When you consider how socially distanced the US is versus the UK that's not really true.
The US has a population density of 36/km^2 and has negligible public transport as a national percentage of how people commute.
Population density is an incredibly misleading stat. You are much better looking at the percentage of the population living in an urban area, which quite often comes out around 80% in advanced economies even when the population density can be an order of magnitude different between them.
Not necessarily. When your country is largely socially distanced homes where almost everyone loves in a detached house with a driveway and cars, drives everywhere and even shops etc are massive and open spaces ... Versus another country where many people are packed like sardines into terraced houses, with tiny bustling shops and public transport ... Then it is very relevant.
Besides a couple of high profile cities like San Francisco and New York most of America lives far more naturally socially distanced than most of the UK does.
Sure there are still differences between countries, but using population density for comparison is almost always misleading. Most people in low population density advanced economies do not live out in the sticks as their numbers might imply, they live in towns and cities which are not too disimilar from other countries with similar economies. You should start from the urban population, and then make adjustments, but do not include thousands and thousands of square miles of tundra with not a soul to be seen.
Sorry but you're just wrong. Go to a typical US town or city, the median household and it would be a world of difference from the same in the UK.
The median, typical household in the USA lives much more socially distanced naturally than in the UK. Americans who come to the UK can be very shocked how tiny our homes, roads and shops are. Even cars and parking spaces are tiny here compared to across the Atlantic.
I know, but the point I'm making is that the raw population density is still misleading. Those differences are meaningful, but they are still dwarfed by the error you get from looking at population density. Canada is the canonical example of this. Canada's population density is about 4 people per km^2, but most of the country is completely empty, and the vast majority of Canadians live in towns and cities not too dissimilar from towns and cities elsewhere. You need to start with that urban population and then adjust the numbers, not start with the population density of the country as a whole.
My in-laws live in Canada in the foothills of the Rockies so I can relate to this. Their tiny town, is 2 hour drive from the nearest town and 4 hours drive from the nearest city. When my father in law picks us up from the airport after leaving Edmonton the satnav says "drive 400 km then turn left".
But the cities and towns are nothing like the cities and towns here. They are massive sprawling places that are completely alien to the UK. Because they can afford to be because they're not constrained artificially, growing into another town or city.
They are massively socially distanced as a result. Plus it makes it easier to keep a virus in one town or city whereas in the UK Liverpool and Manchester for instance are contiguous with each other and towns in-between like Warrington, Wigan, Leigh and Widnes. They are realistically one single united Metropolis in contrast.
What are you still doing hanging about over here, when everything about your mindset suggests you’d be much happier in the foothills of the Rockies nursing your rifle and your tins of beans?
I think your point about excess deaths is very good. The present statistics on death are hugely influenced by what different countries define as a "COVID death".
Given this gross distortion in the data -- which may be the main thing actually measured in the Tables -- then what further corrections make any sense at this point ?
My answer is probably none -- just look at the population density, or age demographics, and make a rough allowance.
Once we have reliable figures for the excess deaths for different countries, then it will be interesting to do exactly what you say -- especially from the point of view of understanding which policies are effective.
Russia is a good example of the problem. Their excess deaths are running at nearly three times the deaths attributed to COVID-19, which implies that either Russia is undercounting COVID-19 deaths or something else is killing a hell of a lot of Russians this year, and is in fact a worse problem than the current pandemic.
My in-laws live in Canada in the foothills of the Rockies so I can relate to this. Their tiny town, is 2 hour drive from the nearest town and 4 hours drive from the nearest city. When my father in law picks us up from the airport after leaving Edmonton the satnav says "drive 400 km then turn left".
But the cities and towns are nothing like the cities and towns here. They are massive sprawling places that are completely alien to the UK. Because they can afford to be because they're not constrained artificially, growing into another town or city.
They are massively socially distanced as a result. Plus it makes it easier to keep a virus in one town or city whereas in the UK Liverpool and Manchester for instance are contiguous with each other and towns in-between like Warrington, Wigan, Leigh and Widnes. They are realistically one single united Metropolis in contrast.
Sure I get all that. It it still misleading to compare population density when you are talking about COVID-19. Start with the urban population, and then figure out the population density of urban areas to make comparisons if you want. But do not simply use population density, it's extremely misleading, far more so than the differences that exist between urban areas in different countries. e.g. UK population density is 275 per km^2 against 4 per km^2 for Canada. That's almost two orders of magnitude, but Greater London and the Greater Toronto Area are only about a factor of 5 different.
But, at a person-to-person level, COVID transmission is highly non-linear with distance, it drops to zero beyond some critical distance (which may be ~2m).
This means it is highly non-linear with respect to average separation, or equivalently, average number density. It may not matter if you are two orders of magnitude, or five times, less than London.
It may simply matter that you are less than some critical number density.
I think your point about excess deaths is very good. The present statistics on death are hugely influenced by what different countries define as a "COVID death".
Given this gross distortion in the data -- which may be the main thing actually measured in the Tables -- then what further corrections make any sense at this point ?
My answer is probably none -- just look at the population density, or age demographics, and make a rough allowance.
Once we have reliable figures for the excess deaths for different countries, then it will be interesting to do exactly what you say -- especially from the point of view of understanding which policies are effective.
Russia is a good example of the problem. Their excess deaths are running at nearly three times the deaths attributed to COVID-19, which implies that either Russia is undercounting COVID-19 deaths or something else is killing a hell of a lot of Russians this year, and is in fact a worse problem than the current pandemic.
They're all drinking hand sanitiser. That's what's doing for them.
betting Post F1: decided to back Russell each way for pole at 6.5 (third the odds top 2).
I reckon it's a three horse race, and his odds are a bit too long. However, my bet is somewhat coloured by my pre-existing position and early Verstappen/Bottas bets.
I also had a £1 free bet which I stuck on Gasly at 41 for the win, to cover another contingency.
If Johnson gets a deal I think the Tories have a very good chance of winning the next election.
No deal would be a gift to Labour and the SNP .
Even if he has to make some compromises . As for Farage screaming betrayal he would do that regardless of any deal and the public aren’t going to be obsessed over the detail of any deal , only the ERG nutjobs will pick it apart and don’t have the numbers to vote down the deal .
Correct. Should always be precise. Fishing quotas is a win. Also how you allocate those quotas is not a win. And fishing quotas don't benefit inshore fishing or fish production. Nevertheless it is a win, however small, and just about the only one. The UK should concede on LPF and governance and maximise their fisheries "win"
Without a win in fish it will be no deal sadly
Given the whole thing is a nonsense anyway, I think that's OK. But the UK will need to concede on LPF and governance and drop the treaty breaches.
If the treaty breaches are in the Internal Market bill on Monday as promised, then it is hard to not see the end of negotiations. Such a breach of trust and law makes an agreement untenable.
That's why the negotiations are this weekend though. You're putting the cart before the horse
If the negotiations reach a deal then the Internal Market Bill international law breaches become moot and can be dropped.
If the negotiations fail to reach a deal then the Internal Market Bill is entirely necessary so the amendments need to be put back in.
You’d have thought the EU would be familiar by now, with the concept of an insurance policy against a failure to make a deal?
It is a backstop. But this backstop is in conflict with the other backstop. I think this is the EU's problem with it. Still, all a matter of negotiation at the end of the day.
Of course it’s a backstop, and deals make backstops go away. I still think there’s just about a landing point for a deal based on trade, but I’m worried that Macron might be making it impossible with his belligerent attitude.
We've heard this - Macron threatens to veto something to do with Brexit - so many times. I'm certain it's PR for a domestic audience. Ditto with Johnson.
Well precisely.
Macron can posture all he wants but deep down he knows we hold the Aces so whether he wants to eliminate his fishermen to say he was tough with Les Rosbifs is what we are waiting to find out.
He should blink but politics means he may not.
It's a great triumph for the World's Best Country to have manouevred Macron into a position where he is going to commit national suicide while we'll in the comfortable position of looking on and laughing.
He's mostly harmless.
We'll be able to say so long and thanks for all the fish.
When you consider how socially distanced the US is versus the UK that's not really true.
The US has a population density of 36/km^2 and has negligible public transport as a national percentage of how people commute.
Population density is an incredibly misleading stat. You are much better looking at the percentage of the population living in an urban area, which quite often comes out around 80% in advanced economies even when the population density can be an order of magnitude different between them.
Not necessarily. When your country is largely socially distanced homes where almost everyone loves in a detached house with a driveway and cars, drives everywhere and even shops etc are massive and open spaces ... Versus another country where many people are packed like sardines into terraced houses, with tiny bustling shops and public transport ... Then it is very relevant.
Besides a couple of high profile cities like San Francisco and New York most of America lives far more naturally socially distanced than most of the UK does.
Sure there are still differences between countries, but using population density for comparison is almost always misleading. Most people in low population density advanced economies do not live out in the sticks as their numbers might imply, they live in towns and cities which are not too disimilar from other countries with similar economies. You should start from the urban population, and then make adjustments, but do not include thousands and thousands of square miles of tundra with not a soul to be seen.
Sorry but you're just wrong. Go to a typical US town or city, the median household and it would be a world of difference from the same in the UK.
The median, typical household in the USA lives much more socially distanced naturally than in the UK. Americans who come to the UK can be very shocked how tiny our homes, roads and shops are. Even cars and parking spaces are tiny here compared to across the Atlantic.
I know, but the point I'm making is that the raw population density is still misleading. Those differences are meaningful, but they are still dwarfed by the error you get from looking at population density. Canada is the canonical example of this. Canada's population density is about 4 people per km^2, but most of the country is completely empty, and the vast majority of Canadians live in towns and cities not too dissimilar from towns and cities elsewhere. You need to start with that urban population and then adjust the numbers, not start with the population density of the country as a whole.
My in-laws live in Canada in the foothills of the Rockies so I can relate to this. Their tiny town, is 2 hour drive from the nearest town and 4 hours drive from the nearest city. When my father in law picks us up from the airport after leaving Edmonton the satnav says "drive 400 km then turn left".
But the cities and towns are nothing like the cities and towns here. They are massive sprawling places that are completely alien to the UK. Because they can afford to be because they're not constrained artificially, growing into another town or city.
They are massively socially distanced as a result. Plus it makes it easier to keep a virus in one town or city whereas in the UK Liverpool and Manchester for instance are contiguous with each other and towns in-between like Warrington, Wigan, Leigh and Widnes. They are realistically one single united Metropolis in contrast.
What are you still doing hanging about over here, when everything about your mindset suggests you’d be much happier in the foothills of the Rockies nursing your rifle and your tins of beans?
For God's sake don't encourage him to leave the country now, if he has tins of beans!
But, at a person-to-person level, COVID transmission is highly non-linear with distance, it drops to zero beyond some critical distance (which may be ~2m).
This means it is highly non-linear with respect to average separation, or equivalently, average number density. It may not matter if you are two orders of magnitude, or five times, less than London.
It may simply matter that you are less than some critical number density.
I agree with you. Ideally we would compare exposure of the population as a whole to situations which are above a safe threshold.
Well, Brexit has been an exercise in goalpost moving by the Leave ultras ever since the referendum result. This is just the logical end point of that process. Rejoice peasants, as your glorious leaders decide to define WTO terms as a “deal with the EU”.
Wasn't it Andrea Leadsom who solemnly told us last year that leaving without a deal wouldn't actually mean leaving without a deal?
I think your point about excess deaths is very good. The present statistics on death are hugely influenced by what different countries define as a "COVID death".
Given this gross distortion in the data -- which may be the main thing actually measured in the Tables -- then what further corrections make any sense at this point ?
My answer is probably none -- just look at the population density, or age demographics, and make a rough allowance.
Once we have reliable figures for the excess deaths for different countries, then it will be interesting to do exactly what you say -- especially from the point of view of understanding which policies are effective.
Russia is a good example of the problem. Their excess deaths are running at nearly three times the deaths attributed to COVID-19, which implies that either Russia is undercounting COVID-19 deaths or something else is killing a hell of a lot of Russians this year, and is in fact a worse problem than the current pandemic.
They're all drinking hand sanitiser. That's what's doing for them.
I think your point about excess deaths is very good. The present statistics on death are hugely influenced by what different countries define as a "COVID death".
Given this gross distortion in the data -- which may be the main thing actually measured in the Tables -- then what further corrections make any sense at this point ?
My answer is probably none -- just look at the population density, or age demographics, and make a rough allowance.
Once we have reliable figures for the excess deaths for different countries, then it will be interesting to do exactly what you say -- especially from the point of view of understanding which policies are effective.
Russia is a good example of the problem. Their excess deaths are running at nearly three times the deaths attributed to COVID-19, which implies that either Russia is undercounting COVID-19 deaths or something else is killing a hell of a lot of Russians this year, and is in fact a worse problem than the current pandemic.
They're all drinking hand sanitiser. That's what's doing for them.
The UK average house size is more like 850-900 sqft.
Your point still, in some measure, stands.
“House” or “dwelling”?
I’ve a 2 bed apartment that’s over 1,000sq ft, any actual house is going to be bigger than that.
Not necessarily, surprisingly.
A traditional small 3 bed detached is about 900sqft.
On a normal new estate afaics, about 60-80% of houses are likely to be under 1000 sqft. The only ones above that will probably be the 4+ bed detached, and maybe some 3 bed detached. Unless you are talking distinctly upmarket.
You must have too much stuff .
I'll raise you "household" or "household". These are 2 definitions from Censuses: A "household" is:
(current definition, from 2011): one person living alone, or a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address who share cooking facilities and share a living room, sitting room or dining area. A household can consist of a single family, more than one family or no families in the case of a group of unrelated people.
(previous definition, from 1996 to 2010): a person living alone, or a group of people living at the same address who have the address as their only or main residence and either share one main meal a day or share living accommodation (or both).
I think your point about excess deaths is very good. The present statistics on death are hugely influenced by what different countries define as a "COVID death".
Given this gross distortion in the data -- which may be the main thing actually measured in the Tables -- then what further corrections make any sense at this point ?
My answer is probably none -- just look at the population density, or age demographics, and make a rough allowance.
Once we have reliable figures for the excess deaths for different countries, then it will be interesting to do exactly what you say -- especially from the point of view of understanding which policies are effective.
Russia is a good example of the problem. Their excess deaths are running at nearly three times the deaths attributed to COVID-19, which implies that either Russia is undercounting COVID-19 deaths or something else is killing a hell of a lot of Russians this year, and is in fact a worse problem than the current pandemic.
They're all drinking hand sanitiser. That's what's doing for them.
Especially as the Brexiteers have sat with their collective thumb up their bum for the last three years. Easiest deal in the world, ovenready, my sharny arse!
Especially as the Brexiteers have sat with their collective thumb up their bum for the last three years. Easiest deal in the world, ovenready, my sharny arse!
I see Neil Kinnock is urging Starmer to not whip a vote for the deal (if it ever comes).
Just in time for the 2024 election, that's what three more years is.
A promise delivered just in time then? If there is an end in sight, I don't see there being a huge issue about it. The usual suspects will moan about it not being instant of course.
I think your point about excess deaths is very good. The present statistics on death are hugely influenced by what different countries define as a "COVID death".
Given this gross distortion in the data -- which may be the main thing actually measured in the Tables -- then what further corrections make any sense at this point ?
My answer is probably none -- just look at the population density, or age demographics, and make a rough allowance.
Once we have reliable figures for the excess deaths for different countries, then it will be interesting to do exactly what you say -- especially from the point of view of understanding which policies are effective.
Russia is a good example of the problem. Their excess deaths are running at nearly three times the deaths attributed to COVID-19, which implies that either Russia is undercounting COVID-19 deaths or something else is killing a hell of a lot of Russians this year, and is in fact a worse problem than the current pandemic.
They're all drinking hand sanitiser. That's what's doing for them.
Just in time for the 2024 election, that's what three more years is.
A promise delivered just in time then? If there is an end in sight, I don't see there being a huge issue about it. The usual suspects will moan about it not being instant of course.
Yup. Three years costs Boris nothing. It's possibly a plus- like the way councils do planting schemes that flower just before election day. After that, it gets electorally expensive, which is the only cost I think he recognises.
Just in time for the 2024 election, that's what three more years is.
A promise delivered just in time then? If there is an end in sight, I don't see there being a huge issue about it. The usual suspects will moan about it not being instant of course.
Yup. Three years costs Boris nothing. It's possibly a plus- like the way councils do planting schemes that flower just before election day. After that, it gets electorally expensive, which is the only cost I think he recognises.
If you'd told Farage in 2015 that within 4 years we could be out of the EU, within 5 years we'd be out of their trading arrangements and legal processes, within 8 we'd have our fishing rights back - he'd have bitten your hand off.
Assuming he was genuine, and not just in it for a career. The noise he makes now will give an indication as to how genuine he ever was.
Barnier was internally pessimistic, as the FAZ learned. After the cancellation on Friday, he sent members of the Brexit coordination group in the European Parliament an SMS: "It doesn't look good". '
Just in time for the 2024 election, that's what three more years is.
A promise delivered just in time then? If there is an end in sight, I don't see there being a huge issue about it. The usual suspects will moan about it not being instant of course.
Yup. Three years costs Boris nothing. It's possibly a plus- like the way councils do planting schemes that flower just before election day. After that, it gets electorally expensive, which is the only cost I think he recognises.
If you'd told Farage in 2015 that within 4 years we could be out of the EU, within 5 years we'd be out of their trading arrangements and legal processes, within 8 we'd have our fishing rights back - he'd have bitten your hand off.
Assuming he was genuine, and not just in it for a career. The noise he makes now will give an indication as to how genuine he ever was.
There were- and are- genuine people who identified problems with the EU and thought that, with hard work, other systems would be better.
But the cause also attracted a load of grifters. And the nature of grifting is to offer victims something for nothing, then give them nothing for something.
Not everyone who campaigned for Leave, or for this government is a grifter.
If Johnson gets a deal I think the Tories have a very good chance of winning the next election.
No deal would be a gift to Labour and the SNP .
Even if he has to make some compromises . As for Farage screaming betrayal he would do that regardless of any deal and the public aren’t going to be obsessed over the detail of any deal , only the ERG nutjobs will pick it apart and don’t have the numbers to vote down the deal .
Brexit has already lost much of its electoral salience and most people have moved on. As an issue , it would not swing votes on anything like the scale of a year ago.
My crystal ball - 'productive discussion, but significant differences remain, time running out'. Throw in a 'the other side need to decide what they want/compromise' if they are feeling sassy.
Why the importance of fish? Presumably everything agreed so far amounts to a laundry list of capitulations on Boris's part, but he needs his fish - he'll reckon he'll be able to wave a haddock around as the ultimate distraction. If he can just get us celebrating fish for a week, then everything will have moved on and he'll be home and dry.
Why the importance of fish? Presumably everything agreed so far amounts to a laundry list of capitulations on Boris's part, but he needs his fish - he'll reckon he'll be able to wave a haddock around as the ultimate distraction. If he can just get us celebrating fish for a week, then everything will have moved on and he'll be home and dry.
Sounds like either way he'll get it, just may be one or two years later than originally planned.
Why the importance of fish? Presumably everything agreed so far amounts to a laundry list of capitulations on Boris's part, but he needs his fish - he'll reckon he'll be able to wave a haddock around as the ultimate distraction. If he can just get us celebrating fish for a week, then everything will have moved on and he'll be home and dry.
Sounds like either way he'll get it, just may be one or two years later than originally planned.
The amount of times we hear fish mentioned by the government will denote how crap the rest of the deal is.
Why the importance of fish? Presumably everything agreed so far amounts to a laundry list of capitulations on Boris's part, but he needs his fish - he'll reckon he'll be able to wave a haddock around as the ultimate distraction. If he can just get us celebrating fish for a week, then everything will have moved on and he'll be home and dry.
Sounds like either way he'll get it, just may be one or two years later than originally planned.
The amount of times we hear fish mentioned by the government will denote how crap the rest of the deal is.
It won't be that crap a deal- basically, the EU has an amount of access- demanded alignment tarrif, and we're going to get the access implied by that tarrif, one might almost say algorithm.
The UK thought that it could get a copy/paste of Canada, but that wasn't going to fly- that access is worth more to us than Canada, so we're giving up more to get it. The UK also though it could get more business being Brilliant Negotiators, which was spoilt by our continued uselessness.
But the deal will be what it was always going to be, what with how bigger organisations dictate trade terms to smaller ones. Now let's see how well we can operate this deal.
If this is the only thing holding a deal back then it must be fairly certain?
Not what but why. Macron's game is to break the negotiation on fish because he wants no deal and therefore a chance for Paris to get financial services from London. It is a win for him if the UK caves on fish ("look fisherfolk what I have got for you") but also he wins if the UK holds firm and there is no deal. Opprobrium from his EU partners is a small price to pay for this tactic.
If Starmer believes the deal to be in the UK's interest he has a duty to support it, and to oppose it if he determines the contrary to be true.
The national interest matters more than petty politicking.
And it is not so very long ago that Labour MPs were singing a chorus of lamentation that they hadn't backed May's deal.
Labour MPs lament not supporting May's deal, only because Johnson's deal appears vastly inferior.
Starmer would be insanely stupid to give Johnson cover by supporting a deal, simply because any deal is better than no deal.
Abstain, by all means to allow the deal over the line. If Starmer has his fingerprints on a deal which will ultimately be bad for Britain, Johnson will hang the deal around Starmer's neck, claiming Labour's unequivocal support.
Of course, if a Corbyn government was repealing the FTPA, the Tory media would be screaming about prioritising obscure constitutional matters in the first year of a Parliament, when hundreds are dying from COVID daily.
The current incumbents of Downing Street are not alone. Nippy sees the Pandemic as an aligning star to get Scottish Independence over the line.
Bollox, the total opposite in fact.
Yes I think MalcomG is right.
I think Sturgeon has been especially good at communicating the terrifying & sombre responsibility of politicians who have to take life-costing public policy decisions from a position of ignorance (we still know little about the disease). I don't doubt that Sturgeon bitterly regrets the loss of every life: every Scottish life, every British life, every life.
(Boris' flippancy and jokiness means he has been especially bad at this).
Sturgeon however has made mistakes -- she has made nearly as many as Boris. She just hadn't paid for them in the polls (much like Drakeford, yet).
It will be interesting -- once this is all over -- to look to see if there is any statistically significant difference between Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic. My guess is there may be, though it does need a proper analysis.
For the moment, let's recall population density is an important factor in the transmission. Scotland has the lowest population density of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland -- its population density is much lower than even Wales, let alone England. On those (admittedly crude) grounds alone, I'd expect Scotland to do quite a bit better than England.
We should remember that all the countries in Western Europe bar Germany & Norway have done pretty darned badly. We are arguing about the degree of badness. It is especially shaming because the UK is scientifically -- erm -- world beating. We should have done way, way better.
I'm not a fan of the Covid nationalism that not infrequently breaks out on here, but Scotland has done a 'bit' better (or less badly if you'd prefer); if these numbers were reversed you can be sure we'd never hear the end of it.
'Scotland has had 3 848 confirmed Covid deaths or 704 per million putting her in 22nd place. England with 52 601 deaths or 935 per million would be in 5th place and Wales with 2 638 or 837 per milliom would be in 11th place, just slightly worse than the USA. Northern Ireland with 542 would be way down the list.
I'm not a fan of COVID nationalism either -- other than as an indication of which policies pursued by the various politicians have actually worked.
I think the table you linked to is interesting, but part of the story. To properly compare Scotland with England or Wales, I think you would want to compare e.g., regions of similar population density/demographics e.g., Central Belt with NE England or South Wales valleys. And the maybe with some equivalent regions on the continent.
I think I agree with David Spiegalhalter that the comparison is not easy, but you don't need to do lots of clever statistics to see Germany has done well.
"If these numbers were reversed you can be sure we'd never hear the end of it"
I agree with that. World Cup 1966, Olympics, Johnny Wilkinson's drop goal, and the Covid Tables would then skip easily off the English politician's tongue.😁
TUD has linked to incorrect or old data. There's is no difference between England, Scotland and Wales wrt COVID deaths. All three countries are at or around 100 deaths per 100k.
Disagree, Scotland is about 75 same as England, Wales is over a hundred and NI 30 ish PS , talking about current numbers , overall Scotland is well below England
C'mon malc, folk moving from suggesting that Scotland's public services are not as 'resilient' as those of the rest of the UK to 'we're all as shit as each other' has got to be seen as a positive.
Ah the wee Scotland defence. It's tiresome. The data you quoted was out of date. It is what it is. If you want to split hairs between a rate of 98.5 and 105 then sure, go right ahead.
Comments
This means it is highly non-linear with respect to average separation, or equivalently, average number density. It may not matter if you are two orders of magnitude, or five times, less than London.
It may simply matter that you are less than some critical number density.
If you are quoting the Google snippet, then that is a number from David Wilson Homes for the "average" size of a UK apartment.
(Multi category article by DHW and a cockup by Google).
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03I3OlA9sAXe2bXfpgucHphyWVC2g:1607181954815&ei=gqbLX5WqMZqP8gK1-raADg&q=median+uk+hpuse+size&oq=median+uk+hpuse+size
https://www.dwh.co.uk/advice-and-inspiration/average-house-sizes-uk/)
The UK average house size is more like 850-900 sqft.
Your point still, in some measure, stands.
Thanks.
I am wondering about precedents from the Restoration.
It would be interesting to hear the ghost of Tony Benn on this particular subject.
betting PostF1: decided to back Russell each way for pole at 6.5 (third the odds top 2).
I reckon it's a three horse race, and his odds are a bit too long. However, my bet is somewhat coloured by my pre-existing position and early Verstappen/Bottas bets.
I also had a £1 free bet which I stuck on Gasly at 41 for the win, to cover another contingency.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2020/12/sakhir-pre-qualifying-2020.html
No deal would be a gift to Labour and the SNP .
Even if he has to make some compromises . As for Farage screaming betrayal he would do that regardless of any deal and the public aren’t going to be obsessed over the detail of any deal , only the ERG nutjobs will pick it apart and don’t have the numbers to vote down the deal .
I suppose if it's the only food available ...
I’ve a 2 bed apartment that’s over 1,000sq ft, any actual house is going to be bigger than that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8972801/Seven-die-drinking-coronavirus-hand-sanitiser-alcohol-ran-party-Russia.html
Sounds made up to me, like.
A traditional small 3 bed detached is about 900sqft.
On a normal new estate afaics, about 60-80% of houses are likely to be under 1000 sqft. The only ones above that will probably be the 4+ bed detached, and maybe some 3 bed detached. Unless you are talking distinctly upmarket.
You must have too much stuff
I'll raise you "household" or "household". These are 2 definitions from Censuses:
A "household" is:
(current definition, from 2011): one person living alone, or a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address who share cooking facilities and share a living room, sitting room or dining area. A household can consist of a single family, more than one family or no families in the case of a group of unrelated people.
(previous definition, from 1996 to 2010): a person living alone, or a group of people living at the same address who have the address as their only or main residence and either share one main meal a day or share living accommodation (or both).
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/articles/familiesandhouseholdsstatisticsexplained/2019-08-07
Let's not get into "dwelling" ;-)
A bedsit is a "dwelling", and you may get landed for Band A Council Tax on one.
https://twitter.com/SpencerKlavan/status/1335007535070253057
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1335248494567755776
Too right. Well said Neil.
Let Johnson totally own this disaster.
A further 15,539 cases were reported on Saturday compared to 16,298 the day before.
"Heavy Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off.”
If Starmer believes the deal to be in the UK's interest he has a duty to support it, and to oppose it if he determines the contrary to be true.
The national interest matters more than petty politicking.
And it is not so very long ago that Labour MPs were singing a chorus of lamentation that they hadn't backed May's deal.
Assuming he was genuine, and not just in it for a career. The noise he makes now will give an indication as to how genuine he ever was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDLZqe735k&ob=av2e
Google:
Barnier was internally pessimistic, as the FAZ learned. After the cancellation on Friday, he sent members of the Brexit coordination group in the European Parliament an SMS: "It doesn't look good". '
Just call it 6 years and it's time for pizza.
But the cause also attracted a load of grifters. And the nature of grifting is to offer victims something for nothing, then give them nothing for something.
Not everyone who campaigned for Leave, or for this government is a grifter.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bn8Luwbjzf9
donaldtusk
A piece of cake, perhaps? Sorry, no cherries.
#brexit #salzburgsummit2018 #theresamay #donaldtusk #europeancouncil #europeanunion #euco
The UK thought that it could get a copy/paste of Canada, but that wasn't going to fly- that access is worth more to us than Canada, so we're giving up more to get it. The UK also though it could get more business being Brilliant Negotiators, which was spoilt by our continued uselessness.
But the deal will be what it was always going to be, what with how bigger organisations dictate trade terms to smaller ones. Now let's see how well we can operate this deal.
Starmer would be insanely stupid to give Johnson cover by supporting a deal, simply because any deal is better than no deal.
Abstain, by all means to allow the deal over the line. If Starmer has his fingerprints on a deal which will ultimately be bad for Britain, Johnson will hang the deal around Starmer's neck, claiming Labour's unequivocal support.
ONS is always weeks/months behind