703, topic:4542â]
Well according to the Treasury the OBR give a predicted rise of 9.4% over 2years, which is then seen as 0.6-8.6% less in cash terms than they are now. Now, I would read that as the average price of a house would by at least 0.6% less than it is currently. Alternatively, it may be interpreted as an 8.8% or 0.8% price increase. Hopefully someone more educated in economics will clear this up.
Yes the report examined a shock and severe shock situation, I must have missed the optimistic report.
It depends how you want to interpret the Treasuries report. As you suggest, I may be missing the point but If the OBR are predicting a 9.4% increase over 2 years, a 10-18% decrease would mean a negative. Or, as highlighted in the criticism it said -0.6 - 8.6 over the two years both are would be be a negative.
House prices never dropped over two years and as the graph shows it never went into a negative.
See previous response above, and again I stated a fact based on the trend line of your graph. But you are right, I do not have a leg to stand on given the portion you quoted.
See, I can reflect on my biased opinion and accept the facts I have been providedâŚâŚ
Yeah, but house prices are dropping over the next two years, Iâm going to become unemployed, interest rates are going up which is going to put me in negative equity. Sounds like 2007-2009 all over again.
No shit Sherlock (joke) So letâs just put that Treasury report in the bin.
You are getting hung up on a turn of phrase. The main point is that the leave vote was carried (and won) on a lot of ignorant voters. Vast swathes of people literally did not know what they were voting for. This is true.
The number one search on Google in the UK the morning after the vote was âwhat is the EUâ. The next few were variants of this.
You could say the same about remain voters too, but remain wasnât a vote for sweeping, generational change. There was far more onus on the leave voter to actually know what they were doing. They voted without really having a clue what they were voting for.
Iâd put myself in that category. I donât understand all the complexities and nuances of international trade. I wasnât qualified enough to make my own informed judgement on Brexit. I was only informed to the extent I knew how uninformed I was.
There were lots of reasons why people voted to leave the EU, but very few of them proactively voted to sever trading and regulatory links with our closest trading partner - which is what Brexit actually was. Lots of people voted leave because they donât like foreigners and immigrants (again note the upsurge in racially aggravated incidents following Brexit). Lots of people had swallowed decades of lies and misinformation about the EU. Lots of people have had their lives ruined by politicians over the last 40 years and wanted to stick it to what the perceived as the âeliteâ.
And none of this should be read that Iâm putting the boot into leave voters. You blame the conman not the conned. I donât hate people that voted leave. I reserve that for the cunts that convinced them it would all be fine.
1 Like
Cancel culture at its finest, but Iâm sure the right-wing press will be all over this.
3 Likes