Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
The street in the sky that Erno Goldfinger DESIGNED
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
LOL. Bit of misinformation there.
The House be built himself to live in - complete with garages downstairs and a better interior. It is a block of three
Front
Example Room
Hideous
And, also, I said "the street where he lived". That IS the street where he lived. Willow Road. A lovely bit of old Hampstead that he made worse with his repulsive redbrick Kwikfit garage of a "house"
I know you did ... it's half of the old trope about modern architects living in trad houses. Does not work with Goldfinger.
People spend 100s of k on trying to make the inside of the others more like the ones Goldfinger built. It works better. I think that's all I need to say, so I'm off out into he sun.
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
The street in the sky that Erno Goldfinger DESIGNED
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
People will fight you to get to live at Trellick Tower.
Not after Covid, I don't think
Oh, I don't know. There is a very plausible scenario in which - if we are ever rid of the current plague and the limitations it's imposed - people ache for a return to city life. I know less about London, but my expectation is that the city centre (and city centre fringe) population of Manchester will continue to grow post-covid. Indeed, the stasis of the last year and a bit will have people clamouring to return. I went for a walk around central Manchester last Sunday. I hadn't been in for a while. It has absolutely bloomed in my absence; new buildings have shot up. And the streets of Ancoats and the Northern Quarter were absolutely thronging with people. I think the demand to live close to the centre will be back surprisingly quickly.
They have some interesting tech (some of which is British), and it wouldn't be ridiculous to target a sector like this.
Hmm, it depends on the value chain. One of the reasons that import substitution tends to fail is because countries that attempt it have a much higher cost structure and more valuable jobs are lost higher up the value chain than are created at the bottom in low end manufacturing due to feed in prices rising.
For example, are we substituting German made BMWs for British made Jaguars? That's not a big deal as we've kept most of the value chain almost identical and it's a net gain in jobs as more Jags are built here to make up for fewer BMWs being bought. Are we replacing machine made semi-manufactured goods imported from Germany with more expensive British manually made goods that have a 50% higher cost with the imports made uncompetitive with tariffs? That is a big deal because Jag are saddled with a higher cost structure and unable to compete with BMW in export markets.
There are areas where import substitution makes sense but I'm not convinced that solar panels is one given just how big the cost differential is vs Chinese made solar panels. If we lumber domestic solar companies higher up the value chain with very high cost panels it may end up collapsing the industry and we won't sell those panels anywhere else as Chinese manufacturers will be offering a slightly lesser product for 10% of the cost.
The cost differential would be nothing like that. And bear in mind that module cost is well under 40% of any total project cost, whereas increased module efficiencies bear on 100% of the cost.
In any event, solar will provide over half of global electricity within a couple of decades. Allowing China to completely control the manufacturing chain is a strategic as well as economic error.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Danes love the UK, they quote huge screeds of Monty Python, they adore British TV shows, they like to practice their English (which is not great compared to Sweden or Norway) and they felt their was a bond - a bit like the UK obsession with the USA, the UK only knows about Denmark from Guardian articles that are invariably wrong about life here and dark police dramas - They don't obsess about it but they do feel jilted.
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
The street in the sky that Erno Goldfinger DESIGNED
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
People will fight you to get to live at Trellick Tower.
Not after Covid, I don't think
Oh, I don't know. There is a very plausible scenario in which - if we are ever rid of the current plague and the limitations it's imposed - people ache for a return to city life. I know less about London, but my expectation is that the city centre (and city centre fringe) population of Manchester will continue to grow post-covid. Indeed, the stasis of the last year and a bit will have people clamouring to return. I went for a walk around central Manchester last Sunday. I hadn't been in for a while. It has absolutely bloomed in my absence; new buildings have shot up. And the streets of Ancoats and the Northern Quarter were absolutely thronging with people. I think the demand to live close to the centre will be back surprisingly quickly.
I had a lovely seafood lunch in sunny Kensington yesterday. Yes, the streets were buzzing
It could definitely go that way: a hedonic boom and the cities explode with life
A serious bout of bad inflation would put a real dampener on that, however. Let us pray that you are right
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Remember the Danish PM saying that Europe consists of small countries and countries that haven't realised they are small? If Brexit isn't a failure it challenges their assumptions and also reminds them that some countries are smaller than others.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
We had the pox in Edinburgh very early (late Feb). In the city centre, right next to the main line stations with full train service stil running to Glasgow etc.
I don't think that Edin/Glasgow is a good example.
It is not, but some people having chosen a bad example will stick to their guns à la HYUFD right to the bitter end.
Yes you are the HYUFD.
Liverpool City Region has a population of 1,533,350 in a 279 sq mi area. Greater Manchester has a population of 2,812,569 in a 493 sq mi area.
Glasgow City Region has a population of 1,817,870 in a 1,289 sq mi area.
If you think that the M8 belt is remotely comparable to the M62 corridor for population density then you're a stupid fool. I don't believe you're stupid, so I can only think you're being deliberate obtuse.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Danes love the UK, they quote huge screeds of Monty Python, they adore British TV shows, they like to practice their English (which is not great compared to Sweden or Norway) and they felt their was a bond - a bit like the UK obsession with the USA, the UK only knows about Denmark from Guardian articles that are invariably wrong about life here and dark police dramas - They don't obsess about it but they do feel jilted.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
That Glasgow and Edinburgh combined are smaller than either of Liverpool or Manchester alone let alone combined and including contiguous areas like Warrington etc that are excluded from that really says it all. Without even stretching out to Leeds.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Danes love the UK, they quote huge screeds of Monty Python, they adore British TV shows, they like to practice their English (which is not great compared to Sweden or Norway) and they felt their was a bond - a bit like the UK obsession with the USA, the UK only knows about Denmark from Guardian articles that are invariably wrong about life here and dark police dramas - They don't obsess about it but they do feel jilted.
A Danish lady living in the UK is the most pro Brexit person I have ever met
#Breaking People aged 38 and 39 will be able to book their Covid vaccinations from Thursday morning in England, NHS sources have told the PA news agency
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
The street in the sky that Erno Goldfinger DESIGNED
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
LOL. Bit of misinformation there hinting at Goldfinger having trad tastes for himself.
The House be built himself to live in - complete with garages downstairs and a better interior. It is a block of three.
Just seen the CCJ issue. I agree it won't achieve any cut through outside Westminster (if at all) but it probably should. Failing to pay one of those after more than six months is a big deal, and it's hard to see how he could have missed it (you occasionally get stories about judgments made in absentia and the paperwork sent to the wrong address, but that seems unlikely when it's the Prime Minister). To say that this is not ideal behaviour of a PM is a fairly sizeable understatement.
The context on this will be interesting if we get it.
At £500 ish it could be a tube of smarties plus enforcement costs.
This will be via the Bulk Centre at Northampton where the process is just a rubber stamp.
I nearly had one of these when a parking ticket did not follow me to a new address.
We remember Maggie as PM, where she was very good. Yet when she was opposition leader she didn’t come across very well at all. The narrowness of that first win, which followed few years of total mess of government, suggests as much?
As much as the “surely Starmer can’t actually win” is fun, the next election the Tories can still lose with run up to it Lab had in 79?
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
The street in the sky that Erno Goldfinger DESIGNED
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
LOL. Bit of misinformation there.
The House be built himself to live in - complete with garages downstairs and a better interior. It is a block of three
Front
Example Room
Hideous
And, also, I said "the street where he lived". That IS the street where he lived. Willow Road. A lovely bit of old Hampstead that he made worse with his repulsive redbrick Kwikfit garage of a "house"
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
The incidence of the pox is a function of the infection rate of individual subpopulations and that within each subpopulation once it is set off.
We know from observation that the virus spreads very fast between subpopulations, except in the really extreme cases such as the Western Isles: see how quickly new variants pop up; the Kent variant appeared in Glasgow very quickly. So the first element doesn't sould likely to explain much variance unless really drastic public policy is undertaken, eg closing borders.
It's the second eleemnt that actually yields the stats.
It's certainly possible that later infection does help with reducing total infection numbers, but that is also subject to public policy in any case, so it's not possible to be sure either way without a proper study.
During lockdowns the virus stops spreading as much between subpopulations, that's the point of lockdown, and why you end up with pockets of infections.
However the point I'm making is that, even during lockdown, the whole of the Northwest of England is one contiguous subpopulation. From Liverpool to Manchester there's no firebreak between the cities, so it can spread even during lockdown from Manchester to Leigh to Warrington to Widnes to Liverpool contiguously even while people are locked down and minimally moving.
That's why eg the Northwest and other large contiguous highly densely population regions have struggled more than eg places like Bath.
Wales and NI have the same population density as eg Somerset, so comparing Somerset with Wales and NI is like-for-like. But Somerset has a lower death rate than Wales, NI or Scotland. Why do you think that is?
Buit the point I am making was that the virus spread between subpopulations is a different matter from that within subpopulations, which is inherently easier to slow down by lockdown. You only need a few unfortunate people, yuppie skiers, etcd. to seed the pox more or less simiultaneously between subpopulations, which is what happened.
The other point is that the relationships between the first and later peaks were very different in different nations even when they had similar first peaks. One prima facie reason for that is public policy, and another as you say is geographical difference. It's not possible to separate them out, yet, bvut it is plainly wrong to say that the pandemic acted evenly across the UK.
Re the Somerset comparison, you're comparing differently heterogeneous areas using stats hwich are inherently wieghted towards high-density urban areas. Intuitively, Wales is far more urbanised (in small part) and far emptier (in large part) than Somerset [which no longer contains the Clevedon-Bristol-Bath conurbation] and iin a sense it is the Valleys which you are comparing to Taunton, Bridgwater, Weston-s-Mare and Yeovil. Which are different on wealth, crowding, and so on. Yet the comparator is based on the assumption that total pop. density is meaningful.
I'd like to see some proper studies of this, in due course.
Actually the Bath, Bristol areas are comparable too. 'Bath and Northeast Somerset' has a death rate of 139/100k versus Scotland's 140/100k and Wales's 176/100k.
There is a clear correlation between the heatmap of death rates and population density. I think that's causation, you may shrug and disagree, do you?
That's a very nice map. But it does not inherently differentiate between variance in timing of primary seeding vs variance in intensity of subsequent infection within each subpopulation. Indeed it could be effectively a map of variant infection rates within one big subpopulation. Or something ion between.
Obviously the more people travelling the likelier a subpopulation will get infected, and that dependsa on local population, but that function of probability vs transit will be nonlinear - intuitively, a slightly sigmoid curve with a rapid decline in [edit] positive gradient to zero - a classic diminishing return or saturation curve. Barra is obviously on the good (lower) left hand but Edinburgh-Glasgow and Manchester-Liverpool probably went almost at once to p = unity. And the subsequent course of the disease in each area is goiung to be independent of how long it took to get there. So it's a matter of public health in the first place, poverty and crowding, and anti-covid measures, etc.
(That of course assumes only one variant - which is an interesting complication when you go to more than that.)
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
But is it just the Danes that feel that way? If it is, that would be surprising. If it is - to adopt a way of speaking that some of our SNP posters use - Euronats who feel that way, it isn't surprising at all. Rationally, they may wish us well. Emotionally, they have firmly planted their expectations in the EU-membership=economic-success earth, and do not want to feel the dissonance of this not being proven right.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
Bering compared to HYUFD touched such a nerve that it's just going to make you go on and on about it, isn't it? Just like HYUFD in fact.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Danes love the UK, they quote huge screeds of Monty Python, they adore British TV shows, they like to practice their English (which is not great compared to Sweden or Norway) and they felt their was a bond - a bit like the UK obsession with the USA, the UK only knows about Denmark from Guardian articles that are invariably wrong about life here and dark police dramas - They don't obsess about it but they do feel jilted.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
Bering compared to HYUFD touched such a nerve that it's just going to make you go on and on about it, isn't it? Just like HYUFD in fact.
You're the one who brought it up again, not me. Despite the fact that you were wrong.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
Bering compared to HYUFD touched such a nerve that it's just going to make you go on and on about it, isn't it? Just like HYUFD in fact.
You're the one who brought it up again, not me. Despite the fact that you were wrong.
The public inquiry won’t be damning, because they never are. I predict that the days on which the PM, Hancock, and a few others give evidence will be overhyped damp squibs and in the end the people who have already decided the Government did badly will be calling the report (when it finally reports, after the next election) a white wash. In reality it will be a fair and balanced report that makes useful recommendations for public health policy, which is of course its actual job.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Danes love the UK, they quote huge screeds of Monty Python, they adore British TV shows, they like to practice their English (which is not great compared to Sweden or Norway) and they felt their was a bond - a bit like the UK obsession with the USA, the UK only knows about Denmark from Guardian articles that are invariably wrong about life here and dark police dramas - They don't obsess about it but they do feel jilted.
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
The street in the sky that Erno Goldfinger DESIGNED
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
LOL. Bit of misinformation there.
The House be built himself to live in - complete with garages downstairs and a better interior. It is a block of three
Front
Example Room
Hideous
And, also, I said "the street where he lived". That IS the street where he lived. Willow Road. A lovely bit of old Hampstead that he made worse with his repulsive redbrick Kwikfit garage of a "house"
That house is delightful.
The interior? Yes, rather pleasant (I wouldn't go as far as delightful)
The exterior, what everyone else is forced to look at, is stupid and ugly. Depressing municipal bricks, like a minor bus terminus in Croydon. Horrible metal upper storey windows- is it a sweat shop? A small factory with kids inside?
The idiotic spindly pilotis are laughable. WTAF is that weird bit of wall in the front meant to do? There is no greenery to cheer anyone up. The wooden screens are stained like the bricks. The doors are dank, dark and unwelcoming. The frontage bears no relation to the rest of the street. The whole thing looks like a bad public toilet mixed with a sad factory making false teeth and as soon as you walk in you would expect to find needles on the floor from all the junkies squatting inside.
Apart from that it's a massive adornment to the Hampstead streetscape
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
The train route between the two Scottish cities is also slow, and takes you through a lot of countryside.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
The train route between the two Scottish cities is also slow, and takes you through a lot of countryside.
Unsurprising. The Liverpool to Manchester train can be slow too, but never leaves urban areas on its entire journey.
The idea the two runs are the same is patently absurd.
The public inquiry won’t be damning, because they never are. I predict that the days on which the PM, Hancock, and a few others give evidence will be overhyped damp squibs and in the end the people who have already decided the Government did badly will be calling the report (when it finally reports, after the next election) a white wash. In reality it will be a fair and balanced report that makes useful recommendations for public health policy, which is of course its actual job.
T’was ever thus.
Chilcot took seven years to deliver. Even if this takes half the time to report then it'll still miss the 2024 election and will be ancient history for the 2028/9 one.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
The train route between the two Scottish cities is also slow, and takes you through a lot of countryside.
45-60 mins, and the countryside bit is irrelevant as the doors are shut ...
Yuppie skiers coming back from Italy come a lot further and longer, and the doors are also shut ...
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
Too much guardian reading and CNN watching I think. If there is a brexit effect, even in the short term, it is mostly going to be carried by the food/fishing industry because of EU border pedantry. Most of everything else will just get on with life. Speaking from my position in financial services, the death of the City that everyone in the EU keeps hyping up doesn't seem likely, hiring is stronger than I've ever seen it and we're winning clients from outside the EU much faster than we were when we were in it and for us it's made up for the difficulty in servicing EU based clients and more. I think 2021 will be a record year for us in terms of asset gains and 2022 will be a record for profitability.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
The train route between the two Scottish cities is also slow, and takes you through a lot of countryside.
Unsurprising. The Liverpool to Manchester train can be slow too, but never leaves urban areas on its entire journey.
The idea the two runs are the same is patently absurd.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
I saw on the internet someone has worked out the “real experienced density” of various countries by looking at where people actually live.
Spain was surprisingly dense, for example, because people tend to live in very dense cities and towns.
I don’t have time to find it - I’m at work - but it would be interesting to see if someone has estimate this for E, S, W & NI.
This is really important, because if the UK and Greenland merged, it would dramatically reduce population density... In theory that would reduce covid... But in reality it would have no impact.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
The incidence of the pox is a function of the infection rate of individual subpopulations and that within each subpopulation once it is set off.
We know from observation that the virus spreads very fast between subpopulations, except in the really extreme cases such as the Western Isles: see how quickly new variants pop up; the Kent variant appeared in Glasgow very quickly. So the first element doesn't sould likely to explain much variance unless really drastic public policy is undertaken, eg closing borders.
It's the second eleemnt that actually yields the stats.
It's certainly possible that later infection does help with reducing total infection numbers, but that is also subject to public policy in any case, so it's not possible to be sure either way without a proper study.
During lockdowns the virus stops spreading as much between subpopulations, that's the point of lockdown, and why you end up with pockets of infections.
However the point I'm making is that, even during lockdown, the whole of the Northwest of England is one contiguous subpopulation. From Liverpool to Manchester there's no firebreak between the cities, so it can spread even during lockdown from Manchester to Leigh to Warrington to Widnes to Liverpool contiguously even while people are locked down and minimally moving.
That's why eg the Northwest and other large contiguous highly densely population regions have struggled more than eg places like Bath.
Wales and NI have the same population density as eg Somerset, so comparing Somerset with Wales and NI is like-for-like. But Somerset has a lower death rate than Wales, NI or Scotland. Why do you think that is?
Buit the point I am making was that the virus spread between subpopulations is a different matter from that within subpopulations, which is inherently easier to slow down by lockdown. You only need a few unfortunate people, yuppie skiers, etcd. to seed the pox more or less simiultaneously between subpopulations, which is what happened.
The other point is that the relationships between the first and later peaks were very different in different nations even when they had similar first peaks. One prima facie reason for that is public policy, and another as you say is geographical difference. It's not possible to separate them out, yet, bvut it is plainly wrong to say that the pandemic acted evenly across the UK.
Re the Somerset comparison, you're comparing differently heterogeneous areas using stats hwich are inherently wieghted towards high-density urban areas. Intuitively, Wales is far more urbanised (in small part) and far emptier (in large part) than Somerset [which no longer contains the Clevedon-Bristol-Bath conurbation] and iin a sense it is the Valleys which you are comparing to Taunton, Bridgwater, Weston-s-Mare and Yeovil. Which are different on wealth, crowding, and so on. Yet the comparator is based on the assumption that total pop. density is meaningful.
I'd like to see some proper studies of this, in due course.
Actually the Bath, Bristol areas are comparable too. 'Bath and Northeast Somerset' has a death rate of 139/100k versus Scotland's 140/100k and Wales's 176/100k.
There is a clear correlation between the heatmap of death rates and population density. I think that's causation, you may shrug and disagree, do you?
That's a very nice map. But it does not inherently differentiate between variance in timing of primary seeding vs variance in intensity of subsequent infection within each subpopulation. Indeed it could be effectively a map of variant infection rates within one big subpopulation. Or something ion between.
Obviously the more people travelling the likelier a subpopulation will get infected, and that dependsa on local population, but that function of probability vs transit will be nonlinear - intuitively, a slightly sigmoid curve with a rapid decline in [edit] positive gradient to zero - a classic diminishing return or saturation curve. Barra is obviously on the good (lower) left hand but Edinburgh-Glasgow and Manchester-Liverpool probably went almost at once to p = unity. And the subsequent course of the disease in each area is goiung to be independent of how long it took to get there. So it's a matter of public health in the first place, poverty and crowding, and anti-covid measures, etc.
(That of course assumes only one variant - which is an interesting complication when you go to more than that.)
The very strange thing about that map is that you would expect death rates to be correlated with age profiles. But the reverse is true. The older the age profile, the less alarming the death rate. While places with lots of young people like London and Manchester and Salford and Liverpool have terrible death rates. Now, no doubt it is the old people in those young cities who are dying. But still - I think it emphasises the impact that density has on death rates.
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
The street in the sky that Erno Goldfinger DESIGNED
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
LOL. Bit of misinformation there.
The House be built himself to live in - complete with garages downstairs and a better interior. It is a block of three
Front
Example Room
Hideous
And, also, I said "the street where he lived". That IS the street where he lived. Willow Road. A lovely bit of old Hampstead that he made worse with his repulsive redbrick Kwikfit garage of a "house"
That house is delightful.
He lived in it for about 50 years.
Though being across the road from Hampstead Heath probably helped.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
I saw on the internet someone has worked out the “real experienced density” of various countries by looking at where people actually live.
Spain was surprisingly dense, for example, because people tend to live in very dense cities and towns.
I don’t have time to find it - I’m at work - but it would be interesting to see if someone has estimate this for E, S, W & NI.
This is really important, because if the UK and Greenland merged, it would dramatically reduce population density... In theory that would reduce covid... But in reality it would have no impact.
Yes, however, it's not the whole story, distance between densely populated areas is also fairly important as seeding the virus becomes more difficult due to travel restrictions on the general population. England has a very high population density and very little distance between urban different centres making viral seeding of new areas very easy and therefore much more likely to happen. Italy also has this issue and has seen a fairly similar outcome to us just without the ending of a well planned vaccine programme.
They have some interesting tech (some of which is British), and it wouldn't be ridiculous to target a sector like this.
Hmm, it depends on the value chain. One of the reasons that import substitution tends to fail is because countries that attempt it have a much higher cost structure and more valuable jobs are lost higher up the value chain than are created at the bottom in low end manufacturing due to feed in prices rising.
For example, are we substituting German made BMWs for British made Jaguars? That's not a big deal as we've kept most of the value chain almost identical and it's a net gain in jobs as more Jags are built here to make up for fewer BMWs being bought. Are we replacing machine made semi-manufactured goods imported from Germany with more expensive British manually made goods that have a 50% higher cost with the imports made uncompetitive with tariffs? That is a big deal because Jag are saddled with a higher cost structure and unable to compete with BMW in export markets.
There are areas where import substitution makes sense but I'm not convinced that solar panels is one given just how big the cost differential is vs Chinese made solar panels. If we lumber domestic solar companies higher up the value chain with very high cost panels it may end up collapsing the industry and we won't sell those panels anywhere else as Chinese manufacturers will be offering a slightly lesser product for 10% of the cost.
The cost differential would be nothing like that. And bear in mind that module cost is well under 40% of any total project cost, whereas increased module efficiencies bear on 100% of the cost.
In any event, solar will provide over half of global electricity within a couple of decades. Allowing China to completely control the manufacturing chain is a strategic as well as economic error.
IIRC China doesn't dominate the production of metalurgical grade silicon, which is the preserve of the Norwegians (REC) and the Japanese (Tokayama?)
Edit to add: also Wacker in Germany. Basically, the Chinese are very good at doing the low value add part of the solar chain (i.e. making wafers out of silicon), but actually purifying the silicon is the difficult bit, and they have very little presence there.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
I saw on the internet someone has worked out the “real experienced density” of various countries by looking at where people actually live.
Spain was surprisingly dense, for example, because people tend to live in very dense cities and towns.
I don’t have time to find it - I’m at work - but it would be interesting to see if someone has estimate this for E, S, W & NI.
This is really important, because if the UK and Greenland merged, it would dramatically reduce population density... In theory that would reduce covid... But in reality it would have no impact.
Yes, however, it's not the whole story, distance between densely populated areas is also fairly important as seeding the virus becomes more difficult due to travel restrictions on the general population. England has a very high population density and very little distance between urban different centres making viral seeding of new areas very easy and therefore much more likely to happen.
That would certainly be more important if new variants were a big factor. The original seeding IIRC happened quite quickly all over the UK (skiers from Italy etc). Yet the Kent vasriant appeared very quickly in Glasgow, for instance, dod it not?
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Danes love the UK, they quote huge screeds of Monty Python, they adore British TV shows, they like to practice their English (which is not great compared to Sweden or Norway) and they felt their was a bond - a bit like the UK obsession with the USA, the UK only knows about Denmark from Guardian articles that are invariably wrong about life here and dark police dramas....
There's also Borgen, and the vicious battles between parties called 'Moderates', 'New Democrats', 'Principled Centrists' etc...
I don't think it's so much jilted, as abandoned by the friendly big brother in a dysfunctional extended family.
NYT ($) Trump reacts to Cheney's ousting and calls her a "horrible human being"
Comment - Well, he is THE global expert, alright. Now Liz Cheney knows how Rosie O'Donnell feels!
And Kevin McCarthy has wedged his toffy nose as far up Secret POTUS's assssss as possible. In expectation it will make him the next Speaker in two years.
Personally am not so sure this is a winning game plan. Even if the GOP takes the US House in 2022. In part because counting on Trumpsky's loyalty in return for your own, is true a sucker bet.
Will be interesting to find out how many Rep Reps voted for & against La Cheney?
Of the three House GOPers currently representing WA State (out ten total) two voted to impeach Trumpsky after the coup. One of these, Jaime Herrera Beutler announced yesterday that she was voting in favor of retaining Cheney as House Republican conference chair. The other, Dan Newhouse, has not announced his vote, along with Cathy McMorris Rogers who previous served in House GOP leadership.
Next big event within the Republican congressional circus tent: who will replace Liz Cheney? McCarthy's pick Elise Stefanik?
Probably, as she is McCarthy's (latest) pick - but then so was Cheney only weeks ago. And there are more than just rumblings among the REAL red-meat right-wingers, that Stefanik, a former moderate (somewhat akin to Nikolai Bukharin among the Bolsheviks) is NOT sufficiently conservative (if that's the right word for it).
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
I saw on the internet someone has worked out the “real experienced density” of various countries by looking at where people actually live.
Spain was surprisingly dense, for example, because people tend to live in very dense cities and towns.
I don’t have time to find it - I’m at work - but it would be interesting to see if someone has estimate this for E, S, W & NI.
This is really important, because if the UK and Greenland merged, it would dramatically reduce population density... In theory that would reduce covid... But in reality it would have no impact.
Yes, however, it's not the whole story, distance between densely populated areas is also fairly important as seeding the virus becomes more difficult due to travel restrictions on the general population. England has a very high population density and very little distance between urban different centres making viral seeding of new areas very easy and therefore much more likely to happen.
That would certainly be more important if new variants were a big factor. The original seeding IIRC happened quite quickly all over the UK (skiers from Italy etc). Yet the Kent vasriant appeared very quickly in Glasgow, for instance, dod it not?
Yes, it would be a big deal for a completely vaccine evading variant and that's why I think we need a proper containment strategy to avoid ever needing to lockdown again. Happily the chances of that ever happening are remote and all of the variants don't seem able to escape any currently approved vaccine.
On the Kent variant ending up in Scotland, I think there were a very small number of seed cases vs shit loads in London and the SE which is why that wave was so awful in London and the SE but not so bad elsewhere for quite a while or at all.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
The train route between the two Scottish cities is also slow, and takes you through a lot of countryside.
Unsurprising. The Liverpool to Manchester train can be slow too, but never leaves urban areas on its entire journey.
The idea the two runs are the same is patently absurd.
But most people get on/off at the ends.
But the point is that most spread won't be happening via largely empty trains. From Manchester to Liverpool it can spread contiguously within walking distance, from house to neighbours, to shops, to school, to workplace.
The countryside keeps a firebreak between that there. But there is no countryside between them here.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Danes love the UK, they quote huge screeds of Monty Python, they adore British TV shows, they like to practice their English (which is not great compared to Sweden or Norway) and they felt their was a bond - a bit like the UK obsession with the USA, the UK only knows about Denmark from Guardian articles that are invariably wrong about life here and dark police dramas....
There's also Borgen, and the vicious battles between parties called 'Moderates', 'New Democrats', 'Principled Centrists' etc...
I don't think it's so much jilted, as abandoned by the friendly big brother in a dysfunctional extended family.
I think that’s right. If you were Denmark, you could rely on us as a close ally (see how integrated we were in Afghanistan for instance) to stand up for you in the EU and always be working with you at the Cion. We’ve abandoned them. The whole northern group, really.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
I saw on the internet someone has worked out the “real experienced density” of various countries by looking at where people actually live.
Spain was surprisingly dense, for example, because people tend to live in very dense cities and towns.
I don’t have time to find it - I’m at work - but it would be interesting to see if someone has estimate this for E, S, W & NI.
This is really important, because if the UK and Greenland merged, it would dramatically reduce population density... In theory that would reduce covid... But in reality it would have no impact.
Yes, however, it's not the whole story, distance between densely populated areas is also fairly important as seeding the virus becomes more difficult due to travel restrictions on the general population. England has a very high population density and very little distance between urban different centres making viral seeding of new areas very easy and therefore much more likely to happen.
That would certainly be more important if new variants were a big factor. The original seeding IIRC happened quite quickly all over the UK (skiers from Italy etc). Yet the Kent vasriant appeared very quickly in Glasgow, for instance, dod it not?
But once people lockdown people stay within a local area. So not much travel between one area and another.
But the Northwest is one contiguous metropolitan area. I can go to my local shop and people shopping there can be local and that runs contiguously between the cities. There's no stopping point there.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
Too much guardian reading and CNN watching I think. If there is a brexit effect, even in the short term, it is mostly going to be carried by the food/fishing industry because of EU border pedantry. Most of everything else will just get on with life. Speaking from my position in financial services, the death of the City that everyone in the EU keeps hyping up doesn't seem likely, hiring is stronger than I've ever seen it and we're winning clients from outside the EU much faster than we were when we were in it and for us it's made up for the difficulty in servicing EU based clients and more. I think 2021 will be a record year for us in terms of asset gains and 2022 will be a record for profitability.
Thanks for the "I'm alright Jack" anecdote. There are plenty of very real businesses that have suffered so that those that jerk off about "sovrinty init" can have their moment of ecstasy.
The reality is that Brexit is and was a massive upheaval. Whether it was economically worth it I am happy to concede will now need to be decided by impartial historical economists probably long after I have ceased to care, and though I am not dead, I am already not far off not caring now.
As far as I was concerned, the worst thing about Brexit was that it was so massively divisive. Some people and some politicians get off on that, just like the SNP in Scotland. It might be helpful if people who were in favour of Brexit owned a bit of humility instead of constantly trying to justify Brexit when there is no need to do so. We are not going back in. You don't need to keep picking at the wound.
They have some interesting tech (some of which is British), and it wouldn't be ridiculous to target a sector like this.
Hmm, it depends on the value chain. One of the reasons that import substitution tends to fail is because countries that attempt it have a much higher cost structure and more valuable jobs are lost higher up the value chain than are created at the bottom in low end manufacturing due to feed in prices rising.
For example, are we substituting German made BMWs for British made Jaguars? That's not a big deal as we've kept most of the value chain almost identical and it's a net gain in jobs as more Jags are built here to make up for fewer BMWs being bought. Are we replacing machine made semi-manufactured goods imported from Germany with more expensive British manually made goods that have a 50% higher cost with the imports made uncompetitive with tariffs? That is a big deal because Jag are saddled with a higher cost structure and unable to compete with BMW in export markets.
There are areas where import substitution makes sense but I'm not convinced that solar panels is one given just how big the cost differential is vs Chinese made solar panels. If we lumber domestic solar companies higher up the value chain with very high cost panels it may end up collapsing the industry and we won't sell those panels anywhere else as Chinese manufacturers will be offering a slightly lesser product for 10% of the cost.
The cost differential would be nothing like that. And bear in mind that module cost is well under 40% of any total project cost, whereas increased module efficiencies bear on 100% of the cost.
In any event, solar will provide over half of global electricity within a couple of decades. Allowing China to completely control the manufacturing chain is a strategic as well as economic error.
IIRC China doesn't dominate the production of metalurgical grade silicon, which is the preserve of the Norwegians (REC) and the Japanese (Tokayama?)
Sure, but it makes around 90 of the world's solar modules. (And as perovskites improve, it's quite feasible that the whole business will go thin film and silicon won't be needed at all.)
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
The train route between the two Scottish cities is also slow, and takes you through a lot of countryside.
Unsurprising. The Liverpool to Manchester train can be slow too, but never leaves urban areas on its entire journey.
When did they build houses on Chat Moss...? There's literally nothing between Newton le Willows and Patricroft
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Danes love the UK, they quote huge screeds of Monty Python, they adore British TV shows, they like to practice their English (which is not great compared to Sweden or Norway) and they felt their was a bond - a bit like the UK obsession with the USA, the UK only knows about Denmark from Guardian articles that are invariably wrong about life here and dark police dramas....
There's also Borgen, and the vicious battles between parties called 'Moderates', 'New Democrats', 'Principled Centrists' etc...
I don't think it's so much jilted, as abandoned by the friendly big brother in a dysfunctional extended family.
I think that’s right. If you were Denmark, you could rely on us as a close ally (see how integrated we were in Afghanistan for instance) to stand up for you in the EU and always be working with you at the Cion. We’ve abandoned them. The whole northern group, really.
I always felt that the UK should lead Scandinavia (Sweden, Denmark, possibly Finland) into a semi-detached status WRT to the EU. One of Cameron's big failures was to miss the fact that we weren't the only unhappy country inside the EU, and that many of the other unhappy countries had interests in common with us.
NYT ($) Trump reacts to Cheney's ousting and calls her a "horrible human being"
Comment - Well, he is THE global expert, alright. Now Liz Cheney knows how Rosie O'Donnell feels!
And Kevin McCarthy has wedged his toffy nose as far up Secret POTUS's assssss as possible. In expectation it will make him the next Speaker in two years.
Personally am not so sure this is a winning game plan. Even if the GOP takes the US House in 2022. In part because counting on Trumpsky's loyalty in return for your own, is true a sucker bet.
Will be interesting to find out how many Rep Reps voted for & against La Cheney?
Of the three House GOPers currently representing WA State (out ten total) two voted to impeach Trumpsky after the coup. One of these, Jaime Herrera Beutler announced yesterday that she was voting in favor of retaining Cheney as House Republican conference chair. The other, Dan Newhouse, has not announced his vote, along with Cathy McMorris Rogers who previous served in House GOP leadership.
Next big event within the Republican congressional circus tent: who will replace Liz Cheney? McCarthy's pick Elise Stefanik?
Probably, as she is McCarthy's (latest) pick - but then so was Cheney only weeks ago. And there are more than just rumblings among the REAL red-meat right-wingers, that Stefanik, a former moderate (somewhat akin to Nikolai Bukharin among the Bolsheviks) is NOT sufficiently conservative (if that's the right word for it).
All this is only going on because Neo-Con support amongst voters is precisely zip though, right? Toe the line or get primaried and get beaten by a Trumpista.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
I saw on the internet someone has worked out the “real experienced density” of various countries by looking at where people actually live.
Spain was surprisingly dense, for example, because people tend to live in very dense cities and towns.
I don’t have time to find it - I’m at work - but it would be interesting to see if someone has estimate this for E, S, W & NI.
This is really important, because if the UK and Greenland merged, it would dramatically reduce population density... In theory that would reduce covid... But in reality it would have no impact.
Yes, however, it's not the whole story, distance between densely populated areas is also fairly important as seeding the virus becomes more difficult due to travel restrictions on the general population. England has a very high population density and very little distance between urban different centres making viral seeding of new areas very easy and therefore much more likely to happen.
That would certainly be more important if new variants were a big factor. The original seeding IIRC happened quite quickly all over the UK (skiers from Italy etc). Yet the Kent vasriant appeared very quickly in Glasgow, for instance, dod it not?
Yes, it would be a big deal for a completely vaccine evading variant and that's why I think we need a proper containment strategy to avoid ever needing to lockdown again. Happily the chances of that ever happening are remote and all of the variants don't seem able to escape any currently approved vaccine.
On the Kent variant ending up in Scotland, I think there were a very small number of seed cases vs shit loads in London and the SE which is why that wave was so awful in London and the SE but not so bad elsewhere for quite a while or at all.
Judging by the comments today of Boris and others, the pressure to go back into lockdown in the autumn will be intense.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Danes love the UK, they quote huge screeds of Monty Python, they adore British TV shows, they like to practice their English (which is not great compared to Sweden or Norway) and they felt their was a bond - a bit like the UK obsession with the USA, the UK only knows about Denmark from Guardian articles that are invariably wrong about life here and dark police dramas....
There's also Borgen, and the vicious battles between parties called 'Moderates', 'New Democrats', 'Principled Centrists' etc...
I don't think it's so much jilted, as abandoned by the friendly big brother in a dysfunctional extended family.
I think that’s right. If you were Denmark, you could rely on us as a close ally (see how integrated we were in Afghanistan for instance) to stand up for you in the EU and always be working with you at the Cion. We’ve abandoned them. The whole northern group, really.
I always felt that the UK should lead Scandinavia (Sweden, Denmark, possibly Finland) into a semi-detached status WRT to the EU. One of Cameron's big failures was to miss the fact that we weren't the only unhappy country inside the EU, and that many of the other unhappy countries had interests in common with us.
I agree. We never did build that alliance. Many of those countries would at the very least have been keen to join a “this far and no further” block.
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
The street in the sky that Erno Goldfinger DESIGNED
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
LOL. Bit of misinformation there.
The House be built himself to live in - complete with garages downstairs and a better interior. It is a block of three
Front
Example Room
Hideous
And, also, I said "the street where he lived". That IS the street where he lived. Willow Road. A lovely bit of old Hampstead that he made worse with his repulsive redbrick Kwikfit garage of a "house"
That house is delightful.
The interior? Yes, rather pleasant (I wouldn't go as far as delightful)
The exterior, what everyone else is forced to look at, is stupid and ugly. Depressing municipal bricks, like a minor bus terminus in Croydon. Horrible metal upper storey windows- is it a sweat shop? A small factory with kids inside?
The idiotic spindly pilotis are laughable. WTAF is that weird bit of wall in the front meant to do? There is no greenery to cheer anyone up. The wooden screens are stained like the bricks. The doors are dank, dark and unwelcoming. The frontage bears no relation to the rest of the street. The whole thing looks like a bad public toilet mixed with a sad factory making false teeth and as soon as you walk in you would expect to find needles on the floor from all the junkies squatting inside.
Apart from that it's a massive adornment to the Hampstead streetscape
No greenery
SeanT would love it - enough bedrooms for 6 mistresses.
Quite modern plan - the obvious shortage is bathrooms 2-4.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
The train route between the two Scottish cities is also slow, and takes you through a lot of countryside.
Unsurprising. The Liverpool to Manchester train can be slow too, but never leaves urban areas on its entire journey.
The idea the two runs are the same is patently absurd.
But most people get on/off at the ends.
But the point is that most spread won't be happening via largely empty trains. From Manchester to Liverpool it can spread contiguously within walking distance, from house to neighbours, to shops, to school, to workplace.
The countryside keeps a firebreak between that there. But there is no countryside between them here.
Hmm. If we are dealing with the overall density of the virus - yes.
But someome who travels regularly between two cities within an hour or so is in a sense in two places at once for all practical purposes. Whether that takes 15 min or 60 min doesn't matter much, so long as quite a few people do it, enough to establish the pox. Firebrteak bypassed. But then yfou need enough to break through the dead ends imposed by local control - so the health control issue is also important there.
It'll be interesting to see the studies of the future - and how the spread varied from wave to wave.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Remember the Danish PM saying that Europe consists of small countries and countries that haven't realised they are small? If Brexit isn't a failure it challenges their assumptions and also reminds them that some countries are smaller than others.
The definition of Brexit success or failure will depend on who is reviewing the evidence, much like the public enquiry that has just been announced. The best thing would be if the remaining remoaners (yes I have used the term) stopped moaning and the smug leave fanatics stopped carping. We will all then start to get on a bit better and repair any damage (and oh yes there has been some) and try and pick out any advantages that might be there (and yes there will be some).
They have some interesting tech (some of which is British), and it wouldn't be ridiculous to target a sector like this.
Hmm, it depends on the value chain. One of the reasons that import substitution tends to fail is because countries that attempt it have a much higher cost structure and more valuable jobs are lost higher up the value chain than are created at the bottom in low end manufacturing due to feed in prices rising.
For example, are we substituting German made BMWs for British made Jaguars? That's not a big deal as we've kept most of the value chain almost identical and it's a net gain in jobs as more Jags are built here to make up for fewer BMWs being bought. Are we replacing machine made semi-manufactured goods imported from Germany with more expensive British manually made goods that have a 50% higher cost with the imports made uncompetitive with tariffs? That is a big deal because Jag are saddled with a higher cost structure and unable to compete with BMW in export markets.
There are areas where import substitution makes sense but I'm not convinced that solar panels is one given just how big the cost differential is vs Chinese made solar panels. If we lumber domestic solar companies higher up the value chain with very high cost panels it may end up collapsing the industry and we won't sell those panels anywhere else as Chinese manufacturers will be offering a slightly lesser product for 10% of the cost.
The cost differential would be nothing like that. And bear in mind that module cost is well under 40% of any total project cost, whereas increased module efficiencies bear on 100% of the cost.
In any event, solar will provide over half of global electricity within a couple of decades. Allowing China to completely control the manufacturing chain is a strategic as well as economic error.
IIRC China doesn't dominate the production of metalurgical grade silicon, which is the preserve of the Norwegians (REC) and the Japanese (Tokayama?)
Sure, but it makes around 90 of the world's solar modules. (And as perovskites improve, it's quite feasible that the whole business will go thin film and silicon won't be needed at all.)
Solar module manufacturing is incredibly easy and low tech: you buy solar cells and you connect them together in a frame. I could start a solar module manufacturing factory in less than a week, and without buying any expensive equipment.
Solar cell making is harder. You need to slice the silicon up and then perform various treatments on it. It requires specialist plants and specialist knowledge. But it's not that high tech. You could get a plant up and running in the UK in three or four months.
Silicon purification, on the other hand, is really quite hard work.
The Chinese are utterly dependent on the West for silicon. We're a little bit, but not really, dependent on the Chinese for modules and cells.
If we wanted to, we could shut down all Chinese solar manufacturing in about a week. And they wouldn't be able to rapidly recover. The reverse simply isn't true.
"A progressive party seeking power which looks askance at the likes of Trevor Phillips, Sara Khan or JK Rowling is not going to win." Tony Blair speaks truth to the powerless
Looking quite contiguous and metropolitan between Glasgow and Edinburgh
Interesting map. I looked at a map of Scottish councils the other day and how they voted in the last indy referendum. There is a strong case there for options to be given to Borders and Orkney and Shetland to remain in the UK following an independence vote by an urban dominated pro-Independence movement. Alternatively, perhaps Glasgow could go it alone? They seem very keen. I don't think many others would mind.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
I saw on the internet someone has worked out the “real experienced density” of various countries by looking at where people actually live.
Spain was surprisingly dense, for example, because people tend to live in very dense cities and towns.
I don’t have time to find it - I’m at work - but it would be interesting to see if someone has estimate this for E, S, W & NI.
This is really important, because if the UK and Greenland merged, it would dramatically reduce population density... In theory that would reduce covid... But in reality it would have no impact.
Yes, however, it's not the whole story, distance between densely populated areas is also fairly important as seeding the virus becomes more difficult due to travel restrictions on the general population. England has a very high population density and very little distance between urban different centres making viral seeding of new areas very easy and therefore much more likely to happen.
That would certainly be more important if new variants were a big factor. The original seeding IIRC happened quite quickly all over the UK (skiers from Italy etc). Yet the Kent vasriant appeared very quickly in Glasgow, for instance, dod it not?
But once people lockdown people stay within a local area. So not much travel between one area and another.
But the Northwest is one contiguous metropolitan area. I can go to my local shop and people shopping there can be local and that runs contiguously between the cities. There's no stopping point there.
On point 2 - quite. But we're not the proverbial squirrels of the Anglo-Saxon wildwood of England that needed a long line of contigious trees. We can take trains (effectively, wormholes) bwteeen geographically discontinous cities. The question then becomes, how much transit does one need to have a fair chance of introducing the pox, despite the public health measures implemented in the receiving area, and how far they are being respected? Will be good to know, if only for next time ...
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
The train route between the two Scottish cities is also slow, and takes you through a lot of countryside.
Unsurprising. The Liverpool to Manchester train can be slow too, but never leaves urban areas on its entire journey.
The idea the two runs are the same is patently absurd.
To be pedantic - and I apologies because I am broadly on your side on this, but this is a bigger point: accuracy of information about trains - the main Mcr-Lpl train is now the Chat Moss route, which for a remarkable 10 miles or so passes through countryside (the aforementioned Chat Moss). Chat Moss is a bit of an anomaly though. Essentially there is a string of small and medium sized towns from the outer edges of Salford to the outer edges of Liverpool (Worsley-Tyldesley-Leigh-Golborne-Ashton in Makerfield/Newton-le-Willows-Haydock-St. Helens-Prescott-Huyton without a real gap between them.
The density in Paris actually looks a bit like the Eiffel Tower.
Image really brings home how densely populated most of England is (exceptions are the SW, East Anglia and north of Manchester/Leeds). Quite the contrast with France. I've always said of France that it is one huge farm with the old small town here and there.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Remember the Danish PM saying that Europe consists of small countries and countries that haven't realised they are small? If Brexit isn't a failure it challenges their assumptions and also reminds them that some countries are smaller than others.
The definition of Brexit success or failure will depend on who is reviewing the evidence, much like the public enquiry that has just been announced. The best thing would be if the remaining remoaners (yes I have used the term) stopped moaning and the smug leave fanatics stopped carping. We will all then start to get on a bit better and repair any damage (and oh yes there has been some) and try and pick out any advantages that might be there (and yes there will be some).
No it won't.
Success is simple: no mainstream political party in the UK will be proposing the UK rejoins.
Failure is that our economic performance is if this lingers and poisons political discourse for a decade or more.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
Too much guardian reading and CNN watching I think. If there is a brexit effect, even in the short term, it is mostly going to be carried by the food/fishing industry because of EU border pedantry. Most of everything else will just get on with life. Speaking from my position in financial services, the death of the City that everyone in the EU keeps hyping up doesn't seem likely, hiring is stronger than I've ever seen it and we're winning clients from outside the EU much faster than we were when we were in it and for us it's made up for the difficulty in servicing EU based clients and more. I think 2021 will be a record year for us in terms of asset gains and 2022 will be a record for profitability.
Thanks for the "I'm alright Jack" anecdote. There are plenty of very real businesses that have suffered so that those that jerk off about "sovrinty init" can have their moment of ecstasy.
The reality is that Brexit is and was a massive upheaval. Whether it was economically worth it I am happy to concede will now need to be decided by impartial historical economists probably long after I have ceased to care, and though I am not dead, I am already not far off not caring now.
As far as I was concerned, the worst thing about Brexit was that it was so massively divisive. Some people and some politicians get off on that, just like the SNP in Scotland. It might be helpful if people who were in favour of Brexit owned a bit of humility instead of constantly trying to justify Brexit when there is no need to do so. We are not going back in. You don't need to keep picking at the wound.
That's not really what I was going for and I do accept that there will be some tough times for specific industries, mostly in food and fishing.
I think what you fail to see is that EU membership was also massively divisive, as someone who benefits from it's not easy to understand why it would be but communities across the whole country have been destroyed by wage deflation and stagnation in lower-middle income jobs and the resulting increase in population has also resulted in a crash in owner occupation of houses.
As much as I'm a realist about what brexit is and isn't (and there are many items in each column) I think you should be realistic about what EU membership had turned into for large swathes of the country. That resentment and divisiveness was already there with or without a referendum. In 2015 4m people voted for UKIP, by a quirk of our voting system they didn't get any seats. In the road not taken where Dave refused a referendum how many cycles do you think it would have taken for PM Nige to become a reality? Pretending that EU membership was all sunlit uplands isn't realistic.
NYT ($) Trump reacts to Cheney's ousting and calls her a "horrible human being"
Comment - Well, he is THE global expert, alright. Now Liz Cheney knows how Rosie O'Donnell feels!
And Kevin McCarthy has wedged his toffy nose as far up Secret POTUS's assssss as possible. In expectation it will make him the next Speaker in two years.
Personally am not so sure this is a winning game plan. Even if the GOP takes the US House in 2022. In part because counting on Trumpsky's loyalty in return for your own, is true a sucker bet.
Will be interesting to find out how many Rep Reps voted for & against La Cheney?
Of the three House GOPers currently representing WA State (out ten total) two voted to impeach Trumpsky after the coup. One of these, Jaime Herrera Beutler announced yesterday that she was voting in favor of retaining Cheney as House Republican conference chair. The other, Dan Newhouse, has not announced his vote, along with Cathy McMorris Rogers who previous served in House GOP leadership.
Next big event within the Republican congressional circus tent: who will replace Liz Cheney? McCarthy's pick Elise Stefanik?
Probably, as she is McCarthy's (latest) pick - but then so was Cheney only weeks ago. And there are more than just rumblings among the REAL red-meat right-wingers, that Stefanik, a former moderate (somewhat akin to Nikolai Bukharin among the Bolsheviks) is NOT sufficiently conservative (if that's the right word for it).
All this is only going on because Neo-Con support amongst voters is precisely zip though, right? Toe the line or get primaried and get beaten by a Trumpista.
Still remains to be seen, although results of first round of Texas 6th congressional special election DO tend to bear out you point, in early 2021 anyway.
But one swallow does NOT a summer (or a biennium) make.
As to primaries, note that both Jaime Herrera Beutler and Dan Newhouse (neither of whom are really Neo-Cons in sense I think you mean) have an advantage over the rest of the House Republicans who voted to impeach Cheney: the WA State Top Two primary system.
Meaning there is no Republican - or Democratic - primary per se. Instead, all candidate run on the same ballot - like in the Texas special election - with top two vote-getters advancing to the general.
So definitely possibility that in the fall of 2022, voters in both Herrera Beutler's and Newhouse's district will be voting between two GOPers for Congress. Meaning that both Republicans AND Democrats, along with independents, will have choice between them or their Trumpskyite challengers.
EDIT - In fact, that's how Dan Newhouse got elected to US House in the first place, he ran in the general election against a Tea Party GOPer and won.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
The train route between the two Scottish cities is also slow, and takes you through a lot of countryside.
45-60 mins, and the countryside bit is irrelevant as the doors are shut ...
Yuppie skiers coming back from Italy come a lot further and longer, and the doors are also shut ...
One of the curious things about the pandemic is how it brings individual posters little obsessions to light.
Looking quite contiguous and metropolitan between Glasgow and Edinburgh
Yes. Which is why that part of Scotland has had such high death rates, for Europe. But the peaks are not as high nor the spread as big as in the Liverpool-Manchester strip, or at London or Birmingham. Where death rates are even higher.
I don't think anyone reasonably denies that Glasgow and Edinburgh are big, dense and close together, or that there are towns like Airdrie and Bathgate which string between them. Philip's point, I think (well mine) is that Liverpool and Manchester are collectively bigger, the small towns between the two are bigger, and the gaps between the small towns are smaller.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
The train route between the two Scottish cities is also slow, and takes you through a lot of countryside.
45-60 mins, and the countryside bit is irrelevant as the doors are shut ...
Yuppie skiers coming back from Italy come a lot further and longer, and the doors are also shut ...
One of the curious things about the pandemic is how it brings individual posters little obsessions to light.
That's a cool chart, but it would be even better if north was at the top...
If you want what the hell am I looking at there's this:
ANOTHER IMAGE
The 4th picture on Carlotta's link in case my embedding (quite probably) doesn't work.
The 6th is interesting too. Is that really the population density of the North African coast ???
Now, quick, everyone, throw in the next 100 comments before we kill the load speed.
(I promise, no more)
Yes, Tunis for instance is a pretty big city (and a really great place to visit, thoroughly recommend it). North Africa was the breadbasket of the Roman world. Egypt, in particular, but what is now Tunisia very much as well.
If their internal review said Good Things about the PM then it would have been published, front page gushing coverage in The Sun, Heil, Express etc. It won't be published because it's scathing.
So of course the official enquiry is being delayed 12 months to be published after the next general election. He's frit.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Danes love the UK, they quote huge screeds of Monty Python, they adore British TV shows, they like to practice their English (which is not great compared to Sweden or Norway) and they felt their was a bond - a bit like the UK obsession with the USA, the UK only knows about Denmark from Guardian articles that are invariably wrong about life here and dark police dramas....
There's also Borgen, and the vicious battles between parties called 'Moderates', 'New Democrats', 'Principled Centrists' etc...
I don't think it's so much jilted, as abandoned by the friendly big brother in a dysfunctional extended family.
I think that’s right. If you were Denmark, you could rely on us as a close ally (see how integrated we were in Afghanistan for instance) to stand up for you in the EU and always be working with you at the Cion. We’ve abandoned them. The whole northern group, really.
I always felt that the UK should lead Scandinavia (Sweden, Denmark, possibly Finland) into a semi-detached status WRT to the EU. One of Cameron's big failures was to miss the fact that we weren't the only unhappy country inside the EU, and that many of the other unhappy countries had interests in common with us.
I agree. We never did build that alliance. Many of those countries would at the very least have been keen to join a “this far and no further” block.
That boat sailed once the Euro and the ECB were in place. The EU does not allow reverse gear which would have been required for semi detached status and Finland are in the Euro already. Denmark and Sweden should have joined our Brexit project, of course, but may because of their opt out, be under the illusion that they are not part of an emerging state by being in the EU. Norway, Denmark, Sweden and UK would have made excellent EFTA partners.
One of Cameron's big failures was to miss the fact that we weren't the only unhappy country inside the EU
We weren't unhappy in the EU
Some people were unhappy with immigrants, and this is the result
You weren't. Many people were. Its why all the economic disaster stuff didn't prevent Stoke Man rushing to vote Brexit. Now if their unhappiness about the EU, was all down to the EU is a different matter.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Danes love the UK, they quote huge screeds of Monty Python, they adore British TV shows, they like to practice their English (which is not great compared to Sweden or Norway) and they felt their was a bond - a bit like the UK obsession with the USA, the UK only knows about Denmark from Guardian articles that are invariably wrong about life here and dark police dramas....
There's also Borgen, and the vicious battles between parties called 'Moderates', 'New Democrats', 'Principled Centrists' etc...
I don't think it's so much jilted, as abandoned by the friendly big brother in a dysfunctional extended family.
I think that’s right. If you were Denmark, you could rely on us as a close ally (see how integrated we were in Afghanistan for instance) to stand up for you in the EU and always be working with you at the Cion. We’ve abandoned them. The whole northern group, really.
I always felt that the UK should lead Scandinavia (Sweden, Denmark, possibly Finland) into a semi-detached status WRT to the EU. One of Cameron's big failures was to miss the fact that we weren't the only unhappy country inside the EU, and that many of the other unhappy countries had interests in common with us.
I'm not sure that's fair. The other countries like to talk about being unhappy within the EU, the UK was the only one to actually do something about it. Look at how the Netherlands would always side against us in votes and use the UK as an "anti-Europe" punching bag until we actually left and they had to publicly voice their own issues and be cast into the role of "anti-Europe".
You weren't. Many people were. Its why all the economic disaster stuff didn't prevent Stoke Man rushing to vote Brexit. Now if their unhappiness about the EU, was all down to the EU is a different matter.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why Danes care about the UK, that explains why British Remainers Remoan
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
Remember the Danish PM saying that Europe consists of small countries and countries that haven't realised they are small? If Brexit isn't a failure it challenges their assumptions and also reminds them that some countries are smaller than others.
The definition of Brexit success or failure will depend on who is reviewing the evidence, much like the public enquiry that has just been announced. The best thing would be if the remaining remoaners (yes I have used the term) stopped moaning and the smug leave fanatics stopped carping. We will all then start to get on a bit better and repair any damage (and oh yes there has been some) and try and pick out any advantages that might be there (and yes there will be some).
No it won't.
Success is simple: no mainstream political party in the UK will be proposing the UK rejoins.
Failure is that our economic performance is if this lingers and poisons political discourse for a decade or more.
Your definition of success is not one that any business person or economist would recognise and is based on purely a blinkered political analysis, but if it floats your boat, enjoy it!
Failure or success could be defined on a huge number of criteria. If it is purely political it could be argued that it is broadly a success because people have (for whatever reason) continued to endorse the party responsible. It does not mean it was a success from a geopolitical perspective, particularly IF (and I hope not) it leads to the breakup of the UK. That would be another success for Vladimir.
You weren't. Many people were. Its why all the economic disaster stuff didn't prevent Stoke Man rushing to vote Brexit. Now if their unhappiness about the EU, was all down to the EU is a different matter.
They weren't unhappy with the EU
They were unhappy with immigration.
For which they wrongly blamed the EU
No, Stoke Man was unhappy about far more than that. Which is why you just don't get Brexit, you can't rationalise why so many people voted it, despite all the warnings about all the downsides. It was about more than just a load of Poles coming here for work.
If the UK could turned the tap off on immigration, that might have swung it, but there is still a significant number of people who were unhappy about much more than that in regards to the status quo.
It's how lightly populated France and Spain are that stand out for me, and Scandinavia.
On the other hand, the density of Italy surprised me.
Italy is a) smaller than France and Spain but with comparable population, and more importantly b) very mountainous, so the parts which are inhabitable are inhabited very heavily. (I think?)
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
Too much guardian reading and CNN watching I think. If there is a brexit effect, even in the short term, it is mostly going to be carried by the food/fishing industry because of EU border pedantry. Most of everything else will just get on with life. Speaking from my position in financial services, the death of the City that everyone in the EU keeps hyping up doesn't seem likely, hiring is stronger than I've ever seen it and we're winning clients from outside the EU much faster than we were when we were in it and for us it's made up for the difficulty in servicing EU based clients and more. I think 2021 will be a record year for us in terms of asset gains and 2022 will be a record for profitability.
Thanks for the "I'm alright Jack" anecdote. There are plenty of very real businesses that have suffered so that those that jerk off about "sovrinty init" can have their moment of ecstasy.
The reality is that Brexit is and was a massive upheaval. Whether it was economically worth it I am happy to concede will now need to be decided by impartial historical economists probably long after I have ceased to care, and though I am not dead, I am already not far off not caring now.
As far as I was concerned, the worst thing about Brexit was that it was so massively divisive. Some people and some politicians get off on that, just like the SNP in Scotland. It might be helpful if people who were in favour of Brexit owned a bit of humility instead of constantly trying to justify Brexit when there is no need to do so. We are not going back in. You don't need to keep picking at the wound.
That's not really what I was going for and I do accept that there will be some tough times for specific industries, mostly in food and fishing.
I think what you fail to see is that EU membership was also massively divisive, as someone who benefits from it's not easy to understand why it would be but communities across the whole country have been destroyed by wage deflation and stagnation in lower-middle income jobs and the resulting increase in population has also resulted in a crash in owner occupation of houses.
As much as I'm a realist about what brexit is and isn't (and there are many items in each column) I think you should be realistic about what EU membership had turned into for large swathes of the country. That resentment and divisiveness was already there with or without a referendum. In 2015 4m people voted for UKIP, by a quirk of our voting system they didn't get any seats. In the road not taken where Dave refused a referendum how many cycles do you think it would have taken for PM Nige to become a reality? Pretending that EU membership was all sunlit uplands isn't realistic.
I am trying not to be drawn into EU arguments as I think we need to move on, but I think your argument about "EU membership" has some validity EXCEPT that a lot of the associated problems with free movement were as a result of British government immigration policies, and the reality that 50% of UK immigration had nothing to do with the EU and yet successive Home Secretaries (including Mrs May) did nothing about it and tacitly encouraged it. The EU was blamed for immigration because it was convenient. It is all history now though!
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Manchester Metropolitan area: 2,556,000 Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000 Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Some European definitions describe the Manchester-Liverpool conurbation as one continuous built-up area like the Ruhr. Manchester-Liverpool was considered the 10th largest conurbation in the EU, back when it was in the EU. I think this is reasonably convincing. It's easily possible to travel from Manchester city centre to Liverpool city centre and never be more than 200m from a building. (Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
Precisely!
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
The train route between the two Scottish cities is also slow, and takes you through a lot of countryside.
Unsurprising. The Liverpool to Manchester train can be slow too, but never leaves urban areas on its entire journey.
When did they build houses on Chat Moss...? There's literally nothing between Newton le Willows and Patricroft
Oh really?
You can very easily get from Newton le Willows to Patricroft without ever being about 200m from a building within walking distance, making it very easy without anyone entering a car or train for the virus to spread from person to person between the two.
Newton le Willows -> Golborne -> Lowton -> Leigh -> Tyldesley -> Worsley -> Patricroft
One urban connurbation without considering other routes like Winwick -> Birchwood etc
Success is simple: no mainstream political party in the UK will be proposing the UK rejoins.
Failure is that our economic performance is if this lingers and poisons political discourse for a decade or more.
The man who negotiated the NI protocol says it is not sustainable.
Is that success or failure?
Of course it isn't sustainable. Given the relevant red lines there is no sustainable solution. There only will be once someone(s) has changed their red lines. The question is who.
I wonder if Boris sometimes wishes he had had the courage (and courage in huge measure) to leave without a deal, decline to put up a border, and thus force RoI and EU to agree a way forward, placing then problem in their lap. The impossible problem would then have been wholly owned by them. As it is it is shared.
BTW it means there are not one but two genuine local 'irresistible force and immovable object' problems awaiting an outcome: R o Ireland and EU v UK over borders; and Boris v Sturgeon.
A permanent stalemate on both would be quite an achievement.
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
The street in the sky that Erno Goldfinger DESIGNED
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
LOL. Bit of misinformation there.
The House be built himself to live in - complete with garages downstairs and a better interior. It is a block of three
Front
Example Room
Hideous
And, also, I said "the street where he lived". That IS the street where he lived. Willow Road. A lovely bit of old Hampstead that he made worse with his repulsive redbrick Kwikfit garage of a "house"
That house is delightful.
He lived in it for about 50 years.
Though being across the road from Hampstead Heath probably helped.
Is that a picture of that nice quiet out of the way pub I hear is in Hampstead?
Wouldn’t sit very well with the age of pay freezes?
Corbyn mania was basically May the public face of your pay freeze, Corbyn says no to pay freeze. And that the age of no inflation.
If inflation comes back and stays at over 4% and there is pay restraint in the client state, regardless who the LOTO is the Tories chances of winning the next election will be less than zero.
Comments
Liverpool Metropolitan area: 2,241,000
Total: 4,797,000
If you add in Leeds-Bradford (2,302,000) you're over 7 million.....
Glasgow: 1,395,000
Edinburgh: 782,000
Total: 2,177,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPON_metropolitan_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom
I understand Ireland's resentment of Brexit, but not Denmark's
People spend 100s of k on trying to make the inside of the others more like the ones Goldfinger built. It works better. I think that's all I need to say, so I'm off out into he sun.
There is a very plausible scenario in which - if we are ever rid of the current plague and the limitations it's imposed - people ache for a return to city life.
I know less about London, but my expectation is that the city centre (and city centre fringe) population of Manchester will continue to grow post-covid. Indeed, the stasis of the last year and a bit will have people clamouring to return.
I went for a walk around central Manchester last Sunday. I hadn't been in for a while. It has absolutely bloomed in my absence; new buildings have shot up. And the streets of Ancoats and the Northern Quarter were absolutely thronging with people.
I think the demand to live close to the centre will be back surprisingly quickly.
And bear in mind that module cost is well under 40% of any total project cost, whereas increased module efficiencies bear on 100% of the cost.
In any event, solar will provide over half of global electricity within a couple of decades. Allowing China to completely control the manufacturing chain is a strategic as well as economic error.
It could definitely go that way: a hedonic boom and the cities explode with life
A serious bout of bad inflation would put a real dampener on that, however. Let us pray that you are right
And now, I have flints to knap... Later
Liverpool City Region has a population of 1,533,350 in a 279 sq mi area.
Greater Manchester has a population of 2,812,569 in a 493 sq mi area.
Glasgow City Region has a population of 1,817,870 in a 1,289 sq mi area.
If you think that the M8 belt is remotely comparable to the M62 corridor for population density then you're a stupid fool. I don't believe you're stupid, so I can only think you're being deliberate obtuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population
The Welsh Government would support an independent inquiry into the four nations of the UK's approach to the handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
It comes as Boris Johnson announced an independent public inquiry would take place starting in Spring 2022.
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2021-05-12/welsh-government-supports-four-nation-covid-inquiry-into-handling-of-pandemic
(Some British definitions would have you believe that Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield is one continuous built up area but that is rather more dubious both topographically and economically).
https://twitter.com/PA/status/1392441711662714883?s=20
At £500 ish it could be a tube of smarties plus enforcement costs.
This will be via the Bulk Centre at Northampton where the process is just a rubber stamp.
I nearly had one of these when a parking ticket did not follow me to a new address.
Obviously the more people travelling the likelier a subpopulation will get infected, and that dependsa on local population, but that function of probability vs transit will be nonlinear - intuitively, a slightly sigmoid curve with a rapid decline in [edit] positive gradient to zero - a classic diminishing return or saturation curve. Barra is obviously on the good (lower) left hand but Edinburgh-Glasgow and Manchester-Liverpool probably went almost at once to p = unity. And the subsequent course of the disease in each area is goiung to be independent of how long it took to get there. So it's a matter of public health in the first place, poverty and crowding, and anti-covid measures, etc.
(That of course assumes only one variant - which is an interesting complication when you go to more than that.)
@Theuniondivvie seems to think that Glasgow to Edinburgh is comparable to that, despite the fact the two cities combined have less population than either of the cities let alone the whole contiguous M62 corridor.
If it is, that would be surprising. If it is - to adopt a way of speaking that some of our SNP posters use - Euronats who feel that way, it isn't surprising at all.
Rationally, they may wish us well. Emotionally, they have firmly planted their expectations in the EU-membership=economic-success earth, and do not want to feel the dissonance of this not being proven right.
Like HYUFD in fact.
T’was ever thus.
The exterior, what everyone else is forced to look at, is stupid and ugly. Depressing municipal bricks, like a minor bus terminus in Croydon. Horrible metal upper storey windows- is it a sweat shop? A small factory with kids inside?
The idiotic spindly pilotis are laughable. WTAF is that weird bit of wall in the front meant to do? There is no greenery to cheer anyone up. The wooden screens are stained like the bricks. The doors are dank, dark and unwelcoming. The frontage bears no relation to the rest of the street. The whole thing looks like a bad public toilet mixed with a sad factory making false teeth and as soon as you walk in you would expect to find needles on the floor from all the junkies squatting inside.
Apart from that it's a massive adornment to the Hampstead streetscape
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/12/laws-protect-scams-enforcement-gutted
Surely this kind of crap unites the left & the right? Catching/preventing crime is a basic state function.
The idea the two runs are the same is patently absurd.
Yuppie skiers coming back from Italy come a lot further and longer, and the doors are also shut ...
Now, no doubt it is the old people in those young cities who are dying. But still - I think it emphasises the impact that density has on death rates.
Though being across the road from Hampstead Heath probably helped.
The Bosnian Serb war criminal was convicted of the Srebrenica genocide.
Dominic Raab hits out at Karadžić's "heinous crimes", adding he's "responsible for the massacre of men, women & children"
Foreign Secretary says: "Radovan Karadžić is one of the few people to have been found guilty of genocide & helped prosecute the siege of Sarajevo...
"From UK support to secure his arrest, to the prison cell he now faces, Britain has supported the 30 year pursuit of justice"
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1392484826528235521?s=20
Edit to add: also Wacker in Germany. Basically, the Chinese are very good at doing the low value add part of the solar chain (i.e. making wafers out of silicon), but actually purifying the silicon is the difficult bit, and they have very little presence there.
I don't think it's so much jilted, as abandoned by the friendly big brother in a dysfunctional extended family.
Comment - Well, he is THE global expert, alright. Now Liz Cheney knows how Rosie O'Donnell feels!
And Kevin McCarthy has wedged his toffy nose as far up Secret POTUS's assssss as possible. In expectation it will make him the next Speaker in two years.
Personally am not so sure this is a winning game plan. Even if the GOP takes the US House in 2022. In part because counting on Trumpsky's loyalty in return for your own, is true a sucker bet.
Will be interesting to find out how many Rep Reps voted for & against La Cheney?
Of the three House GOPers currently representing WA State (out ten total) two voted to impeach Trumpsky after the coup. One of these, Jaime Herrera Beutler announced yesterday that she was voting in favor of retaining Cheney as House Republican conference chair. The other, Dan Newhouse, has not announced his vote, along with Cathy McMorris Rogers who previous served in House GOP leadership.
Next big event within the Republican congressional circus tent: who will replace Liz Cheney? McCarthy's pick Elise Stefanik?
Probably, as she is McCarthy's (latest) pick - but then so was Cheney only weeks ago. And there are more than just rumblings among the REAL red-meat right-wingers, that Stefanik, a former moderate (somewhat akin to Nikolai Bukharin among the Bolsheviks) is NOT sufficiently conservative (if that's the right word for it).
http://www.statsmapsnpix.com/2020/04/population-density-in-europe.html
On the Kent variant ending up in Scotland, I think there were a very small number of seed cases vs shit loads in London and the SE which is why that wave was so awful in London and the SE but not so bad elsewhere for quite a while or at all.
The countryside keeps a firebreak between that there. But there is no countryside between them here.
But the Northwest is one contiguous metropolitan area. I can go to my local shop and people shopping there can be local and that runs contiguously between the cities. There's no stopping point there.
The reality is that Brexit is and was a massive upheaval. Whether it was economically worth it I am happy to concede will now need to be decided by impartial historical economists probably long after I have ceased to care, and though I am not dead, I am already not far off not caring now.
As far as I was concerned, the worst thing about Brexit was that it was so massively divisive. Some people and some politicians get off on that, just like the SNP in Scotland. It might be helpful if people who were in favour of Brexit owned a bit of humility instead of constantly trying to justify Brexit when there is no need to do so. We are not going back in. You don't need to keep picking at the wound.
(And as perovskites improve, it's quite feasible that the whole business will go thin film and silicon won't be needed at all.)
SeanT would love it - enough bedrooms for 6 mistresses.
Quite modern plan - the obvious shortage is bathrooms 2-4.
Some people were unhappy with immigrants, and this is the result
But someome who travels regularly between two cities within an hour or so is in a sense in two places at once for all practical purposes. Whether that takes 15 min or 60 min doesn't matter much, so long as quite a few people do it, enough to establish the pox. Firebrteak bypassed. But then yfou need enough to break through the dead ends imposed by local control - so the health control issue is also important there.
It'll be interesting to see the studies of the future - and how the spread varied from wave to wave.
The best thing would be if the remaining remoaners (yes I have used the term) stopped moaning and the smug leave fanatics stopped carping. We will all then start to get on a bit better and repair any damage (and oh yes there has been some) and try and pick out any advantages that might be there (and yes there will be some).
Solar cell making is harder. You need to slice the silicon up and then perform various treatments on it. It requires specialist plants and specialist knowledge. But it's not that high tech. You could get a plant up and running in the UK in three or four months.
Silicon purification, on the other hand, is really quite hard work.
The Chinese are utterly dependent on the West for silicon. We're a little bit, but not really, dependent on the Chinese for modules and cells.
If we wanted to, we could shut down all Chinese solar manufacturing in about a week. And they wouldn't be able to rapidly recover. The reverse simply isn't true.
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1392452417246089217?s=20
1.14%
The whole world is at 8.55% - a long way to go.
The 4th picture on Carlotta's link in case my embedding (quite probably) doesn't work.
Image really brings home how densely populated most of England is (exceptions are the SW, East Anglia and north of Manchester/Leeds). Quite the contrast with France. I've always said of France that it is one huge farm with the old small town here and there.
Success is simple: no mainstream political party in the UK will be proposing the UK rejoins.
Failure is that our economic performance is if this lingers and poisons political discourse for a decade or more.
I think what you fail to see is that EU membership was also massively divisive, as someone who benefits from it's not easy to understand why it would be but communities across the whole country have been destroyed by wage deflation and stagnation in lower-middle income jobs and the resulting increase in population has also resulted in a crash in owner occupation of houses.
As much as I'm a realist about what brexit is and isn't (and there are many items in each column) I think you should be realistic about what EU membership had turned into for large swathes of the country. That resentment and divisiveness was already there with or without a referendum. In 2015 4m people voted for UKIP, by a quirk of our voting system they didn't get any seats. In the road not taken where Dave refused a referendum how many cycles do you think it would have taken for PM Nige to become a reality? Pretending that EU membership was all sunlit uplands isn't realistic.
But one swallow does NOT a summer (or a biennium) make.
As to primaries, note that both Jaime Herrera Beutler and Dan Newhouse (neither of whom are really Neo-Cons in sense I think you mean) have an advantage over the rest of the House Republicans who voted to impeach Cheney: the WA State Top Two primary system.
Meaning there is no Republican - or Democratic - primary per se. Instead, all candidate run on the same ballot - like in the Texas special election - with top two vote-getters advancing to the general.
So definitely possibility that in the fall of 2022, voters in both Herrera Beutler's and Newhouse's district will be voting between two GOPers for Congress. Meaning that both Republicans AND Democrats, along with independents, will have choice between them or their Trumpskyite challengers.
EDIT - In fact, that's how Dan Newhouse got elected to US House in the first place, he ran in the general election against a Tea Party GOPer and won.
Now, quick, everyone, throw in the next 100 comments before we kill the load speed.
(I promise, no more)
But the peaks are not as high nor the spread as big as in the Liverpool-Manchester strip, or at London or Birmingham. Where death rates are even higher.
I don't think anyone reasonably denies that Glasgow and Edinburgh are big, dense and close together, or that there are towns like Airdrie and Bathgate which string between them. Philip's point, I think (well mine) is that Liverpool and Manchester are collectively bigger, the small towns between the two are bigger, and the gaps between the small towns are smaller.
Is that success or failure?
On the other hand, the density of Italy surprised me.
They were all completely unreliable partners.
Corbyn mania was basically May the public face of your pay freeze, Corbyn says no to pay freeze. And that the age of no inflation.
They were unhappy with immigration.
For which they wrongly blamed the EU
Failure or success could be defined on a huge number of criteria. If it is purely political it could be argued that it is broadly a success because people have (for whatever reason) continued to endorse the party responsible. It does not mean it was a success from a geopolitical perspective, particularly IF (and I hope not) it leads to the breakup of the UK. That would be another success for Vladimir.
If the UK could turned the tap off on immigration, that might have swung it, but there is still a significant number of people who were unhappy about much more than that in regards to the status quo.
You can very easily get from Newton le Willows to Patricroft without ever being about 200m from a building within walking distance, making it very easy without anyone entering a car or train for the virus to spread from person to person between the two.
Newton le Willows -> Golborne -> Lowton -> Leigh -> Tyldesley -> Worsley -> Patricroft
One urban connurbation without considering other routes like Winwick -> Birchwood etc
I wonder if Boris sometimes wishes he had had the courage (and courage in huge measure) to leave without a deal, decline to put up a border, and thus force RoI and EU to agree a way forward, placing then problem in their lap. The impossible problem would then have been wholly owned by them. As it is it is shared.
BTW it means there are not one but two genuine local 'irresistible force and immovable object' problems awaiting an outcome: R o Ireland and EU v UK over borders; and Boris v Sturgeon.
A permanent stalemate on both would be quite an achievement.
But you will never get that. To you its all thick racists voting for their own destruction.