Discussion:
Reasonable view of Brexit from the Guardian
(too old to reply)
tim...
2018-01-07 15:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Who's have thought it:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy

tim
Ophelia
2018-01-07 16:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"tim..." wrote in message news:p2telm$nh0$***@dont-email.me...

Who's have thought it:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy

tim

==

Who indeed! Not something I expected to see from the Guardian. Hopefully,
the remainers here might read it and take note!
Fredxx
2018-01-07 16:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/01/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "tim..."  wrote in message news:p2telm$nh0$***@dont-email.me...
>
> Who's have thought it:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
>
>
> tim
>
> ==
>
> Who indeed!  Not something I expected to see from the Guardian.
> Hopefully, the remainers here might read it and take note!

I'm almost shocked the article was effectively an editorial in the
Guardian of all news outlets.

Any article that says in one sentence "There are Brexit fanatics, there
are remain fanatics" gains my respect.

There are too may living here in the past with nothing better to do than
Remoan, rather than moving onto more productive pastures.
Ophelia
2018-01-07 16:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Fredxx" wrote in message news:p2th7p$9ok$***@dont-email.me...

On 07/01/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "tim..." wrote in message news:p2telm$nh0$***@dont-email.me...
>
> Who's have thought it:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
>
> tim
>
> ==
>
> Who indeed! Not something I expected to see from the Guardian.
> Hopefully, the remainers here might read it and take note!

I'm almost shocked the article was effectively an editorial in the
Guardian of all news outlets.

Any article that says in one sentence "There are Brexit fanatics, there
are remain fanatics" gains my respect.

There are too may living here in the past with nothing better to do than
Remoan, rather than moving onto more productive pastures.

==

Indeed. Let us hope they read that article from 'their' paper!
Brian Reay
2018-01-07 16:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/01/18 16:18, Fredxx wrote:
> On 07/01/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "tim..."  wrote in message news:p2telm$nh0$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>> Who's have thought it:
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
>>
>>
>> tim
>>
>> ==
>>
>> Who indeed!  Not something I expected to see from the Guardian.
>> Hopefully, the remainers here might read it and take note!
>
> I'm almost shocked the article was effectively an editorial in the
> Guardian of all news outlets.
>
> Any article that says in one sentence "There are Brexit fanatics, there
> are remain fanatics" gains my respect.
>
> There are too may living here in the past with nothing better to do than
> Remoan, rather than moving onto more productive pastures.
>

I fear you've missed a hidden message in the article. It suggests,
having supposedly, made an error, we've 'made the best of it' rather
than that all the doom and gloom predicted by the Remainers was just
bunkum.

It isn't saying the Brexit vote was right (which I think it was) but
that, having supposedly made an error, somehow those who voted out
managed to 'fix' the problem or limit the supposed damage. Total bunkum.

The sooner we are out the better!
tim...
2018-01-07 20:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Brian Reay" <***@m.com> wrote in message
news:p2tib7$3ot$***@dont-email.me...
> On 07/01/18 16:18, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 07/01/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "tim..." wrote in message news:p2telm$nh0$***@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> Who's have thought it:
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
>>>
>>> tim
>>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>> Who indeed! Not something I expected to see from the Guardian.
>>> Hopefully, the remainers here might read it and take note!
>>
>> I'm almost shocked the article was effectively an editorial in the
>> Guardian of all news outlets.
>>
>> Any article that says in one sentence "There are Brexit fanatics, there
>> are remain fanatics" gains my respect.
>>
>> There are too may living here in the past with nothing better to do than
>> Remoan, rather than moving onto more productive pastures.
>>
>
> I fear you've missed a hidden message in the article. It suggests, having
> supposedly, made an error,

we haven't made an error

we're made a democratic decisions

the task is now to achieve the best end result

It's the people trying to put a spanner in the works and risking a worse
result than necessary are the ones making an error

> we've 'made the best of it'

I wish!

> rather than that all the doom and gloom predicted by the Remainers was
> just bunkum.
>
> It isn't saying the Brexit vote was right (which I think it was) but that,
> having supposedly made an error, somehow those who voted out managed to
> 'fix' the problem or limit the supposed damage. Total bunkum.

The suggestion isn't that the people who voted to leave have deliberately
taken action to "fixed the problem". It's that the people predicting
Armageddon were completely and utterly wrong to have done so.
Brian Reay
2018-01-07 21:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/01/2018 20:08, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "Brian Reay" <***@m.com> wrote in message
> news:p2tib7$3ot$***@dont-email.me...
>> On 07/01/18 16:18, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 07/01/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "tim..."  wrote in message news:p2telm$nh0$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> Who's have thought it:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> tim
>>>>
>>>> ==
>>>>
>>>> Who indeed!  Not something I expected to see from the Guardian.
>>>> Hopefully, the remainers here might read it and take note!
>>>
>>> I'm almost shocked the article was effectively an editorial in the
>>> Guardian of all news outlets.
>>>
>>> Any article that says in one sentence "There are Brexit fanatics,
>>> there are remain fanatics" gains my respect.
>>>
>>> There are too may living here in the past with nothing better to do
>>> than Remoan, rather than moving onto more productive pastures.
>>>
>>
>> I fear you've missed a hidden message in the article. It suggests,
>> having supposedly, made an error,
>
> we haven't made an error
>
> we're made a democratic decisions
>
> the task is now to achieve the best end result
>
> It's the people trying to put a spanner in the works and risking a worse
> result than necessary are the ones making an error
>
>> we've 'made the best of it'
>
> I wish!
>
>> rather than that all the doom and gloom predicted by the Remainers was
>> just bunkum.
>>
>> It isn't saying the Brexit vote was right (which I think it was) but
>> that, having supposedly made an error, somehow those who voted out
>> managed to 'fix' the problem or limit the supposed damage.  Total bunkum.
>
> The suggestion isn't that the people who voted to leave have
> deliberately taken action to "fixed the problem".  It's that the people
> predicting Armageddon were completely and utterly wrong to have done so.
>
>
>

You didn't read my post correctly.

Try again. (Hint I want out.)

Then re-read the Guardian article.
pensive hamster
2018-01-08 16:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 8 January 2018 02:34:15 UTC, tim... wrote:
> "Brian Reay" <***@m.com> wrote in message
> news:p2tib7$3ot$***@dont-email.me...
> > On 07/01/18 16:18, Fredxx wrote:
> >> On 07/01/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "tim..." wrote in message news:p2telm$nh0$***@dont-email.me...
> >>>
> >>> Who's have thought it:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
> >>>
> >>> tim
> >>>
> >>> ==
> >>>
> >>> Who indeed! Not something I expected to see from the Guardian.
> >>> Hopefully, the remainers here might read it and take note!
> >>
> >> I'm almost shocked the article was effectively an editorial in the
> >> Guardian of all news outlets.
> >>
> >> Any article that says in one sentence "There are Brexit fanatics, there
> >> are remain fanatics" gains my respect.
> >>
> >> There are too may living here in the past with nothing better to do than
> >> Remoan, rather than moving onto more productive pastures.
> >>
> >
> > I fear you've missed a hidden message in the article. It suggests, having
> > supposedly, made an error,
>
> we haven't made an error
>
> we're made a democratic decisions
>
> the task is now to achieve the best end result
>
> It's the people trying to put a spanner in the works and risking a worse
> result than necessary are the ones making an error
>
> > we've 'made the best of it'
>
> I wish!
>
> > rather than that all the doom and gloom predicted by the Remainers was
> > just bunkum.
> >
> > It isn't saying the Brexit vote was right (which I think it was) but that,
> > having supposedly made an error, somehow those who voted out managed to
> > 'fix' the problem or limit the supposed damage. Total bunkum.
>
> The suggestion isn't that the people who voted to leave have deliberately
> taken action to "fixed the problem". It's that the people predicting
> Armageddon were completely and utterly wrong to have done so.

We can certainly agree on that, since Armageddon has
completely and utterly failed to happen.

One wonders who you think are the people predicting
Armageddon, and why you are mentioning such predictions
in a thread titled "Reasonable view of Brexit from the
Guardian".
pamela
2018-01-08 15:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16:18 7 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:

> On 07/01/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "tim..."  wrote in message news:p2telm$nh0$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>> Who's have thought it:
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buye
>> rs-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
>>
>>
>> tim
>>
>> ==
>>
>> Who indeed!  Not something I expected to see from the
>> Guardian. Hopefully, the remainers here might read it and take
>> note!
>
> I'm almost shocked the article was effectively an editorial in
> the Guardian of all news outlets.
>
> Any article that says in one sentence "There are Brexit
> fanatics, there are remain fanatics" gains my respect.
>
> There are too may living here in the past with nothing better to
> do than Remoan, rather than moving onto more productive
> pastures.

Strange how the Guardian is suddenly a wise and interesting paper
and not some pinko lefty propaganda sheet that can't ever be
trusted.


--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-08 15:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/01/2018 15:24, pamela wrote:
> On 16:18 7 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 07/01/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:

...

>>> Who indeed!  Not something I expected to see from the
>>> Guardian. Hopefully, the remainers here might read it and take
>>> note!
>>
>> I'm almost shocked the article was effectively an editorial in
>> the Guardian of all news outlets.
>>
>> Any article that says in one sentence "There are Brexit
>> fanatics, there are remain fanatics" gains my respect.
>>
>> There are too may living here in the past with nothing better to
>> do than Remoan, rather than moving onto more productive
>> pastures.
>
> Strange how the Guardian is suddenly a wise and interesting paper

I don't think anyone would go that far....

> and not some pinko lefty propaganda sheet that can't ever be
> trusted.
>
>


--
James Harris
Fredxx
2018-01-08 16:03:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/01/2018 15:24, pamela wrote:
> On 16:18 7 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "tim..."  wrote in message news:p2telm$nh0$***@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> Who's have thought it:
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buye
>>> rs-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
>>>
>>>
>>> tim
>>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>> Who indeed!  Not something I expected to see from the
>>> Guardian. Hopefully, the remainers here might read it and take
>>> note!
>>
>> I'm almost shocked the article was effectively an editorial in
>> the Guardian of all news outlets.
>>
>> Any article that says in one sentence "There are Brexit
>> fanatics, there are remain fanatics" gains my respect.
>>
>> There are too may living here in the past with nothing better to
>> do than Remoan, rather than moving onto more productive
>> pastures.
>
> Strange how the Guardian is suddenly a wise and interesting paper
> and not some pinko lefty propaganda sheet that can't ever be
> trusted.

Not sure how expressions of shock and surprise can be interpreted as the
paper being wise. Perhaps its a Remoaner thing to jump to false conclusions?
Ophelia
2018-01-08 17:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Fredxx" wrote in message news:p304pa$srj$***@dont-email.me...

On 08/01/2018 15:24, pamela wrote:
> On 16:18 7 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "tim..."Â wrote in message news:p2telm$nh0$***@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> Who's have thought it:
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buye
>>> rs-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
>>>
>>>
>>> tim
>>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>> Who indeed! Not something I expected to see from the
>>> Guardian. Hopefully, the remainers here might read it and take
>>> note!
>>
>> I'm almost shocked the article was effectively an editorial in
>> the Guardian of all news outlets.
>>
>> Any article that says in one sentence "There are Brexit
>> fanatics, there are remain fanatics" gains my respect.
>>
>> There are too may living here in the past with nothing better to
>> do than Remoan, rather than moving onto more productive
>> pastures.
>
> Strange how the Guardian is suddenly a wise and interesting paper
> and not some pinko lefty propaganda sheet that can't ever be
> trusted.

Not sure how expressions of shock and surprise can be interpreted as the
paper being wise. Perhaps its a Remoaner thing to jump to false conclusions?

==

Surely you don't doubt it? lol
pamela
2018-01-08 17:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16:03 8 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:

> On 08/01/2018 15:24, pamela wrote:
>> On 16:18 7 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/01/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "tim..."  wrote in message
>>>> news:p2telm$nh0$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> Who's have thought it:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/
>>>> brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
>>>>
>>>> tim
>>>>
>>>> ==
>>>>
>>>> Who indeed!  Not something I expected to see from the
>>>> Guardian. Hopefully, the remainers here might read it and
>>>> take note!
>>>
>>> I'm almost shocked the article was effectively an editorial in
>>> the Guardian of all news outlets.
>>>
>>> Any article that says in one sentence "There are Brexit
>>> fanatics, there are remain fanatics" gains my respect.
>>>
>>> There are too may living here in the past with nothing better
>>> to do than Remoan, rather than moving onto more productive
>>> pastures.
>>
>> Strange how the Guardian is suddenly a wise and interesting
>> paper and not some pinko lefty propaganda sheet that can't ever
>> be trusted.
>
> Not sure how expressions of shock and surprise can be
> interpreted as the paper being wise. Perhaps its a Remoaner
> thing to jump to false conclusions?

So is the Guardian now is a newspaper of dispassionate honesty and
unbiased reporting? Sems strange that almost eveything it ever
said in favour of Brexit was propaganda but this article is fair
and balanced.

Do you trust the Guardian or not? If so then there are plenty of
previous articles which make the case for Remain. If not then you
can't trust this article.



--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-08 18:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/01/2018 17:55, pamela wrote:
> On 16:03 8 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 08/01/2018 15:24, pamela wrote:
>>> On 16:18 7 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/01/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "tim..."  wrote in message
>>>>> news:p2telm$nh0$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>> Who's have thought it:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/
>>>>> brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
>>>>>
>>>>> tim
>>>>>
>>>>> ==
>>>>>
>>>>> Who indeed!  Not something I expected to see from the
>>>>> Guardian. Hopefully, the remainers here might read it and
>>>>> take note!
>>>>
>>>> I'm almost shocked the article was effectively an editorial in
>>>> the Guardian of all news outlets.
>>>>
>>>> Any article that says in one sentence "There are Brexit
>>>> fanatics, there are remain fanatics" gains my respect.
>>>>
>>>> There are too may living here in the past with nothing better
>>>> to do than Remoan, rather than moving onto more productive
>>>> pastures.
>>>
>>> Strange how the Guardian is suddenly a wise and interesting
>>> paper and not some pinko lefty propaganda sheet that can't ever
>>> be trusted.
>>
>> Not sure how expressions of shock and surprise can be
>> interpreted as the paper being wise. Perhaps its a Remoaner
>> thing to jump to false conclusions?
>
> So is the Guardian now is a newspaper of dispassionate honesty and
> unbiased reporting? Sems strange that almost eveything it ever
> said in favour of Brexit was propaganda but this article is fair
> and balanced.
>
> Do you trust the Guardian or not? If so then there are plenty of
> previous articles which make the case for Remain. If not then you
> can't trust this article.

Isn't it that the Guardian employs reporters with different opinions and
that their editors determine what they allow to make the paper?


--
James Harris
Fredxx
2018-01-08 20:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/01/2018 17:55, pamela wrote:
> On 16:03 8 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 08/01/2018 15:24, pamela wrote:
>>> On 16:18 7 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/01/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "tim..."  wrote in message
>>>>> news:p2telm$nh0$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>> Who's have thought it:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/
>>>>> brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
>>>>>
>>>>> tim
>>>>>
>>>>> ==
>>>>>
>>>>> Who indeed!  Not something I expected to see from the
>>>>> Guardian. Hopefully, the remainers here might read it and
>>>>> take note!
>>>>
>>>> I'm almost shocked the article was effectively an editorial in
>>>> the Guardian of all news outlets.
>>>>
>>>> Any article that says in one sentence "There are Brexit
>>>> fanatics, there are remain fanatics" gains my respect.
>>>>
>>>> There are too may living here in the past with nothing better
>>>> to do than Remoan, rather than moving onto more productive
>>>> pastures.
>>>
>>> Strange how the Guardian is suddenly a wise and interesting
>>> paper and not some pinko lefty propaganda sheet that can't ever
>>> be trusted.
>>
>> Not sure how expressions of shock and surprise can be
>> interpreted as the paper being wise. Perhaps its a Remoaner
>> thing to jump to false conclusions?
>
> So is the Guardian now is a newspaper of dispassionate honesty and
> unbiased reporting? Sems strange that almost eveything it ever
> said in favour of Brexit was propaganda but this article is fair
> and balanced.
>
> Do you trust the Guardian or not? If so then there are plenty of
> previous articles which make the case for Remain. If not then you
> can't trust this article.

Are you the sort to claim a sunny day makes a summer?

I can see a balanced article, ie one that puts both sides of an
argument, can't you?
pamela
2018-01-09 13:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20:57 8 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:

> On 08/01/2018 17:55, pamela wrote:
>> On 16:03 8 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/01/2018 15:24, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 16:18 7 Jan 2018, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/01/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "tim..."  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:p2telm$nh0$***@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who's have thought it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/
>>>>>> brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who indeed!  Not something I expected to see from
>>>>>> the Guardian. Hopefully, the remainers here might read it
>>>>>> and take note!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm almost shocked the article was effectively an editorial
>>>>> in the Guardian of all news outlets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any article that says in one sentence "There are Brexit
>>>>> fanatics, there are remain fanatics" gains my respect.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are too may living here in the past with nothing
>>>>> better to do than Remoan, rather than moving onto more
>>>>> productive pastures.
>>>>
>>>> Strange how the Guardian is suddenly a wise and interesting
>>>> paper and not some pinko lefty propaganda sheet that can't
>>>> ever be trusted.
>>>
>>> Not sure how expressions of shock and surprise can be
>>> interpreted as the paper being wise. Perhaps its a Remoaner
>>> thing to jump to false conclusions?
>>
>> So is the Guardian now is a newspaper of dispassionate honesty
>> and unbiased reporting? Sems strange that almost eveything it
>> ever said in favour of Brexit was propaganda but this article
>> is fair and balanced.
>>
>> Do you trust the Guardian or not? If so then there are plenty
>> of previous articles which make the case for Remain. If not
>> then you can't trust this article.
>
> Are you the sort to claim a sunny day makes a summer?
>
> I can see a balanced article, ie one that puts both sides of an
> argument, can't you?

The author bases his prediction on his personal forcast which is
even less based on facts than the profesional forecasters Leavers
dislike so much.

He give the impression he knows what he is talking about but
provides no evidence at all to subtantiate his claim. At end of
the day he is just an economics journalist on a newspaper known
for its skewed outlook.

In his book he took a very different tack:

"We live in a country fantasising about its ability to run up
debts seemingly without end, to enjoy high-paid employment for
which it is not qualified, to project military power that it
does not possess and in general to assume, in defiance of the
evidence, a superior economic and political position in
relation to most of the rest of the world.

Then there is the apparent conviction that limitless growth can
co-exist with environmental protection, that the over-borrowed
and abundantly staffed state machine is actually being
courageously pruned even while its payroll rises and, finally,
that the just-around-the-corner radiant future is one in which
will work in the 'creative economy'. Welcome to Fantasy Island.

He could have been writing about Brexit.

--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-07 16:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/01/2018 15:33, tim... wrote:
> Who's have thought it:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy

As you say, from the Guardian that's surprising!

I was surprised by the author's idea of Buyer's Remorse. In terms of the
Brexit vote I took it to refer to the angst someone feels when making a
difficult and momentous decision: if one votes for the losing side
there's a certain comfort that he or she has not caused a problem but
one who votes for the winning side of such a decision will always be
aware that it may have been the wrong choice - but now has to be lived
with. Hence, remorse, but unavoidable remorse whichever side came out on
top. Correspondingly, if Remain had won then those who wavered and just
voted Remain could have had similar Remorse about having done so.


--
James Harris
Yellow
2018-01-07 19:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 15:33:08 -0000, tim... <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> Who's have thought it:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
>
> tim
>
>

As always, the comments are interesting and the article does seem to
have rubbed quite a few up the wrong way.
The Todal
2018-01-07 20:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/01/2018 15:33, tim... wrote:
> Who's have thought it:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
>
>
> tim
>

The premise is a flawed one. Buyer's remorse, for the vote that you
cast? We aren't buyers. If you buy an expensive item and then take a
fresh look at your bank balance you might suffer buyer's remorse. But if
you cast a vote, that's totally risk free from your point of view. It's
like buying shares in a newly privatised industry - you might keep
asking your mates whether the deal is as good as you thought it would be
and whether you might lose money in the long run, but basically if
you've done what millions of other people have done, you won't lose any
sleep over it.

Brexit will work out fine. We'll end up with higher wages and more money
for schools and the NHS. There's no point in anxiously reading the tea
leaves and the entrails day by day. Just get on with living your lives
and let the government do its job. Simples.

Now, why the fuck is our NHS allowing more and more people to die before
they get medical treatment? That's the issue that should receive the
most attention.
Yellow
2018-01-07 21:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 20:08:16 +0000, The Todal <***@icloud.com>
wrote:
>
> On 07/01/2018 15:33, tim... wrote:
> > Who's have thought it:
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/07/brexit-why-buyers-remorse-hasnt-hit-the-uk-economy
> >
> >
> > tim
> >
>
> The premise is a flawed one. Buyer's remorse, for the vote that you
> cast? We aren't buyers. If you buy an expensive item and then take a
> fresh look at your bank balance you might suffer buyer's remorse. But if
> you cast a vote, that's totally risk free from your point of view. It's
> like buying shares in a newly privatised industry - you might keep
> asking your mates whether the deal is as good as you thought it would be
> and whether you might lose money in the long run, but basically if
> you've done what millions of other people have done, you won't lose any
> sleep over it.

Where as I thought it was quite apt, in the context of the entire
article.

The Remoaner campaign since June 2016 has been to persuade Leave voters
that they were in error - by telling them they are stupid for no going
to university, by telling them they swallowed whole propaganda and are
therefore stupid and by telling them that their objection to unfettered
immigration of unskilled people is racist and that they are therefore
stupid.

The aim has been to make leave voters remorseful, to see the error in
their decision and for them to then beg for a change to over turn it.


> Brexit will work out fine. We'll end up with higher wages and more money
> for schools and the NHS. There's no point in anxiously reading the tea
> leaves and the entrails day by day.

The article in fact, quite rightly in my view, points out that people
voted for lots of different and complex reasons - leave or remain - and
the remain campaign fighting its corner simply on economic grounds was a
monster mistake. And further, the fact that those predictions have not
come true has closed the door on any and all further predications being
given house room by your average person.

The article also made an extremely note worthy point when it said that
remoaners are gravely in error now by jumping on every tiny economic
event and screaming "Brexit" Brexit" See! See!". So leaver ears are now
closed on this for sure, but this has come about because the Remoaner
ears were never open - and that is key.


> Just get on with living your lives
> and let the government do its job. Simples.

I think the article made a fair point that most people simply expect the
government to get on with it because a decision was asked for and a
decision was returned.


> Now, why the fuck is our NHS allowing more and more people to die before
> they get medical treatment? That's the issue that should receive the
> most attention.

Dunno if that is true or not, but certainly we need "reform of the NHS"
and also of social care. Not more money slung at it but genuine reform.

But both the NHS and social care are political footballs and all we ever
hear is "nurses using food banks" and "the NHS needs billion more
money" while the waste, the disorganisation and the emotion over
clinical decision making (when it comes to organising where health
facilitates should be for example) continues.

But the fact remains for the next year at least Brexit is going to
dominate - not least because the war between those trying to stop it and
those who want it to go ahead will continue until the final hour.
GB
2018-01-08 10:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/01/2018 20:08, The Todal wrote:

> Now, why the fuck is our NHS allowing more and more people to die before
> they get medical treatment? That's the issue that should receive the
> most attention.
>

First of all, I'll assume you are right about that. I would be grateful
for some stats, though. It may be that we are gauging this against
higher standards - see below.

One answer is simple: we are poorer as a nation than we were. Not in
terms of GDP, as that keeps ticking up, albeit slowly, but we are poorer
against other nations and against 'medical inflation'. Our hospitals now
have very expensive gear compared to the position 50 years ago. Gear
that nobody had even dreamt about 50 years ago. Similarly, some modern
drugs are very, very expensive. Plus, the government some years ago, in
one of the stupidest acts ever, changed the contracts for doctors, which
resulted in them doing less work for more pay. (It was a labour
government wot did it, but I'm sure the cons could have done it too if
labour had not got there first.)
Fredxx
2018-01-08 12:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/01/2018 10:22, GB wrote:
> On 07/01/2018 20:08, The Todal wrote:
>
>> Now, why the fuck is our NHS allowing more and more people to die
>> before they get medical treatment? That's the issue that should
>> receive the most attention.
>>
>
> First of all, I'll assume you are right about that. I would be grateful
> for some stats, though. It may be that we are gauging this against
> higher standards - see below.
>
> One answer is simple: we are poorer as a nation than we were. Not in
> terms of GDP, as that keeps ticking up, albeit slowly, but we are poorer
> against other nations and against 'medical inflation'. Our hospitals now
> have very expensive gear compared to the position 50 years ago. Gear
> that nobody had even dreamt about 50 years ago. Similarly, some modern
> drugs are very, very expensive. Plus, the government some years ago, in
> one of the stupidest acts ever, changed the contracts for doctors, which
> resulted in them doing less work for more pay. (It was a labour
> government wot did it, but I'm sure the cons could have done it too if
> labour had not got there first.)

I'm not sure a Tory government would have given doctors more money for
less work. It doesn't seem to fit their quest of value for money.

I never did understand why Labour gave doctors a standard 9-5 40 hour
week for in excess of £100,000 pa, and then pay even bigger sums t0
locums and A&E departments to take up the slack, but hey.
tim...
2018-01-08 18:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Fredxx" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:p2vnu4$58u$***@dont-email.me...
> On 08/01/2018 10:22, GB wrote:
>> On 07/01/2018 20:08, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Now, why the fuck is our NHS allowing more and more people to die before
>>> they get medical treatment? That's the issue that should receive the
>>> most attention.
>>>
>>
>> First of all, I'll assume you are right about that. I would be grateful
>> for some stats, though. It may be that we are gauging this against higher
>> standards - see below.
>>
>> One answer is simple: we are poorer as a nation than we were. Not in
>> terms of GDP, as that keeps ticking up, albeit slowly, but we are poorer
>> against other nations and against 'medical inflation'. Our hospitals now
>> have very expensive gear compared to the position 50 years ago. Gear that
>> nobody had even dreamt about 50 years ago. Similarly, some modern drugs
>> are very, very expensive. Plus, the government some years ago, in one of
>> the stupidest acts ever, changed the contracts for doctors, which
>> resulted in them doing less work for more pay. (It was a labour
>> government wot did it, but I'm sure the cons could have done it too if
>> labour had not got there first.)
>
> I'm not sure a Tory government would have given doctors more money for
> less work. It doesn't seem to fit their quest of value for money.
>
> I never did understand why Labour gave doctors a standard 9-5 40 hour week
> for in excess of £100,000 pa,

and even then they consider it an unsatisfactory career choice and are
reluctant to make it

tim
harry
2018-01-08 18:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 8 January 2018 10:22:41 UTC, GB wrote:
> On 07/01/2018 20:08, The Todal wrote:
>
> > Now, why the fuck is our NHS allowing more and more people to die before
> > they get medical treatment? That's the issue that should receive the
> > most attention.
> >
>
> First of all, I'll assume you are right about that. I would be grateful
> for some stats, though. It may be that we are gauging this against
> higher standards - see below.
>
> One answer is simple: we are poorer as a nation than we were. Not in
> terms of GDP, as that keeps ticking up, albeit slowly, but we are poorer
> against other nations and against 'medical inflation'. Our hospitals now
> have very expensive gear compared to the position 50 years ago. Gear
> that nobody had even dreamt about 50 years ago. Similarly, some modern
> drugs are very, very expensive. Plus, the government some years ago, in
> one of the stupidest acts ever, changed the contracts for doctors, which
> resulted in them doing less work for more pay. (It was a labour
> government wot did it, but I'm sure the cons could have done it too if
> labour had not got there first.)

And don't forget PFI.
The Todal
2018-01-11 17:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/01/2018 10:22, GB wrote:
> On 07/01/2018 20:08, The Todal wrote:
>
>> Now, why the fuck is our NHS allowing more and more people to die
>> before they get medical treatment? That's the issue that should
>> receive the most attention.
>>
>
> First of all, I'll assume you are right about that. I would be grateful
> for some stats, though. It may be that we are gauging this against
> higher standards - see below.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/11/nhs-patients-dying-in-hospital-corridors-doctors-tell-theresa-may

Patients are dying in hospital corridors this winter because the NHS is
so “chronically underfunded” and dangerously short-staffed, doctors who
run 68 A&E units have told Theresa May.

In their unprecedented warning the doctors told the prime minister that
more than 120 patients a day were being managed in corridors in some
hospitals, with “some dying prematurely” because staff were so busy due
to the sheer number of people needing care.

In the letter, sent on Tuesday and obtained by the Health Service
Journal, they also warn her that the routine overcrowding of hospitals,
and the fact that as few as 45% of A&E arrivals are being seen within
four hours at some hospitals, are putting patients’ safety at risk.



>
> One answer is simple: we are poorer as a nation than we were.

The correct answer surely is that our government invests less than ever
before as a percentage of GDP.

The immigrants come in, the population is increasing, unemployment is at
a relatively low level. With all that tax income, the government should
bloody well put billions more into the NHS.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-01-11 17:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 11 January 2018 17:05:23 UTC, The Todal wrote:
> On 08/01/2018 10:22, GB wrote:
> > On 07/01/2018 20:08, The Todal wrote:
> >
> >> Now, why the fuck is our NHS allowing more and more people to die
> >> before they get medical treatment? That's the issue that should
> >> receive the most attention.
> >>
> >
> > First of all, I'll assume you are right about that. I would be grateful
> > for some stats, though. It may be that we are gauging this against
> > higher standards - see below.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/11/nhs-patients-dying-in-hospital-corridors-doctors-tell-theresa-may
>
> Patients are dying in hospital corridors this winter because the NHS is
> so “chronically underfunded” and dangerously short-staffed, doctors who
> run 68 A&E units have told Theresa May.
>
> In their unprecedented warning the doctors told the prime minister that
> more than 120 patients a day were being managed in corridors in some
> hospitals, with “some dying prematurely” because staff were so busy due
> to the sheer number of people needing care.
>
> In the letter, sent on Tuesday and obtained by the Health Service
> Journal, they also warn her that the routine overcrowding of hospitals,
> and the fact that as few as 45% of A&E arrivals are being seen within
> four hours at some hospitals, are putting patients’ safety at risk.
>

Would £350M a week sort it?
The Todal
2018-01-11 17:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/01/2018 17:07, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 January 2018 17:05:23 UTC, The Todal wrote:
>> On 08/01/2018 10:22, GB wrote:
>>> On 07/01/2018 20:08, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, why the fuck is our NHS allowing more and more people to die
>>>> before they get medical treatment? That's the issue that should
>>>> receive the most attention.
>>>>
>>>
>>> First of all, I'll assume you are right about that. I would be grateful
>>> for some stats, though. It may be that we are gauging this against
>>> higher standards - see below.
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/11/nhs-patients-dying-in-hospital-corridors-doctors-tell-theresa-may
>>
>> Patients are dying in hospital corridors this winter because the NHS is
>> so “chronically underfunded” and dangerously short-staffed, doctors who
>> run 68 A&E units have told Theresa May.
>>
>> In their unprecedented warning the doctors told the prime minister that
>> more than 120 patients a day were being managed in corridors in some
>> hospitals, with “some dying prematurely” because staff were so busy due
>> to the sheer number of people needing care.
>>
>> In the letter, sent on Tuesday and obtained by the Health Service
>> Journal, they also warn her that the routine overcrowding of hospitals,
>> and the fact that as few as 45% of A&E arrivals are being seen within
>> four hours at some hospitals, are putting patients’ safety at risk.
>>
>
> Would £350M a week sort it?
>

And for those who don't trust the pinko-liberal Guardian and regard it
as Fake News, here's the oracle.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5257973/A-E-waiting-times-hit-worst-record-figures-show.html

NHS crisis is now the worst on record: A&E waiting times reach their
highest levels, nearly 17,000 patients are left in the back of
ambulances, and 24 hospital trusts announce they have NO free beds
Handsome Jack
2018-01-12 08:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Todal <***@icloud.com> posted
>On 08/01/2018 10:22, GB wrote:
>> On 07/01/2018 20:08, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Now, why the fuck is our NHS allowing more and more people to die
>>>before they get medical treatment? That's the issue that should
>>>receive the most attention.
>>>
>> First of all, I'll assume you are right about that. I would be
>>grateful for some stats, though. It may be that we are gauging this
>>against higher standards - see below.
>
>https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/11/nhs-patients-dying-in-ho
>spital-corridors-doctors-tell-theresa-may
>
>Patients are dying in hospital corridors this winter because the NHS is
>so “chronically underfunded” and dangerously short-staffed, doctors
>who run 68 A&E units have told Theresa May.
>
>In their unprecedented warning the doctors told the prime minister

[incredulous laughter] Unprecedented? They do this *every* winter. Every
single winter. And every single winter the Labour party, the BBC and the
Guardian lap it up with dire warnings that the NHS is on the point of
collapse and urgently needs more funding.

>that more than 120 patients a day were being managed in corridors in
>some hospitals, with “some dying prematurely” because staff were so
>busy due to the sheer number of people needing care.
>
>In the letter, sent on Tuesday and obtained by the Health Service
>Journal, they also warn her that the routine overcrowding of hospitals,
>and the fact that as few as 45% of A&E arrivals are being seen within
>four hours at some hospitals, are putting patients’ safety at risk.

Perhaps the service would be a bit more efficient if these doctors
weren't paid such gigantic salaries and didn't go on strike waving
banners saying "Save Our NHS!" when they mean "Save Our Salaries".

>> One answer is simple: we are poorer as a nation than we were.
>
>The correct answer surely is that our government invests less than ever
>before as a percentage of GDP.
>
>The immigrants come in, the population is increasing, unemployment is
>at a relatively low level.

As measured by the government, perhaps, However, the number of people on
short hours and low salaries has increased enormously. Average incomes
are still lower than they were in 2007.



--
Jack
Loading...


Database (slave) 0.002983 s
44.2031 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
SELECT `lang` FROM `newsgroup` WHERE `newsgroup_url` = 'uk.legal' (4)
0.000130 s
0.000225 s
0.000170 s
0.000678 s
2.2344 kB
2.3672 kB
2.2676 kB
9.0703 kB
SELECT `code`, `name` FROM `lang` WHERE `code` = 'en' (3)
0.000111 s
0.000135 s
0.000121 s
0.000362 s
2.4141 kB
2.4141 kB
2.4141 kB
7.2422 kB
SELECT * FROM `lang` WHERE `code` = 'en' (1)
0.000193 s
0.000193 s
0.000193 s
0.000193 s
12.5313 kB
12.5313 kB
12.5313 kB
12.5313 kB
SELECT * FROM `thread` WHERE `hash` = 'dCgBysvH' (1)
0.000684 s
0.000684 s
0.000684 s
0.000684 s
4.2500 kB
4.2500 kB
4.2500 kB
4.2500 kB
SELECT * FROM `newsgroup` WHERE `newsgroup_id` = '28820' (1)
0.000198 s
0.000198 s
0.000198 s
0.000198 s
5.8047 kB
5.8047 kB
5.8047 kB
5.8047 kB
SELECT * FROM `temp_simthread` WHERE `hash` = 'dCgBysvH' (1)
0.000439 s
0.000439 s
0.000439 s
0.000439 s
2.6563 kB
2.6563 kB
2.6563 kB
2.6563 kB
SELECT text_res, img_res, manual FROM porndetect WHERE hash = 'dCgBysvH' AND page = 1 (1)
0.000429 s
0.000429 s
0.000429 s
0.000429 s
2.6484 kB
2.6484 kB
2.6484 kB
2.6484 kB
Kohana 0.004014 s
101.5547 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
find_file (166)
0.000001 s
0.000107 s
0.000024 s
0.004014 s
0.5234 kB
2.1563 kB
0.6118 kB
101.5547 kB
Requests 0.038937 s
961.6016 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
"dCgBysvH/reasonable-view-of-brexit-from-the-guardian" (1)
0.039790 s
0.039790 s
0.039790 s
0.039790 s
989.5938 kB
989.5938 kB
989.5938 kB
989.5938 kB
Thread controller 0.000672 s
28.3906 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
Init (1)
0.000672 s
0.000672 s
0.000672 s
0.000672 s
28.3906 kB
28.3906 kB
28.3906 kB
28.3906 kB
Thread parsing 0.022304 s
460.6953 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
Other (3)
0.000008 s
0.008208 s
0.003170 s
0.009511 s
0.3672 kB
199.8594 kB
93.4792 kB
280.4375 kB
PHP Post Parsing (1)
0.006186 s
0.006186 s
0.006186 s
0.006186 s
149.8203 kB
149.8203 kB
149.8203 kB
149.8203 kB
C++ Post Parsing (1)
0.006161 s
0.006161 s
0.006161 s
0.006161 s
2.3672 kB
2.3672 kB
2.3672 kB
2.3672 kB
Three (1)
0.000446 s
0.000446 s
0.000446 s
0.000446 s
28.0703 kB
28.0703 kB
28.0703 kB
28.0703 kB
Load & uncompress 0.000934 s
75.1875 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
load_thread (1)
0.000934 s
0.000934 s
0.000934 s
0.000934 s
75.1875 kB
75.1875 kB
75.1875 kB
75.1875 kB
Application Execution (252) 0.022263 s 0.092832 s 0.036025 s 0.046396 s
1,113.9609 kB 2,656.5313 kB 1,286.4049 kB 1,598.5078 kB