That’s whose prerogative? – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
What are you still doing hanging about over here, when everything about your mindset suggests you’d be much happier in the foothills of the Rockies nursing your rifle and your tins of beans?Philip_Thompson said:
My in-laws live in Canada in the foothills of the Rockies so I can relate to this. Their tiny town, is 2 hour drive from the nearest town and 4 hours drive from the nearest city. When my father in law picks us up from the airport after leaving Edmonton the satnav says "drive 400 km then turn left".glw said:
I know, but the point I'm making is that the raw population density is still misleading. Those differences are meaningful, but they are still dwarfed by the error you get from looking at population density. Canada is the canonical example of this. Canada's population density is about 4 people per km^2, but most of the country is completely empty, and the vast majority of Canadians live in towns and cities not too dissimilar from towns and cities elsewhere. You need to start with that urban population and then adjust the numbers, not start with the population density of the country as a whole.Philip_Thompson said:
Sorry but you're just wrong. Go to a typical US town or city, the median household and it would be a world of difference from the same in the UK.glw said:
Sure there are still differences between countries, but using population density for comparison is almost always misleading. Most people in low population density advanced economies do not live out in the sticks as their numbers might imply, they live in towns and cities which are not too disimilar from other countries with similar economies. You should start from the urban population, and then make adjustments, but do not include thousands and thousands of square miles of tundra with not a soul to be seen.Philip_Thompson said:
Not necessarily. When your country is largely socially distanced homes where almost everyone loves in a detached house with a driveway and cars, drives everywhere and even shops etc are massive and open spaces ... Versus another country where many people are packed like sardines into terraced houses, with tiny bustling shops and public transport ... Then it is very relevant.glw said:
Population density is an incredibly misleading stat. You are much better looking at the percentage of the population living in an urban area, which quite often comes out around 80% in advanced economies even when the population density can be an order of magnitude different between them.Philip_Thompson said:When you consider how socially distanced the US is versus the UK that's not really true.
The US has a population density of 36/km^2 and has negligible public transport as a national percentage of how people commute.
Besides a couple of high profile cities like San Francisco and New York most of America lives far more naturally socially distanced than most of the UK does.
The median, typical household in the USA lives much more socially distanced naturally than in the UK. Americans who come to the UK can be very shocked how tiny our homes, roads and shops are. Even cars and parking spaces are tiny here compared to across the Atlantic.
But the cities and towns are nothing like the cities and towns here. They are massive sprawling places that are completely alien to the UK. Because they can afford to be because they're not constrained artificially, growing into another town or city.
They are massively socially distanced as a result. Plus it makes it easier to keep a virus in one town or city whereas in the UK Liverpool and Manchester for instance are contiguous with each other and towns in-between like Warrington, Wigan, Leigh and Widnes. They are realistically one single united Metropolis in contrast.2 -
Russia is a good example of the problem. Their excess deaths are running at nearly three times the deaths attributed to COVID-19, which implies that either Russia is undercounting COVID-19 deaths or something else is killing a hell of a lot of Russians this year, and is in fact a worse problem than the current pandemic.YBarddCwsc said:I think your point about excess deaths is very good. The present statistics on death are hugely influenced by what different countries define as a "COVID death".
Given this gross distortion in the data -- which may be the main thing actually measured in the Tables -- then what further corrections make any sense at this point ?
My answer is probably none -- just look at the population density, or age demographics, and make a rough allowance.
Once we have reliable figures for the excess deaths for different countries, then it will be interesting to do exactly what you say -- especially from the point of view of understanding which policies are effective.2 -
But, at a person-to-person level, COVID transmission is highly non-linear with distance, it drops to zero beyond some critical distance (which may be ~2m).glw said:
Sure I get all that. It it still misleading to compare population density when you are talking about COVID-19. Start with the urban population, and then figure out the population density of urban areas to make comparisons if you want. But do not simply use population density, it's extremely misleading, far more so than the differences that exist between urban areas in different countries. e.g. UK population density is 275 per km^2 against 4 per km^2 for Canada. That's almost two orders of magnitude, but Greater London and the Greater Toronto Area are only about a factor of 5 different.Philip_Thompson said:My in-laws live in Canada in the foothills of the Rockies so I can relate to this. Their tiny town, is 2 hour drive from the nearest town and 4 hours drive from the nearest city. When my father in law picks us up from the airport after leaving Edmonton the satnav says "drive 400 km then turn left".
But the cities and towns are nothing like the cities and towns here. They are massive sprawling places that are completely alien to the UK. Because they can afford to be because they're not constrained artificially, growing into another town or city.
They are massively socially distanced as a result. Plus it makes it easier to keep a virus in one town or city whereas in the UK Liverpool and Manchester for instance are contiguous with each other and towns in-between like Warrington, Wigan, Leigh and Widnes. They are realistically one single united Metropolis in contrast.
This means it is highly non-linear with respect to average separation, or equivalently, average number density. It may not matter if you are two orders of magnitude, or five times, less than London.
It may simply matter that you are less than some critical number density.1 -
No.Philip_Thompson said:The median UK house size is 656 square feet.
The median US house size is 2301 square feet.
The UK and US are very different nations.
If you are quoting the Google snippet, then that is a number from David Wilson Homes for the "average" size of a UK apartment.
(Multi category article by DHW and a cockup by Google).
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03I3OlA9sAXe2bXfpgucHphyWVC2g:1607181954815&ei=gqbLX5WqMZqP8gK1-raADg&q=median+uk+hpuse+size&oq=median+uk+hpuse+size
https://www.dwh.co.uk/advice-and-inspiration/average-house-sizes-uk/)
The UK average house size is more like 850-900 sqft.
Your point still, in some measure, stands.0 -
-
They're all drinking hand sanitiser. That's what's doing for them.glw said:
Russia is a good example of the problem. Their excess deaths are running at nearly three times the deaths attributed to COVID-19, which implies that either Russia is undercounting COVID-19 deaths or something else is killing a hell of a lot of Russians this year, and is in fact a worse problem than the current pandemic.YBarddCwsc said:I think your point about excess deaths is very good. The present statistics on death are hugely influenced by what different countries define as a "COVID death".
Given this gross distortion in the data -- which may be the main thing actually measured in the Tables -- then what further corrections make any sense at this point ?
My answer is probably none -- just look at the population density, or age demographics, and make a rough allowance.
Once we have reliable figures for the excess deaths for different countries, then it will be interesting to do exactly what you say -- especially from the point of view of understanding which policies are effective.0 -
Great piece, David.
Thanks.
I am wondering about precedents from the Restoration.
It would be interesting to hear the ghost of Tony Benn on this particular subject.0 -
betting Post
F1: decided to back Russell each way for pole at 6.5 (third the odds top 2).
I reckon it's a three horse race, and his odds are a bit too long. However, my bet is somewhat coloured by my pre-existing position and early Verstappen/Bottas bets.
I also had a £1 free bet which I stuck on Gasly at 41 for the win, to cover another contingency.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2020/12/sakhir-pre-qualifying-2020.html1 -
If Johnson gets a deal I think the Tories have a very good chance of winning the next election.
No deal would be a gift to Labour and the SNP .
Even if he has to make some compromises . As for Farage screaming betrayal he would do that regardless of any deal and the public aren’t going to be obsessed over the detail of any deal , only the ERG nutjobs will pick it apart and don’t have the numbers to vote down the deal .
0 -
But can we really eat that many fish ourselves?Philip_Thompson said:
He's mostly harmless.Chris said:
It's a great triumph for the World's Best Country to have manouevred Macron into a position where he is going to commit national suicide while we'll in the comfortable position of looking on and laughing.Philip_Thompson said:
Well precisely.kinabalu said:
We've heard this - Macron threatens to veto something to do with Brexit - so many times. I'm certain it's PR for a domestic audience. Ditto with Johnson.Sandpit said:
Of course it’s a backstop, and deals make backstops go away. I still think there’s just about a landing point for a deal based on trade, but I’m worried that Macron might be making it impossible with his belligerent attitude.kinabalu said:
It is a backstop. But this backstop is in conflict with the other backstop. I think this is the EU's problem with it. Still, all a matter of negotiation at the end of the day.Sandpit said:
You’d have thought the EU would be familiar by now, with the concept of an insurance policy against a failure to make a deal?Philip_Thompson said:
That's why the negotiations are this weekend though. You're putting the cart before the horseFoxy said:
If the treaty breaches are in the Internal Market bill on Monday as promised, then it is hard to not see the end of negotiations. Such a breach of trust and law makes an agreement untenable.FF43 said:
Given the whole thing is a nonsense anyway, I think that's OK. But the UK will need to concede on LPF and governance and drop the treaty breaches.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Without a win in fish it will be no deal sadlyFF43 said:
Correct. Should always be precise. Fishing quotas is a win. Also how you allocate those quotas is not a win. And fishing quotas don't benefit inshore fishing or fish production. Nevertheless it is a win, however small, and just about the only one. The UK should concede on LPF and governance and maximise their fisheries "win"Scott_xP said:
It's not though.FF43 said:Fishing is about the only win from Brexit.
Catching fish you can't sell is not a win
If the negotiations reach a deal then the Internal Market Bill international law breaches become moot and can be dropped.
If the negotiations fail to reach a deal then the Internal Market Bill is entirely necessary so the amendments need to be put back in.
Macron can posture all he wants but deep down he knows we hold the Aces so whether he wants to eliminate his fishermen to say he was tough with Les Rosbifs is what we are waiting to find out.
He should blink but politics means he may not.
We'll be able to say so long and thanks for all the fish.
I suppose if it's the only food available ...0 -
For God's sake don't encourage him to leave the country now, if he has tins of beans!IanB2 said:
What are you still doing hanging about over here, when everything about your mindset suggests you’d be much happier in the foothills of the Rockies nursing your rifle and your tins of beans?Philip_Thompson said:
My in-laws live in Canada in the foothills of the Rockies so I can relate to this. Their tiny town, is 2 hour drive from the nearest town and 4 hours drive from the nearest city. When my father in law picks us up from the airport after leaving Edmonton the satnav says "drive 400 km then turn left".glw said:
I know, but the point I'm making is that the raw population density is still misleading. Those differences are meaningful, but they are still dwarfed by the error you get from looking at population density. Canada is the canonical example of this. Canada's population density is about 4 people per km^2, but most of the country is completely empty, and the vast majority of Canadians live in towns and cities not too dissimilar from towns and cities elsewhere. You need to start with that urban population and then adjust the numbers, not start with the population density of the country as a whole.Philip_Thompson said:
Sorry but you're just wrong. Go to a typical US town or city, the median household and it would be a world of difference from the same in the UK.glw said:
Sure there are still differences between countries, but using population density for comparison is almost always misleading. Most people in low population density advanced economies do not live out in the sticks as their numbers might imply, they live in towns and cities which are not too disimilar from other countries with similar economies. You should start from the urban population, and then make adjustments, but do not include thousands and thousands of square miles of tundra with not a soul to be seen.Philip_Thompson said:
Not necessarily. When your country is largely socially distanced homes where almost everyone loves in a detached house with a driveway and cars, drives everywhere and even shops etc are massive and open spaces ... Versus another country where many people are packed like sardines into terraced houses, with tiny bustling shops and public transport ... Then it is very relevant.glw said:
Population density is an incredibly misleading stat. You are much better looking at the percentage of the population living in an urban area, which quite often comes out around 80% in advanced economies even when the population density can be an order of magnitude different between them.Philip_Thompson said:When you consider how socially distanced the US is versus the UK that's not really true.
The US has a population density of 36/km^2 and has negligible public transport as a national percentage of how people commute.
Besides a couple of high profile cities like San Francisco and New York most of America lives far more naturally socially distanced than most of the UK does.
The median, typical household in the USA lives much more socially distanced naturally than in the UK. Americans who come to the UK can be very shocked how tiny our homes, roads and shops are. Even cars and parking spaces are tiny here compared to across the Atlantic.
But the cities and towns are nothing like the cities and towns here. They are massive sprawling places that are completely alien to the UK. Because they can afford to be because they're not constrained artificially, growing into another town or city.
They are massively socially distanced as a result. Plus it makes it easier to keep a virus in one town or city whereas in the UK Liverpool and Manchester for instance are contiguous with each other and towns in-between like Warrington, Wigan, Leigh and Widnes. They are realistically one single united Metropolis in contrast.0 -
I agree with you. Ideally we would compare exposure of the population as a whole to situations which are above a safe threshold.YBarddCwsc said:But, at a person-to-person level, COVID transmission is highly non-linear with distance, it drops to zero beyond some critical distance (which may be ~2m).
This means it is highly non-linear with respect to average separation, or equivalently, average number density. It may not matter if you are two orders of magnitude, or five times, less than London.
It may simply matter that you are less than some critical number density.0 -
Wasn't it Andrea Leadsom who solemnly told us last year that leaving without a deal wouldn't actually mean leaving without a deal?Phil said:
Well, Brexit has been an exercise in goalpost moving by the Leave ultras ever since the referendum result. This is just the logical end point of that process. Rejoice peasants, as your glorious leaders decide to define WTO terms as a “deal with the EU”.Scott_xP said:0 -
“House” or “dwelling”?MattW said:
No.Philip_Thompson said:The median UK house size is 656 square feet.
The median US house size is 2301 square feet.
The UK and US are very different nations.
If you are quoting the Google snippet, then that is a number from David Wilson Homes for the "average" size of a UK apartment.
(Multi category article by DHW and a cockup by Google).
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03I3OlA9sAXe2bXfpgucHphyWVC2g:1607181954815&ei=gqbLX5WqMZqP8gK1-raADg&q=median+uk+hpuse+size&oq=median+uk+hpuse+size
https://www.dwh.co.uk/advice-and-inspiration/average-house-sizes-uk/)
The UK average house size is more like 850-900 sqft.
Your point still, in some measure, stands.
I’ve a 2 bed apartment that’s over 1,000sq ft, any actual house is going to be bigger than that.0 -
Well, what are you supposed to do when the vodka runs out?SandyRentool said:
They're all drinking hand sanitiser. That's what's doing for them.glw said:
Russia is a good example of the problem. Their excess deaths are running at nearly three times the deaths attributed to COVID-19, which implies that either Russia is undercounting COVID-19 deaths or something else is killing a hell of a lot of Russians this year, and is in fact a worse problem than the current pandemic.YBarddCwsc said:I think your point about excess deaths is very good. The present statistics on death are hugely influenced by what different countries define as a "COVID death".
Given this gross distortion in the data -- which may be the main thing actually measured in the Tables -- then what further corrections make any sense at this point ?
My answer is probably none -- just look at the population density, or age demographics, and make a rough allowance.
Once we have reliable figures for the excess deaths for different countries, then it will be interesting to do exactly what you say -- especially from the point of view of understanding which policies are effective.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8972801/Seven-die-drinking-coronavirus-hand-sanitiser-alcohol-ran-party-Russia.html0 -
I remember hearing a story about some lad whose party trick was turning water into wine when the booze ran out.Sandpit said:
Well, what are you supposed to do when the vodka runs out?SandyRentool said:
They're all drinking hand sanitiser. That's what's doing for them.glw said:
Russia is a good example of the problem. Their excess deaths are running at nearly three times the deaths attributed to COVID-19, which implies that either Russia is undercounting COVID-19 deaths or something else is killing a hell of a lot of Russians this year, and is in fact a worse problem than the current pandemic.YBarddCwsc said:I think your point about excess deaths is very good. The present statistics on death are hugely influenced by what different countries define as a "COVID death".
Given this gross distortion in the data -- which may be the main thing actually measured in the Tables -- then what further corrections make any sense at this point ?
My answer is probably none -- just look at the population density, or age demographics, and make a rough allowance.
Once we have reliable figures for the excess deaths for different countries, then it will be interesting to do exactly what you say -- especially from the point of view of understanding which policies are effective.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8972801/Seven-die-drinking-coronavirus-hand-sanitiser-alcohol-ran-party-Russia.html
Sounds made up to me, like.2 -
But it's Macron throwing the dice, going down the snake.....Scott_xP said:3 -
Rubbish, WTO/Australia/Whatever is what you get if you have No Deal.Philip_Thompson said:
No it isn't.Scott_xP said:
Leaving without any deal at all is leaving the WTO too. North Korea style trade.
The WTO is itself a deal. It is essentially a fallback deal that we already have, a parachute or safety net so to speak.
An alternative name I like instead of Australia style trade is World Trade deal.0 -
Second time?SandyRentool said:Starmer self isolating. Hopefully he ain't caught it.
0 -
Not necessarily, surprisingly.Sandpit said:
“House” or “dwelling”?MattW said:
No.Philip_Thompson said:The median UK house size is 656 square feet.
The median US house size is 2301 square feet.
The UK and US are very different nations.
If you are quoting the Google snippet, then that is a number from David Wilson Homes for the "average" size of a UK apartment.
(Multi category article by DHW and a cockup by Google).
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03I3OlA9sAXe2bXfpgucHphyWVC2g:1607181954815&ei=gqbLX5WqMZqP8gK1-raADg&q=median+uk+hpuse+size&oq=median+uk+hpuse+size
https://www.dwh.co.uk/advice-and-inspiration/average-house-sizes-uk/)
The UK average house size is more like 850-900 sqft.
Your point still, in some measure, stands.
I’ve a 2 bed apartment that’s over 1,000sq ft, any actual house is going to be bigger than that.
A traditional small 3 bed detached is about 900sqft.
On a normal new estate afaics, about 60-80% of houses are likely to be under 1000 sqft. The only ones above that will probably be the 4+ bed detached, and maybe some 3 bed detached. Unless you are talking distinctly upmarket.
You must have too much stuff
.
I'll raise you "household" or "household". These are 2 definitions from Censuses:
A "household" is:
(current definition, from 2011): one person living alone, or a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address who share cooking facilities and share a living room, sitting room or dining area. A household can consist of a single family, more than one family or no families in the case of a group of unrelated people.
(previous definition, from 1996 to 2010): a person living alone, or a group of people living at the same address who have the address as their only or main residence and either share one main meal a day or share living accommodation (or both).
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/articles/familiesandhouseholdsstatisticsexplained/2019-08-07
Let's not get into "dwelling" ;-)
A bedsit is a "dwelling", and you may get landed for Band A Council Tax on one.
1 -
There's a lot of anger in America about the unequal impact of coronavirus restrictions. This is a good example:
https://twitter.com/SpencerKlavan/status/13350075350702530570 -
Yes. First time was a false alarm.MarqueeMark said:
Second time?SandyRentool said:Starmer self isolating. Hopefully he ain't caught it.
0 -
Legend.....SandyRentool said:
I remember hearing a story about some lad whose party trick was turning water into wine when the booze ran out.Sandpit said:
Well, what are you supposed to do when the vodka runs out?SandyRentool said:
They're all drinking hand sanitiser. That's what's doing for them.glw said:
Russia is a good example of the problem. Their excess deaths are running at nearly three times the deaths attributed to COVID-19, which implies that either Russia is undercounting COVID-19 deaths or something else is killing a hell of a lot of Russians this year, and is in fact a worse problem than the current pandemic.YBarddCwsc said:I think your point about excess deaths is very good. The present statistics on death are hugely influenced by what different countries define as a "COVID death".
Given this gross distortion in the data -- which may be the main thing actually measured in the Tables -- then what further corrections make any sense at this point ?
My answer is probably none -- just look at the population density, or age demographics, and make a rough allowance.
Once we have reliable figures for the excess deaths for different countries, then it will be interesting to do exactly what you say -- especially from the point of view of understanding which policies are effective.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8972801/Seven-die-drinking-coronavirus-hand-sanitiser-alcohol-ran-party-Russia.html
Sounds made up to me, like.1 -
Even this seems enough to make the Brexiteers livid. Three more years of the status quo...rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/13352484945677557760 -
Meh, what is three more years?williamglenn said:
Even this seems enough to make the Brexiteers livid. Three more years of the status quo...rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/13352484945677557760 -
Three years to get your shit together, France.RobD said:
Meh, what is three more years?williamglenn said:
Even this seems enough to make the Brexiteers livid. Three more years of the status quo...rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/13352484945677557761 -
Especially as the Brexiteers have sat with their collective thumb up their bum for the last three years. Easiest deal in the world, ovenready, my sharny arse!RobD said:
Meh, what is three more years?williamglenn said:
Even this seems enough to make the Brexiteers livid. Three more years of the status quo...rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/13352484945677557761 -
Just in time for the 2024 election, that's what three more years is.RobD said:
Meh, what is three more years?williamglenn said:
Even this seems enough to make the Brexiteers livid. Three more years of the status quo...rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/13352484945677557760 -
I see Neil Kinnock is urging Starmer to not whip a vote for the deal (if it ever comes).Carnyx said:
Especially as the Brexiteers have sat with their collective thumb up their bum for the last three years. Easiest deal in the world, ovenready, my sharny arse!RobD said:
Meh, what is three more years?williamglenn said:
Even this seems enough to make the Brexiteers livid. Three more years of the status quo...rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1335248494567755776
Too right. Well said Neil.
Let Johnson totally own this disaster.
0 -
That really would be one hell of a black swan in British politics, if Starmer were taken out by Covid.... 2020 playing its joker in the mini marathon.SandyRentool said:
Yes. First time was a false alarm.MarqueeMark said:
Second time?SandyRentool said:Starmer self isolating. Hopefully he ain't caught it.
0 -
A promise delivered just in time then? If there is an end in sight, I don't see there being a huge issue about it. The usual suspects will moan about it not being instant of course.Stuartinromford said:
Just in time for the 2024 election, that's what three more years is.RobD said:
Meh, what is three more years?williamglenn said:
Even this seems enough to make the Brexiteers livid. Three more years of the status quo...rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/13352484945677557761 -
Another 397 coronavirus deaths have been reported in the UK - compared to 504 on Friday.
A further 15,539 cases were reported on Saturday compared to 16,298 the day before.0 -
Everyone knows No Deal will have very little effect on the UK, but will be catastrophic for the foreigners.MarqueeMark said:
But it's Macron throwing the dice, going down the snake.....Scott_xP said:
"Heavy Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off.”0 -
You didn't Adam and Eve it?SandyRentool said:
I remember hearing a story about some lad whose party trick was turning water into wine when the booze ran out.Sandpit said:
Well, what are you supposed to do when the vodka runs out?SandyRentool said:
They're all drinking hand sanitiser. That's what's doing for them.glw said:
Russia is a good example of the problem. Their excess deaths are running at nearly three times the deaths attributed to COVID-19, which implies that either Russia is undercounting COVID-19 deaths or something else is killing a hell of a lot of Russians this year, and is in fact a worse problem than the current pandemic.YBarddCwsc said:I think your point about excess deaths is very good. The present statistics on death are hugely influenced by what different countries define as a "COVID death".
Given this gross distortion in the data -- which may be the main thing actually measured in the Tables -- then what further corrections make any sense at this point ?
My answer is probably none -- just look at the population density, or age demographics, and make a rough allowance.
Once we have reliable figures for the excess deaths for different countries, then it will be interesting to do exactly what you say -- especially from the point of view of understanding which policies are effective.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8972801/Seven-die-drinking-coronavirus-hand-sanitiser-alcohol-ran-party-Russia.html
Sounds made up to me, like.3 -
Mr. Borough, that's infantile.
If Starmer believes the deal to be in the UK's interest he has a duty to support it, and to oppose it if he determines the contrary to be true.
The national interest matters more than petty politicking.
And it is not so very long ago that Labour MPs were singing a chorus of lamentation that they hadn't backed May's deal.1 -
Yup. Three years costs Boris nothing. It's possibly a plus- like the way councils do planting schemes that flower just before election day. After that, it gets electorally expensive, which is the only cost I think he recognises.RobD said:
A promise delivered just in time then? If there is an end in sight, I don't see there being a huge issue about it. The usual suspects will moan about it not being instant of course.Stuartinromford said:
Just in time for the 2024 election, that's what three more years is.RobD said:
Meh, what is three more years?williamglenn said:
Even this seems enough to make the Brexiteers livid. Three more years of the status quo...rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/13352484945677557760 -
If you'd told Farage in 2015 that within 4 years we could be out of the EU, within 5 years we'd be out of their trading arrangements and legal processes, within 8 we'd have our fishing rights back - he'd have bitten your hand off.Stuartinromford said:
Yup. Three years costs Boris nothing. It's possibly a plus- like the way councils do planting schemes that flower just before election day. After that, it gets electorally expensive, which is the only cost I think he recognises.RobD said:
A promise delivered just in time then? If there is an end in sight, I don't see there being a huge issue about it. The usual suspects will moan about it not being instant of course.Stuartinromford said:
Just in time for the 2024 election, that's what three more years is.RobD said:
Meh, what is three more years?williamglenn said:
Even this seems enough to make the Brexiteers livid. Three more years of the status quo...rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1335248494567755776
Assuming he was genuine, and not just in it for a career. The noise he makes now will give an indication as to how genuine he ever was.2 -
If this is the only thing holding a deal back then it must be fairly certain?CarlottaVance said:0 -
On topic - any truth that this is what gets HM the Q up and at the karaoke machine?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDLZqe735k&ob=av2e1 -
https://twitter.com/jillongovt/status/1335259655472373760?s=20
Google:
Barnier was internally pessimistic, as the FAZ learned. After the cancellation on Friday, he sent members of the Brexit coordination group in the European Parliament an SMS: "It doesn't look good". '0 -
0
-
There were- and are- genuine people who identified problems with the EU and thought that, with hard work, other systems would be better.MarqueeMark said:
If you'd told Farage in 2015 that within 4 years we could be out of the EU, within 5 years we'd be out of their trading arrangements and legal processes, within 8 we'd have our fishing rights back - he'd have bitten your hand off.Stuartinromford said:
Yup. Three years costs Boris nothing. It's possibly a plus- like the way councils do planting schemes that flower just before election day. After that, it gets electorally expensive, which is the only cost I think he recognises.RobD said:
A promise delivered just in time then? If there is an end in sight, I don't see there being a huge issue about it. The usual suspects will moan about it not being instant of course.Stuartinromford said:
Just in time for the 2024 election, that's what three more years is.RobD said:
Meh, what is three more years?williamglenn said:
Even this seems enough to make the Brexiteers livid. Three more years of the status quo...rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1335248494567755776
Assuming he was genuine, and not just in it for a career. The noise he makes now will give an indication as to how genuine he ever was.
But the cause also attracted a load of grifters. And the nature of grifting is to offer victims something for nothing, then give them nothing for something.
Not everyone who campaigned for Leave, or for this government is a grifter.1 -
On the EU's fishing demands:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bn8Luwbjzf9
donaldtusk
A piece of cake, perhaps? Sorry, no cherries.
#brexit #salzburgsummit2018 #theresamay #donaldtusk #europeancouncil #europeanunion #euco0 -
Brexit has already lost much of its electoral salience and most people have moved on. As an issue , it would not swing votes on anything like the scale of a year ago.nico679 said:If Johnson gets a deal I think the Tories have a very good chance of winning the next election.
No deal would be a gift to Labour and the SNP .
Even if he has to make some compromises . As for Farage screaming betrayal he would do that regardless of any deal and the public aren’t going to be obsessed over the detail of any deal , only the ERG nutjobs will pick it apart and don’t have the numbers to vote down the deal .0 -
My crystal ball - 'productive discussion, but significant differences remain, time running out'. Throw in a 'the other side need to decide what they want/compromise' if they are feeling sassy.CarlottaVance said:2 -
Why the importance of fish? Presumably everything agreed so far amounts to a laundry list of capitulations on Boris's part, but he needs his fish - he'll reckon he'll be able to wave a haddock around as the ultimate distraction. If he can just get us celebrating fish for a week, then everything will have moved on and he'll be home and dry.0
-
Sounds like either way he'll get it, just may be one or two years later than originally planned.Stark_Dawning said:Why the importance of fish? Presumably everything agreed so far amounts to a laundry list of capitulations on Boris's part, but he needs his fish - he'll reckon he'll be able to wave a haddock around as the ultimate distraction. If he can just get us celebrating fish for a week, then everything will have moved on and he'll be home and dry.
0 -
The amount of times we hear fish mentioned by the government will denote how crap the rest of the deal is.RobD said:
Sounds like either way he'll get it, just may be one or two years later than originally planned.Stark_Dawning said:Why the importance of fish? Presumably everything agreed so far amounts to a laundry list of capitulations on Boris's part, but he needs his fish - he'll reckon he'll be able to wave a haddock around as the ultimate distraction. If he can just get us celebrating fish for a week, then everything will have moved on and he'll be home and dry.
0 -
New thread0
-
It won't be that crap a deal- basically, the EU has an amount of access- demanded alignment tarrif, and we're going to get the access implied by that tarrif, one might almost say algorithm.Stark_Dawning said:
The amount of times we hear fish mentioned by the government will denote how crap the rest of the deal is.RobD said:
Sounds like either way he'll get it, just may be one or two years later than originally planned.Stark_Dawning said:Why the importance of fish? Presumably everything agreed so far amounts to a laundry list of capitulations on Boris's part, but he needs his fish - he'll reckon he'll be able to wave a haddock around as the ultimate distraction. If he can just get us celebrating fish for a week, then everything will have moved on and he'll be home and dry.
The UK thought that it could get a copy/paste of Canada, but that wasn't going to fly- that access is worth more to us than Canada, so we're giving up more to get it. The UK also though it could get more business being Brilliant Negotiators, which was spoilt by our continued uselessness.
But the deal will be what it was always going to be, what with how bigger organisations dictate trade terms to smaller ones. Now let's see how well we can operate this deal.0 -
Not what but why. Macron's game is to break the negotiation on fish because he wants no deal and therefore a chance for Paris to get financial services from London. It is a win for him if the UK caves on fish ("look fisherfolk what I have got for you") but also he wins if the UK holds firm and there is no deal. Opprobrium from his EU partners is a small price to pay for this tactic.RobD said:
If this is the only thing holding a deal back then it must be fairly certain?CarlottaVance said:
0 -
Labour MPs lament not supporting May's deal, only because Johnson's deal appears vastly inferior.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Borough, that's infantile.
If Starmer believes the deal to be in the UK's interest he has a duty to support it, and to oppose it if he determines the contrary to be true.
The national interest matters more than petty politicking.
And it is not so very long ago that Labour MPs were singing a chorus of lamentation that they hadn't backed May's deal.
Starmer would be insanely stupid to give Johnson cover by supporting a deal, simply because any deal is better than no deal.
Abstain, by all means to allow the deal over the line. If Starmer has his fingerprints on a deal which will ultimately be bad for Britain, Johnson will hang the deal around Starmer's neck, claiming Labour's unequivocal support.0 -
Different data source does not mean it is wrong or out of date , mine is from here and updated daily. https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/MaxPB said:
Ah the wee Scotland defence. It's tiresome. The data you quoted was out of date. It is what it is. If you want to split hairs between a rate of 98.5 and 105 then sure, go right ahead.Theuniondivvie said:
C'mon malc, folk moving from suggesting that Scotland's public services are not as 'resilient' as those of the rest of the UK to 'we're all as shit as each other' has got to be seen as a positive.malcolmg said:
Disagree, Scotland is about 75 same as England, Wales is over a hundred and NI 30 ishMaxPB said:
TUD has linked to incorrect or old data. There's is no difference between England, Scotland and Wales wrt COVID deaths. All three countries are at or around 100 deaths per 100k.YBarddCwsc said:
I'm not a fan of COVID nationalism either -- other than as an indication of which policies pursued by the various politicians have actually worked.Theuniondivvie said:
I'm not a fan of the Covid nationalism that not infrequently breaks out on here, but Scotland has done a 'bit' better (or less badly if you'd prefer); if these numbers were reversed you can be sure we'd never hear the end of it.YBarddCwsc said:
Yes I think MalcomG is right.malcolmg said:
Bollox, the total opposite in fact.Mexicanpete said:
The current incumbents of Downing Street are not alone. Nippy sees the Pandemic as an aligning star to get Scottish Independence over the line.No_Offence_Alan said:Of course, if a Corbyn government was repealing the FTPA, the Tory media would be screaming about prioritising obscure constitutional matters in the first year of a Parliament, when hundreds are dying from COVID daily.
I think Sturgeon has been especially good at communicating the terrifying & sombre responsibility of politicians who have to take life-costing public policy decisions from a position of ignorance (we still know little about the disease). I don't doubt that Sturgeon bitterly regrets the loss of every life: every Scottish life, every British life, every life.
(Boris' flippancy and jokiness means he has been especially bad at this).
Sturgeon however has made mistakes -- she has made nearly as many as Boris. She just hadn't paid for them in the polls (much like Drakeford, yet).
It will be interesting -- once this is all over -- to look to see if there is any statistically significant difference between Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic. My guess is there may be, though it does need a proper analysis.
For the moment, let's recall population density is an important factor in the transmission. Scotland has the lowest population density of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland -- its population density is much lower than even Wales, let alone England. On those (admittedly crude) grounds alone, I'd expect Scotland to do quite a bit better than England.
We should remember that all the countries in Western Europe bar Germany & Norway have done pretty darned badly. We are arguing about the degree of badness. It is especially shaming because the UK is scientifically -- erm -- world beating. We should have done way, way better.
'Scotland has had 3 848 confirmed Covid deaths or 704 per million putting her in 22nd place. England with 52 601 deaths or 935 per million would be in 5th place and Wales with 2 638 or 837 per milliom would be in 11th place, just slightly worse than the USA. Northern Ireland with 542 would be way down the list.
ONS and NRS data tabulated by: https://www.travellingtabby.com/uk-coronavirus-tracker/'
https://tinyurl.com/yxhhl3q4
I think the table you linked to is interesting, but part of the story. To properly compare Scotland with England or Wales, I think you would want to compare e.g., regions of similar population density/demographics e.g., Central Belt with NE England or South Wales valleys. And the maybe with some equivalent regions on the continent.
I think I agree with David Spiegalhalter that the comparison is not easy, but you don't need to do lots of clever statistics to see Germany has done well.
"If these numbers were reversed you can be sure we'd never hear the end of it"
I agree with that. World Cup 1966, Olympics, Johnny Wilkinson's drop goal, and the Covid Tables would then skip easily off the English politician's tongue.😁
PS , talking about current numbers , overall Scotland is well below England
ONS is always weeks/months behind0
