Err, Snippa?

The so-called Yellowhammer report is wrong. I can say that with absolute confidence. Every forecast is, and I’ve delivered a lot in my time, always with that caveat attached to them. But in my opinion that does not mean it is not important. That’s precisely its significance.

All it really says with certainty is four things. The first is that we do not know what will happen if we hard-Brexit.

Err, that’s what the report is telling us. What will happen.

17 comments on “Err, Snippa?

  1. “The so-called Yellowhammer report is wrong”

    “so-called” is used when the term is not thought appropriate or inaccurate, as in Murphy, the so-called tax and economics expert.

    However, this report IS called the Yellowhammer report.

  2. I haven’t seen it but I can fairly safely say that everything remainers state it says ‘will’ happen’ is actually written as ‘could’

  3. @ Andrew C “So-called” because it is not about a colour or a useful tool (as distinct from a useless one) or a type of bird.

    It is also worthy of scorn because a great man and inventer of Elynomics, the solipsismal science, deprecates it.

  4. Shades of Hyacinth Bucket

    The so-called Yellowhammer report is wrong. I can say that with absolute confidence.

    I can further say that I am unanimous in this

  5. “The so-called Yellowhammer report is wrong”

    That\s a stunningly perceptive statement.
    It’s an attempt to predict a possible future & the failure rates on those are virtually 100%. Why economics
    is an interesting historical subject & not a f*****g oracle.
    As it’s tried to deal with a complex mess of interlocking factors, it’s chances of being in any way accurate are considerably less than the third card dealt out of the deck being the joker..

  6. Steve,

    “public and business readiness for a no-deal will remain at a low level and will decrease to lower levels”

    low: undefined
    lower: undefined

    “Business readiness will be compounded by seasonal effects, impacting on factors such as warehouse availability”

    impact: undefined

    Concurrent risks associated with autumn and winter such as severe weather, flooding and seasonal flu could exacerbate a number of impacts and stretch resources…”

    could: risk level undefined
    exacerbate: impact level undefined
    number: value undefined

    “On D1ND, between 50-85% of HGVs… may not”

    50-85%? What are we paying some analyst for?
    “may not”: What’s the probability?

    Anyone who’s worked in a large bureaucracy can smell the arse covering in this. Not saying it’s not going to have problems, but every bullshit civil servant wants to say “I warned about this”.

  7. Wasn’t Yellowhammer officially supposed to be a worst case scenario that could be used to prioritise mitigation efforts, basically a glorified risk analysis report
    Unofficially I assumed it was meant to be a good way to make project fear look much more official and supported by ‘evidence’ as it would allow the media to misreport and point to official govt sources supporting their lies

  8. Just tried reading the Speccie piece. Gave up. The lad does his best. But big mistake to take this stuff at face value.

    It’s like trying to counter with reason a child’s explanations for being caught scrumping.

  9. Here’s points two, three and four

    ‘The second is that we can be sure that some consequences will be very uncomfortable, at least for a while. The third is that there is no known solution to the Irish border issue, whatever Conservative politicians wish to claim. And the last, and perhaps the most significant, is that whatever happens the uncertainty of Brexit will continue for a considerable time to come: any deal only leads to more negotiation. No deal just makes that next step harder, and potentially more drawn out.’

    Number two is not much more than a platitude, three suggests he is looking for an income from Sinn Fein,Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil

    Four is an argument for what exactly – how does he think remaining in an unreformed EU has no consequences?

    The man redefined the word ‘stupid’ in 2011,- now he’s simply beneath readability even on the grounds of research

  10. And yet on his sustainable cost accounting thread he’s telling people off for claiming that it is
    1. Very complex issue
    2. Likely to cause some economic hardship

    But apparently this is not a good enough reason not to go through with SCA.
    Given his love of tax I’m surprised it’s not Sustainable Cost Accounting for Tax

  11. I’ve helped businesses write nearly as many risk assessments as I’ve had hot dinners*. The process isn’t complex:
    1. Identify a list of plausible threats.
    2. Assign probabilities to them.
    3. Estimate the cost if they happen.
    4. Multiply (2) by (3) to get the impact, which tells you how much it is worth spending to mitigate them.
    5. For threats with sufficient impact (different organisations will have different levels of what constitutes an ‘acceptable’ risk), identify mitigations.
    … and breathe.

    I can see step (1) in Yellowhammer, who’s doing the rest?

    * Oh, the fascinating life I’ve led 🙂

  12. @Chris Miller

    Yes. Only step 1 covered. That’s why Yellowhammer is derided as nothing more than Project Hysteria

    BBC/C4 etc also deliberately omit it is Worst Case Scenario if nothing done and old (2 August)

    Same as the IPCC reports BBC/C4 etc hype: Worst Case Scenario if nothing done

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.