BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Sometimes I read books and am none the wiser afterwards. And sometimes one reads a book, and despite having learnt stuff, one realises that one knows even less than one thought one knew, despite knowing more than before. One part of wisdom is understanding how little one understands, I think.Pross said:
If he reads the book who's to say his understanding of the subject will have improved as a result of reading it or whether he'd have acquired that understanding anyway?Stevo_666 said:
Or maybe not. Or maybe you don't want to understand because you really want to be able to say in 10 years time that nasty Brexit was so harmful?briantrumpet said:
Maybe we are getting the point, however many times you claim the contrary. Just a thought.Stevo_666 said:I don't know where you get the point about live in the moment. I think you and others simply don't get the point.
Try reading the book I recommended. It's quite intellectual and theoretical so should be right up your street.
But what do I know?0 -
Including your overeating example.rick_chasey said:Some stunning nonsense being spouted.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
1365 pages and counting...rjsterry said:
Seems people will argue about almost anything now that departure looks inevitable. I didnt think my comment that it might be difficult to know how much difference Brexit makes would kick off nearly 10 pages of argument."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Some craic in NI
Julian Smith SoS bounced the parties into a new deal to get the assembly up again. The deal consists of a lengthy wish list. Parties didn't agree the financial package. Boris turned up yesterday, got his photo taken. Now the news has been given that the financial package won't cover the fraction of the wish list.
Worth noting that it's a year to the day that Chief Whip Julian Smith watched the DUP cheer Theresa May's deal to a record defeat.
I think this is what they call the 'long grass'
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
In this scenario, you are at the 2nd stage of learning.briantrumpet said:
And sometimes one reads a book, and despite having learnt stuff, one realises that one knows even less than one thought one knew, despite knowing more than before. One part of wisdom is understanding how little one understands, I think.Pross said:
If he reads the book who's to say his understanding of the subject will have improved as a result of reading it or whether he'd have acquired that understanding anyway?Stevo_666 said:
Or maybe not. Or maybe you don't want to understand because you really want to be able to say in 10 years time that nasty Brexit was so harmful?briantrumpet said:
Maybe we are getting the point, however many times you claim the contrary. Just a thought.Stevo_666 said:I don't know where you get the point about live in the moment. I think you and others simply don't get the point.
Try reading the book I recommended. It's quite intellectual and theoretical so should be right up your street.
But what do I know?
The stages of learning a skill...
1) Unconsciously unable: You have not tried something so don't realise that you can't do it.
2) Consciously unable: You have now tried something and have discovered your inability.
3) Consciously capable: You now have a skill but have to concentrate to perform that skill.
4) Unconsciously capable. You are now skilled and can perform the task without having to concentrate on the task itself.0 -
NI is a basket case which will take billions to fix
From the Daily Mail article below a stat for England & Wales
"More than 1,000 patients have been waiting more than a year for their treatment - however this figure has slowly been decreasing over the past few months. "
Would anyone like to guess the number of patients in NI waiting longer than a year ?
NI Population say 1.8 million
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7236985/NHS-waiting-list-hits-record-high-4-4m-people-waiting-treatment.html“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TWH, I was not expecting that.
That is insane.
0 -
That's very much the impression that is given, and none of the refugees counter that view either. That's probably not your point though.tailwindhome said:NI is a basket case
0 -
Never wrestle with a pig etcrjsterry said:0 -
In fairness you wouldn't want NI to be judging England by what you've sent this way eitherTheBigBean said:
That's very much the impression that is given, and none of the refugees counter that view either. That's probably not your point though.tailwindhome said:NI is a basket case
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
From the Daily Mail article below a stat for England & Wales
"More than 1,000 patients have been waiting more than a year for their treatment - however this figure has slowly been decreasing over the past few months. "
Would anyone like to guess the number of patients in NI waiting longer than a year ?
NI Population say 1.8 million
>
The equivalent figure for NI is 105,000“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Surely those stats highlight a bigger problem. If correct the more than 1 in 18 people are waiting for more than a year for hospital treatment. Assuming that some get seen within a year then every tenth person requires hospital treatment each year.tailwindhome said:From the Daily Mail article below a stat for England & Wales
"More than 1,000 patients have been waiting more than a year for their treatment - however this figure has slowly been decreasing over the past few months. "
Would anyone like to guess the number of patients in NI waiting longer than a year ?
NI Population say 1.8 million
>
The equivalent figure for NI is 105,000
Does anybody know the stat for GB?
0 -
A quick google gives big numbers, about 300 first outpatient appointments per 1000 population for the year 2018-19 for England .surrey_commuter said:
Surely those stats highlight a bigger problem. If correct the more than 1 in 18 people are waiting for more than a year for hospital treatment. Assuming that some get seen within a year then every tenth person requires hospital treatment each year.tailwindhome said:From the Daily Mail article below a stat for England & Wales
"More than 1,000 patients have been waiting more than a year for their treatment - however this figure has slowly been decreasing over the past few months. "
Would anyone like to guess the number of patients in NI waiting longer than a year ?
NI Population say 1.8 million
>
The equivalent figure for NI is 105,000
Does anybody know the stat for GB?
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7281/CBP-7281.pdf0 -
No wonder there are problems if one in three people are being sent to hospital for treatmentkingstongraham said:
A quick google gives big numbers, about 300 first outpatient appointments per 1000 population for the year 2018-19 for England .surrey_commuter said:
Surely those stats highlight a bigger problem. If correct the more than 1 in 18 people are waiting for more than a year for hospital treatment. Assuming that some get seen within a year then every tenth person requires hospital treatment each year.tailwindhome said:From the Daily Mail article below a stat for England & Wales
"More than 1,000 patients have been waiting more than a year for their treatment - however this figure has slowly been decreasing over the past few months. "
Would anyone like to guess the number of patients in NI waiting longer than a year ?
NI Population say 1.8 million
>
The equivalent figure for NI is 105,000
Does anybody know the stat for GB?
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7281/CBP-7281.pdf
0 -
How many kneecappings are there?surrey_commuter said:
No wonder there are problems if one in three people are being sent to hospital for treatmentkingstongraham said:
A quick google gives big numbers, about 300 first outpatient appointments per 1000 population for the year 2018-19 for England .surrey_commuter said:
Surely those stats highlight a bigger problem. If correct the more than 1 in 18 people are waiting for more than a year for hospital treatment. Assuming that some get seen within a year then every tenth person requires hospital treatment each year.tailwindhome said:From the Daily Mail article below a stat for England & Wales
"More than 1,000 patients have been waiting more than a year for their treatment - however this figure has slowly been decreasing over the past few months. "
Would anyone like to guess the number of patients in NI waiting longer than a year ?
NI Population say 1.8 million
>
The equivalent figure for NI is 105,000
Does anybody know the stat for GB?
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7281/CBP-7281.pdf0 -
That's the number for England.TheBigBean said:
How many kneecappings are there?surrey_commuter said:
No wonder there are problems if one in three people are being sent to hospital for treatmentkingstongraham said:
A quick google gives big numbers, about 300 first outpatient appointments per 1000 population for the year 2018-19 for England .surrey_commuter said:
Surely those stats highlight a bigger problem. If correct the more than 1 in 18 people are waiting for more than a year for hospital treatment. Assuming that some get seen within a year then every tenth person requires hospital treatment each year.tailwindhome said:From the Daily Mail article below a stat for England & Wales
"More than 1,000 patients have been waiting more than a year for their treatment - however this figure has slowly been decreasing over the past few months. "
Would anyone like to guess the number of patients in NI waiting longer than a year ?
NI Population say 1.8 million
>
The equivalent figure for NI is 105,000
Does anybody know the stat for GB?
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7281/CBP-7281.pdf
I assume it's not as simple as one in three people, as if one person has two incidents/conditions requiring hospital attendance that would be two appointments. Still a very large number.0 -
Based on my office we are higher than 1 in 3 visits a year due to pregnancies, asthma and, a stabbing (the local equivalent to a kneecapping).kingstongraham said:
That's the number for England.TheBigBean said:
How many kneecappings are there?surrey_commuter said:
No wonder there are problems if one in three people are being sent to hospital for treatmentkingstongraham said:
A quick google gives big numbers, about 300 first outpatient appointments per 1000 population for the year 2018-19 for England .surrey_commuter said:
Surely those stats highlight a bigger problem. If correct the more than 1 in 18 people are waiting for more than a year for hospital treatment. Assuming that some get seen within a year then every tenth person requires hospital treatment each year.tailwindhome said:From the Daily Mail article below a stat for England & Wales
"More than 1,000 patients have been waiting more than a year for their treatment - however this figure has slowly been decreasing over the past few months. "
Would anyone like to guess the number of patients in NI waiting longer than a year ?
NI Population say 1.8 million
>
The equivalent figure for NI is 105,000
Does anybody know the stat for GB?
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7281/CBP-7281.pdf
I assume it's not as simple as one in three people, as if one person has two incidents/conditions requiring hospital attendance that would be two appointments. Still a very large number.0 -
It's a stat that (IMHO) changed the entire focus of the recent GE away from the usual Green & Orange issues and Brexit and led to the two main parties shipping 100k votes between them.
https://factcheckni.org/facts/northern-ireland-outpatient-waiting-lists-100-times-more-than-englands/
"The Department of Health (DOH) figures show that as of 30 June 2019, a total of 299,436 patients were waiting for a first consultant-led outpatient appointment. This is 3.7% (10,682) more than at 31 March 2019 (288,754) and 8.5% (23,552) more than at 30 June 2018 (275,884).
Over a third of patients — 35.2% (105,450) — were waiting more than a year for a first consultant-led outpatient appointment, an increase of 5.3% on the same quarter last year (when there were 88,598 patients)."
This report gives the Sept 2019 figure at 108,582
Page 10 breaks down the list by department.
https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/health/hs-niwts-outpatient-waiting-times-q2-19-20_0.pdf
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
This I think is relevant to us all.Stevo_666 said:
1365 pages and counting...rjsterry said:
Seems people will argue about almost anything now that departure looks inevitable. I didnt think my comment that it might be difficult to know how much difference Brexit makes would kick off nearly 10 pages of argument.
https://fullfact.org/blog/2019/mar/does-backfire-effect-exist/1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Disappointed in Boris's government, they don't seem to have the same positive attitude as Stevo. And they obviously haven't got the memo about how pointless modelling is, either:
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-analysis-shows-brexit-deal-will-make-uk-poorer-2019-10?r=US&IR=T0 -
Yep, you may have summed up this whole thread quite neatly.rjsterry said:
This I think is relevant to us all.Stevo_666 said:
1365 pages and counting...rjsterry said:
Seems people will argue about almost anything now that departure looks inevitable. I didnt think my comment that it might be difficult to know how much difference Brexit makes would kick off nearly 10 pages of argument.
https://fullfact.org/blog/2019/mar/does-backfire-effect-exist/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well there's some positives about this Brexit lark, it looks like I'm going to be singing at Westminster for the festivities on the 31st
I wonder if I need to practice my bongs just in case I need to cover for Big Ben not working? 0 -
From the report: I've highlighted a few key parts in bold.bompington said:Disappointed in Boris's government, they don't seem to have the same positive attitude as Stevo. And they obviously haven't got the memo about how pointless modelling is, either:
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-analysis-shows-brexit-deal-will-make-uk-poorer-2019-10?r=US&IR=T
"This analysis is not an economic forecast for the UK economy. In particular:
• It only considers the potential economic impacts that are specific to EU exit. Leaving the EU is just one of many factors that will influence the UK's economic performance in the long run. Other factors such as the rise of global value chains, the increasing importance of services trade, technological developments, and global demographics are held constant;
• The analysis does not make judgements about any future UK Government policy decisions or responses; and
• The estimates show the relative impacts of different trading arrangements in the long term and do not estimate the absolute increase or decrease in economic output compared to today. The results therefore show the broad relative impacts of the different scenarios, and in all scenarios the economy would be expected to grow.
No modelling can completely capture the complex ways in which the UK economy could be affected by exiting the EU, particularly given the unprecedented circumstances of the UK's departure. While the analysis draws on a robust set of tools and evidence, there is an inherent uncertainty around this type of economic analysis. The results are therefore presented as ranges, and should be interpreted with caution."
Which is basically what I have been saying above.
You're a teacher so you should know about reading things properly before answering the question
C-"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I would delete this if I were you.Stevo_666 said:
From the report: I've highlighted a few key parts in bold.bompington said:Disappointed in Boris's government, they don't seem to have the same positive attitude as Stevo. And they obviously haven't got the memo about how pointless modelling is, either:
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-analysis-shows-brexit-deal-will-make-uk-poorer-2019-10?r=US&IR=T
"This analysis is not an economic forecast for the UK economy. In particular:
• It only considers the potential economic impacts that are specific to EU exit. Leaving the EU is just one of many factors that will influence the UK's economic performance in the long run. Other factors such as the rise of global value chains, the increasing importance of services trade, technological developments, and global demographics are held constant;
• The analysis does not make judgements about any future UK Government policy decisions or responses; and
• The estimates show the relative impacts of different trading arrangements in the long term and do not estimate the absolute increase or decrease in economic output compared to today. The results therefore show the broad relative impacts of the different scenarios, and in all scenarios the economy would be expected to grow.
No modelling can completely capture the complex ways in which the UK economy could be affected by exiting the EU, particularly given the unprecedented circumstances of the UK's departure. While the analysis draws on a robust set of tools and evidence, there is an inherent uncertainty around this type of economic analysis. The results are therefore presented as ranges, and should be interpreted with caution."
Which is basically what I have been saying above.
You're a teacher so you should know about reading things properly before answering the question
C-
At least I now know what part of economic modelling you don’t understand0 -
It's clear you still don't get it.surrey_commuter said:
I would delete this if I were you.Stevo_666 said:
From the report: I've highlighted a few key parts in bold.bompington said:Disappointed in Boris's government, they don't seem to have the same positive attitude as Stevo. And they obviously haven't got the memo about how pointless modelling is, either:
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-analysis-shows-brexit-deal-will-make-uk-poorer-2019-10?r=US&IR=T
"This analysis is not an economic forecast for the UK economy. In particular:
• It only considers the potential economic impacts that are specific to EU exit. Leaving the EU is just one of many factors that will influence the UK's economic performance in the long run. Other factors such as the rise of global value chains, the increasing importance of services trade, technological developments, and global demographics are held constant;
• The analysis does not make judgements about any future UK Government policy decisions or responses; and
• The estimates show the relative impacts of different trading arrangements in the long term and do not estimate the absolute increase or decrease in economic output compared to today. The results therefore show the broad relative impacts of the different scenarios, and in all scenarios the economy would be expected to grow.
No modelling can completely capture the complex ways in which the UK economy could be affected by exiting the EU, particularly given the unprecedented circumstances of the UK's departure. While the analysis draws on a robust set of tools and evidence, there is an inherent uncertainty around this type of economic analysis. The results are therefore presented as ranges, and should be interpreted with caution."
Which is basically what I have been saying above.
You're a teacher so you should know about reading things properly before answering the question
C-
At least I now know what part of economic modelling you don’t understand
My point has always been around the inherent limitations of this type of forecasting. The disclaimers in the report state these limitations.
Hope that's simple enough for you to grasp."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
I didnt think my comment that it might be difficult to know how much difference Brexit makes would kick off nearly 10 pages of argument.
There's no way of knowing for sure that it did.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!1 -
Read the bits not in bold - they explain what you don’t understand about economic modelling.Stevo_666 said:
It's clear you still don't get it.surrey_commuter said:
I would delete this if I were you.Stevo_666 said:
From the report: I've highlighted a few key parts in bold.bompington said:Disappointed in Boris's government, they don't seem to have the same positive attitude as Stevo. And they obviously haven't got the memo about how pointless modelling is, either:
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-analysis-shows-brexit-deal-will-make-uk-poorer-2019-10?r=US&IR=T
"This analysis is not an economic forecast for the UK economy. In particular:
• It only considers the potential economic impacts that are specific to EU exit. Leaving the EU is just one of many factors that will influence the UK's economic performance in the long run. Other factors such as the rise of global value chains, the increasing importance of services trade, technological developments, and global demographics are held constant;
• The analysis does not make judgements about any future UK Government policy decisions or responses; and
• The estimates show the relative impacts of different trading arrangements in the long term and do not estimate the absolute increase or decrease in economic output compared to today. The results therefore show the broad relative impacts of the different scenarios, and in all scenarios the economy would be expected to grow.
No modelling can completely capture the complex ways in which the UK economy could be affected by exiting the EU, particularly given the unprecedented circumstances of the UK's departure. While the analysis draws on a robust set of tools and evidence, there is an inherent uncertainty around this type of economic analysis. The results are therefore presented as ranges, and should be interpreted with caution."
Which is basically what I have been saying above.
You're a teacher so you should know about reading things properly before answering the question
C-
At least I now know what part of economic modelling you don’t understand
My point has always been around the inherent limitations of this type of forecasting. The disclaimers in the report state these limitations.
Hope that's simple enough for you to grasp.
Still not convinced you aren’t trolling so will leave you to it as I really can not help any more.
0 -
Which argument is better, Stevo's or Surrey Comm's?surrey_commuter said:
Read the bits not in bold - they explain what you don’t understand about economic modelling.Stevo_666 said:
It's clear you still don't get it.surrey_commuter said:
I would delete this if I were you.Stevo_666 said:
From the report: I've highlighted a few key parts in bold.bompington said:Disappointed in Boris's government, they don't seem to have the same positive attitude as Stevo. And they obviously haven't got the memo about how pointless modelling is, either:
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-analysis-shows-brexit-deal-will-make-uk-poorer-2019-10?r=US&IR=T
"This analysis is not an economic forecast for the UK economy. In particular:
• It only considers the potential economic impacts that are specific to EU exit. Leaving the EU is just one of many factors that will influence the UK's economic performance in the long run. Other factors such as the rise of global value chains, the increasing importance of services trade, technological developments, and global demographics are held constant;
• The analysis does not make judgements about any future UK Government policy decisions or responses; and
• The estimates show the relative impacts of different trading arrangements in the long term and do not estimate the absolute increase or decrease in economic output compared to today. The results therefore show the broad relative impacts of the different scenarios, and in all scenarios the economy would be expected to grow.
No modelling can completely capture the complex ways in which the UK economy could be affected by exiting the EU, particularly given the unprecedented circumstances of the UK's departure. While the analysis draws on a robust set of tools and evidence, there is an inherent uncertainty around this type of economic analysis. The results are therefore presented as ranges, and should be interpreted with caution."
Which is basically what I have been saying above.
You're a teacher so you should know about reading things properly before answering the question
C-
At least I now know what part of economic modelling you don’t understand
My point has always been around the inherent limitations of this type of forecasting. The disclaimers in the report state these limitations.
Hope that's simple enough for you to grasp.
Still not convinced you aren’t trolling so will leave you to it as I really can not help any more.
There's only one way to find out! FIIIIGHT !Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
I guess the bell distracts from the actual arrangements of, y’know, actual Brexit.
But then you can never know for sure, isn’t that right Stevo?
I guess you wouldn’t be able to say for sure.0 -
I think everyone's agreeing now?
The forecasts should be treated with caution, obviously, they represent a range, obviously, no modelling can completely capture the complexity, obviously. But that doesn't make it impossible to model given those caveats - evidence being the model.
What they don't say is start with "there is no alternative timeline - hence no reference point." (which is true) and move on to infer that therefore we can't tell at all what the impact is likely to have been.0
