How wrong were the Brexit forecasts?

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: This episode of More or Less scrutinizes headline-grabbing claims with numbers: post-Brexit economic forecasts versus actual short-term outcomes, the misuse of childhood cancer statistics in media reporting, and a playful economics lens on restaurant food sharing. The show argues that forecasts are hard, headlines often distort rates and counts, and careful statistical context matters more than sensational claims.

Main Topics: Brexit economic forecasts and short-term reality (Priority: 5/5): Tim Harford revisits dramatic pre-referendum warnings from the Treasury, IMF and Bank of England and compares them with what actually happened in the months after the vote. Guests debate whether the forecasters were wrong, overly cautious, or simply dealing with an inherently unpredictable shock. Forecasting mistakes and uncertainty in economics (Priority: 4/5): Chris Giles and Andrew Lillico discuss why short-term predictions around Brexit were difficult, arguing that economists often misjudge consumer confidence and that official forecasts should communicate uncertainty more clearly rather than stop forecasting altogether. Ed Balls and the problem of missing data (Priority: 2/5): A listener question asks whether Ed Balls received more votes on Strictly Come Dancing than in his political career. The segment humorously shows how absence of voting data prevents a real comparison and exposes the absurdity of forced numerical estimates. Childhood cancer headlines and statistical distortion (Priority: 5/5): The program examines claims that 'modern life is killing our children,' finding that media reports confused absolute case counts with rates and overstated the rise in cancer risk. It emphasizes that childhood cancer death rates have fallen and that diagnosis improvements help explain higher recorded incidence. Disagreement over causes and prevention of childhood cancer (Priority: 4/5): Mary Kroll and Cancer Research UK challenge the claim that pesticides, pollution, diet, and radiation are proven causes, while Children with Cancer UK argues for drawing attention to possible environmental risks and prevention research. The debate centers on evidence quality and communication ethics. Economics of restaurant food sharing (Priority: 2/5): Megan McArdle uses dining-out behavior to illustrate concepts like autarky, gains from trade, limited communalism, and 'food communism,' showing how exchange and cooperation can maximize utility in small groups.

Key Arguments: Near-term Brexit forecasts were widely inaccurate because economists cannot reliably predict shifts in public confidence and consumer behavior after a political shock. Official forecasters such as the Treasury and Bank of England were plausible given the information available, but their short-term recession warnings did not materialize in the first months after the referendum. Sterling fell sharply after the referendum, but most other indicators—unemployment, inflation, GDP—showed little immediate effect, suggesting no short-term economic crisis. Media reports on childhood cancer confused rising case counts with rising rates, overstating the increase and obscuring the fact that death rates have fallen. The apparent rise in childhood cancer incidence may largely reflect better diagnosis, faster treatment pathways, and improved recording rather than a true jump in underlying risk. There is no convincing evidence that environmental factors cited in headlines have been proven to explain the trend, though some organizations want further research into possible preventable causes. Forecasting should continue, but forecasters must present uncertainty honestly and avoid implying false precision. In restaurant settings, cooperation and sharing can increase total satisfaction because food has diminishing marginal utility and people value variety.

Data Points: Sterling fall since referendum: about 15% lower year-on-year - Described as one of the clearest immediate economic effects after the Brexit vote Expected GDP decline forecast by Osborne: 3% to 6% smaller within two years - Pre-referendum warning from the former Chancellor Forecasted recession duration: one year / several quarters - Osborne and Treasury-style predictions of an immediate downturn Childhood cancer death rate change: down by a quarter since 1998 - Cancer Research UK data cited to counter the 'modern life is killing our children' headline Cancer rate in children under 15: up 8% - Cancer Research UK figures referenced in the discussion Cancer rate ages 15-24: up 18% - Cancer Research UK figures referenced in the discussion Headline claim about young people: up 40% in 16 years - Shown to refer to absolute number of cases, not rate Age group in headline statistics: 24 or younger - The article used a broader age range than 'children' Childhood cancer share of all cancers: 1% - Characterization of how rare childhood cancer is Ed Balls peak vote total: 19,161 votes - Normanton, 2005 general election Ed Balls vote share: 51.2% - Used in the back-of-envelope comparison to Strictly votes Turnout in Ed Balls example: 57.5% - Used as the assumption for the humorous estimate Strictly audience size for Ed Balls performance: 11.3 million viewers - Used to generate a deliberately absurd vote estimate Humorous estimated Strictly votes for Ed Balls: 3,326,719 - Derived from the show’s mock calculation Road accident deaths: about 1,700 per year - Used by Professor Henshaw as an analogy for prevention and public attention

Pivotal Quotes: "The 17 million people who voted to leave the European Union in this country know a darn sight more about economics than the members of the IMF, the OECD, the IFS, and all these other... experts" — Michael Gove: Opening Brexit forecast dispute and critique of expert economic predictions "Modern life is killing our children." — Daily Telegraph headline cited by Tim Harford: Headline under examination in the childhood cancer segment "The purpose of this press release was to encourage people to come to the conference" — Professor Dennis Henshaw: Explaining why the charity emphasized the largest alarming figure in its publicity

Implications: Listeners should treat headlines and forecasts skeptically, especially when rates are confused with counts or uncertainty is hidden. Careful context can sharply change what the numbers actually mean.