Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.
Idi Amin?
Nope.
Donald Duck?
Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House
'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
ISTR (when I say recall, I don't mean as eye witness) that there was some kind of furore about Edward I as there had been plenty of Edwards previously, including, of course, his intended namesake E the Confessor.
Clearly confusion. I think we tend to think of everything around monarchies as pretty set in stone, when even a concept like primogeniture really wasnt followed in a lot of places for a long time (and still isnt everywhere). Numbering an example where inconsistency is king.
Yes it really was a case of: King dies, then everyone who thinks they are eligible legs it to be the first to take over strategic locations eg Winchester, etc.
I always like that John is reviled in stories for going against Richard, when IIRC all the sons of Henry II, including Richard, rebelled against their father(the elder ones did at the very least). His failures when actually king dont get much of a look in in pop culture.
The democrats have spent the last four years pouring a ton of scorn on the democratic process that elected their president. Could they really have done any more to delegitimise their own system?
Now they are expect their opponents to abide by that process and system - in a close result?
FFS.
Both sides have been playing this game for 70+ years - Even the name for it, gerrymandering shows how long it's being going on.
Desperate from Trump. Congress will never agree, rightly so. Hope he gets smashed by 10+ points and a landslide EC against him.
I fear it will need that to avert a civil war the way things are going.
A civil war between whom though? One way or another there will be someone who qualifies as President on January 20th, and only one person. The US military and federal law enforcement will obey, without question, whoever that person is on Jan 20th and no-one else.
Now that person may be Trump by one or more dubious SCOTUS rulings, but no matter how dubious, the Democrats will accept it in the same way they accepted the outcome of Gore v Bush. Or it may be Nancy Pelosi, as she will be next in succession if for some reason or other no-one has been elected President or Vice-President for the 2020-2024 term.
So who does that leave that could start a civil war? Trump could call on his base to "take to the streets" I suppose, but leaving aside that he is fundamentally a coward and would never have the balls to actually do so, where does that get him, other than a quick trip to Club Fed on charges of treason? Firstly, his base aren't even near "the streets". Some militia types like the Bundys might occupy a national monument or two again, but the incoming Biden or Pelosi adminstration would probably just leave them be until they got bored. And if some Trumpist do decide to start shooting for real, well as Belloc might have said on behalf of the federal government
Whatever happens, we have got APCs, tanks, aircraft, artillery and missiles, and they have not.
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
I would add that the general public have an element of responsibility to share. We get the NHS we pay for and the governments we vote for. We make individual chioces to wear masks, go to the pub, etc, etc
Again why are people believing other countries figures? The ONS has just based their work on other countries published figures.
Desperate from Trump. Congress will never agree, rightly so. Hope he gets smashed by 10+ points and a landslide EC against him.
The USA has far too many checks and balances to allow the sort of nonsense he's proposing. It'd be easier in this country I suspect...……...
As we saw with prorogation, the Queen is just a parrot, doing whatever her PM told her to do, even if her PM was unelected.
Thank God for an independent judiciary.
SCOTUK's complaint was that parliament itself hadn't been consulted though. With a parliamentary majority, and enough compliant nodding dogs you can have a de facto dictatorship in the UK if you so wish. SCOTUK could be unmade by a simple Act.
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
I would add that the general public have an element of responsibility to share. We get the NHS we pay for and the governments we vote for. We make individual chioces to wear masks, go to the pub, etc, etc
I think it is a bit more complex than "we get the NHS we pay for". There is an element of this, but it is not an excuse. One of the main challenges is that the NHS and those that run it believe they are above criticism. British doctors (and particularly GPs) are the most well paid and superannuated in Europe (with possible exception of Switzerland). Large amounts of the increases in funding in the Blair years were absorbed in pay increases with no increased proportional increase in efficiency. Yes the NHS is a lot better than it was in 1997, but like the general population and our Prime ministers it has got even flabbier. Any further increases in spending on the NHS as a proportion of GDP should be aligned to productivity increases. It won't happen of course, and Joe Public will keep on clapping while believing that the NHS is the "envy of the world", when it is anything but!
Separate Regnal numbers (like James VI and I) existed only when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were different.
UK Monarchs have only one Regnal number not different ones for England and Scotland. Her Majesty is QEII in Scotland despite there never having been a Scottish Queen Elizabeth.
The higher Regnal number of the two is used if there's a clash. Hence a future Queen Margaret would be Queen Margaret II and there simply never would have been an English Queen Margaret.
But James VI and I was the King of one United Kingdom (Union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, but that is the bit that counts for regnal numbers.
And on your logic the William of Orange, and the one that was a sailor in the RN, should be IV and V respectively.
As for what happened after 1707, the typical Scottish Post Office Box shows that HM is QE [alone] in Scotland, and that [whoops - edit[ WAS a Government department.
No, James was before the kingdoms were merged into one..
Any citation for the Scottish Post Office Box saying QE alone? I thought it just shows the Scottish crown to appease people who protest the fact that HM is QEII.
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
I would add that the general public have an element of responsibility to share. We get the NHS we pay for and the governments we vote for. We make individual chioces to wear masks, go to the pub, etc, etc
Again why are people believing other countries figures? The ONS has just based their work on other countries published figures.
Oh ffs! Don't tell me, our statisticians are the envy of the world! Bloody foreigners don't even know how to count!! What?
Western nations are generally pretty good at knowing how many people die, it is why these are VERY reliable statistics. Stop kidding yourself.We are not talking about China or Russia!
Separate Regnal numbers (like James VI and I) existed only when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were different.
UK Monarchs have only one Regnal number not different ones for England and Scotland. Her Majesty is QEII in Scotland despite there never having been a Scottish Queen Elizabeth.
The higher Regnal number of the two is used if there's a clash. Hence a future Queen Margaret would be Queen Margaret II and there simply never would have been an English Queen Margaret.
But James VI and I was the King of one United Kingdom (Union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, but that is the bit that counts for regnal numbers.
And on your logic the William of Orange, and the one that was a sailor in the RN, should be IV and V respectively.
As for what happened after 1707, the typical Scottish Post Office Box shows that HM is QE [alone] in Scotland, and that [whoops - edit[ WAS a Government department.
No, James was before the kingdoms were merged into one..
Any citation for the Scottish Post Office Box saying QE alone? I thought it just shows the Scottish crown to appease people who protest the fact that HM is QEII.
But surely the merger was on Jamie the Saxt's watch, so to speak? And remember we also write of his son James VII and II, who was also after the merger of the crowns but before that of the Pmts.
Re the PO boxes - you are quite right, on checking, my apologies. The whole EIIR was deleted. But indeed as you say as a way of getting round the problem!
Separate Regnal numbers (like James VI and I) existed only when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were different.
UK Monarchs have only one Regnal number not different ones for England and Scotland. Her Majesty is QEII in Scotland despite there never having been a Scottish Queen Elizabeth.
The higher Regnal number of the two is used if there's a clash. Hence a future Queen Margaret would be Queen Margaret II and there simply never would have been an English Queen Margaret.
But James VI and I was the King of one United Kingdom (Union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, but that is the bit that counts for regnal numbers.
And on your logic the William of Orange, and the one that was a sailor in the RN, should be IV and V respectively.
As for what happened after 1707, the typical Scottish Post Office Box shows that HM is QE [alone] in Scotland, and that [whoops - edit[ WAS a Government department.
No, James was before the kingdoms were merged into one..
Any citation for the Scottish Post Office Box saying QE alone? I thought it just shows the Scottish crown to appease people who protest the fact that HM is QEII.
IIRC the regnal numbers historically followed the English series, but after the Scots complained about QEII the government announced that the policy in future would be the higher of the two series.
The democrats have spent the last four years pouring a ton of scorn on the democratic process that elected their president. Could they really have done any more to delegitimise their own system?
Now they are expect their opponents to abide by that process and system - in a close result?
FFS.
Both sides have been playing this game for 70+ years - Even the name for it, gerrymandering shows how long it's being going on.
Oh absolutely gerrymandering on both sides in the US absolutely goes one.
But I think in every election until 2016 the oppo always accepted the result, basically. A shrug of the shoulders, learn the lessons, move on.
The dems never, ever did that. Not one and not once.
Separate Regnal numbers (like James VI and I) existed only when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were different.
UK Monarchs have only one Regnal number not different ones for England and Scotland. Her Majesty is QEII in Scotland despite there never having been a Scottish Queen Elizabeth.
The higher Regnal number of the two is used if there's a clash. Hence a future Queen Margaret would be Queen Margaret II and there simply never would have been an English Queen Margaret.
But James VI and I was the King of one United Kingdom (Union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, but that is the bit that counts for regnal numbers.
And on your logic the William of Orange, and the one that was a sailor in the RN, should be IV and V respectively.
As for what happened after 1707, the typical Scottish Post Office Box shows that HM is QE [alone] in Scotland, and that [whoops - edit[ WAS a Government department.
No, James was before the kingdoms were merged into one..
Any citation for the Scottish Post Office Box saying QE alone? I thought it just shows the Scottish crown to appease people who protest the fact that HM is QEII.
But surely the merger was on Jamie the Saxt's watch, so to speak? And remember we also write of his son James VII and II, who was also after the merger of the crowns but before that of the Pmts.
Re the PO boxes - you are quite right, on checking, my apologies. The whole EIIR was deleted. But indeed as you say as a way of getting round the problem!
Before the merger of Parliaments they were separate crowns.
After the merger of Parliaments it was one single crown.
After the merger of Parliament the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist and there was one Kingdom of Great Britain.
It is far from unusual in the past for a monarch to be monarch of more than one Kingdom, hence through the 17th century the monarch had two different regnal numbers, but from the 18th century onwards it is the same Kingdom.
Separate Regnal numbers (like James VI and I) existed only when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were different.
UK Monarchs have only one Regnal number not different ones for England and Scotland. Her Majesty is QEII in Scotland despite there never having been a Scottish Queen Elizabeth.
The higher Regnal number of the two is used if there's a clash. Hence a future Queen Margaret would be Queen Margaret II and there simply never would have been an English Queen Margaret.
But James VI and I was the King of one United Kingdom (Union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, but that is the bit that counts for regnal numbers.
And on your logic the William of Orange, and the one that was a sailor in the RN, should be IV and V respectively.
As for what happened after 1707, the typical Scottish Post Office Box shows that HM is QE [alone] in Scotland, and that [whoops - edit[ WAS a Government department.
No, James was before the kingdoms were merged into one..
Any citation for the Scottish Post Office Box saying QE alone? I thought it just shows the Scottish crown to appease people who protest the fact that HM is QEII.
IIRC the regnal numbers historically followed the English series, but after the Scots complained about QEII the government announced that the policy in future would be the higher of the two series.
Be interesting to see what happens after the succession to Charles III (for several reasons).
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
I would add that the general public have an element of responsibility to share. We get the NHS we pay for and the governments we vote for. We make individual chioces to wear masks, go to the pub, etc, etc
Again why are people believing other countries figures? The ONS has just based their work on other countries published figures.
Since this study is based on counts of dead bodies, with no attempt to allocate them as Covid or non-Covid, it's much harder to see how there could be any funny business going on.
Separate Regnal numbers (like James VI and I) existed only when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were different.
UK Monarchs have only one Regnal number not different ones for England and Scotland. Her Majesty is QEII in Scotland despite there never having been a Scottish Queen Elizabeth.
The higher Regnal number of the two is used if there's a clash. Hence a future Queen Margaret would be Queen Margaret II and there simply never would have been an English Queen Margaret.
But James VI and I was the King of one United Kingdom (Union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, but that is the bit that counts for regnal numbers.
And on your logic the William of Orange, and the one that was a sailor in the RN, should be IV and V respectively.
As for what happened after 1707, the typical Scottish Post Office Box shows that HM is QE [alone] in Scotland, and that [whoops - edit[ WAS a Government department.
No, James was before the kingdoms were merged into one..
Any citation for the Scottish Post Office Box saying QE alone? I thought it just shows the Scottish crown to appease people who protest the fact that HM is QEII.
IIRC the regnal numbers historically followed the English series, but after the Scots complained about QEII the government announced that the policy in future would be the higher of the two series.
It followed the English series because the issue of a higher Scottish count never came up. If it had, it would be interesting. But yes higher of the two is unambiguous policy now.
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
d) The UK has more vulnerable people (particularly when it comes to weight related issues) e) The UK got a different strain to some other countries f) The UK was unlucky in that it didn't over-react when over-reacting turned out to be the correct choice g) Other countries had more concentrated outbreaks that led to them locking down earlier h) No conclusions can be fully drawn until a year after this is over
And there's plenty more...
d) Possible, but also therefore relates to a), b) and c), but most likely not significant enough to account for the outright winner status in excess deaths. e) Scientifically implausible. A Trumpian type excuse that government might try because of b). f) Not unlucky, incompetent: see b) g) See b): Government had ample time to plan h) nonsense
Plenty more.... denial and excuses from the government and NHS for years to come, yes of course. England has the highest excess deaths in Europe - fact. Our health and political system has been tested and found seriously wanting
d) Does not relate to a) or b), unless you think the NHS should control what people eat. e) Is actually true. The extent to which this made a difference is not yet known. The far east (including Japan) had the less virulent strain, Italy and Spain started off with the virulent one which was seeded into the UK. Germany started earlier with the less virulent strain but the more virulent one eventually dominated. f) A lot of Government decisions are arbitrary and both good and bad outcomes are luck. g) If we'd had a more concentrated outbreak, the government response would have been different. h) Why is this nonsense? This isn't over yet by any means.
Separate Regnal numbers (like James VI and I) existed only when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were different.
UK Monarchs have only one Regnal number not different ones for England and Scotland. Her Majesty is QEII in Scotland despite there never having been a Scottish Queen Elizabeth.
The higher Regnal number of the two is used if there's a clash. Hence a future Queen Margaret would be Queen Margaret II and there simply never would have been an English Queen Margaret.
But James VI and I was the King of one United Kingdom (Union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, but that is the bit that counts for regnal numbers.
And on your logic the William of Orange, and the one that was a sailor in the RN, should be IV and V respectively.
As for what happened after 1707, the typical Scottish Post Office Box shows that HM is QE [alone] in Scotland, and that [whoops - edit[ WAS a Government department.
No, James was before the kingdoms were merged into one..
Any citation for the Scottish Post Office Box saying QE alone? I thought it just shows the Scottish crown to appease people who protest the fact that HM is QEII.
IIRC the regnal numbers historically followed the English series, but after the Scots complained about QEII the government announced that the policy in future would be the higher of the two series.
Be interesting to see what happens after the succession to Charles III (for several reasons).
Separate Regnal numbers (like James VI and I) existed only when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were different.
UK Monarchs have only one Regnal number not different ones for England and Scotland. Her Majesty is QEII in Scotland despite there never having been a Scottish Queen Elizabeth.
The higher Regnal number of the two is used if there's a clash. Hence a future Queen Margaret would be Queen Margaret II and there simply never would have been an English Queen Margaret.
But James VI and I was the King of one United Kingdom (Union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, but that is the bit that counts for regnal numbers.
And on your logic the William of Orange, and the one that was a sailor in the RN, should be IV and V respectively.
As for what happened after 1707, the typical Scottish Post Office Box shows that HM is QE [alone] in Scotland, and that [whoops - edit[ WAS a Government department.
No, James was before the kingdoms were merged into one..
Any citation for the Scottish Post Office Box saying QE alone? I thought it just shows the Scottish crown to appease people who protest the fact that HM is QEII.
IIRC the regnal numbers historically followed the English series, but after the Scots complained about QEII the government announced that the policy in future would be the higher of the two series.
Be interesting to see what happens after the succession to Charles III (for several reasons).
Let me be the first second of hundreds to point out he may choose not to be Charles at all.
Separate Regnal numbers (like James VI and I) existed only when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were different.
UK Monarchs have only one Regnal number not different ones for England and Scotland. Her Majesty is QEII in Scotland despite there never having been a Scottish Queen Elizabeth.
The higher Regnal number of the two is used if there's a clash. Hence a future Queen Margaret would be Queen Margaret II and there simply never would have been an English Queen Margaret.
But James VI and I was the King of one United Kingdom (Union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, but that is the bit that counts for regnal numbers.
And on your logic the William of Orange, and the one that was a sailor in the RN, should be IV and V respectively.
As for what happened after 1707, the typical Scottish Post Office Box shows that HM is QE [alone] in Scotland, and that [whoops - edit[ WAS a Government department.
No, James was before the kingdoms were merged into one..
Any citation for the Scottish Post Office Box saying QE alone? I thought it just shows the Scottish crown to appease people who protest the fact that HM is QEII.
IIRC the regnal numbers historically followed the English series, but after the Scots complained about QEII the government announced that the policy in future would be the higher of the two series.
Be interesting to see what happens after the succession to Charles III (for several reasons).
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
d) The UK has more vulnerable people (particularly when it comes to weight related issues) e) The UK got a different strain to some other countries f) The UK was unlucky in that it didn't over-react when over-reacting turned out to be the correct choice g) Other countries had more concentrated outbreaks that led to them locking down earlier h) No conclusions can be fully drawn until a year after this is over
And there's plenty more...
d) Possible, but also therefore relates to a), b) and c), but most likely not significant enough to account for the outright winner status in excess deaths. e) Scientifically implausible. A Trumpian type excuse that government might try because of b). f) Not unlucky, incompetent: see b) g) See b): Government had ample time to plan h) nonsense
Plenty more.... denial and excuses from the government and NHS for years to come, yes of course. England has the highest excess deaths in Europe - fact. Our health and political system has been tested and found seriously wanting
d) Does not relate to a) or b), unless you think the NHS should control what people eat. e) Is actually true. The extent to which this made a difference is not yet known. The far east (including Japan) had the less virulent strain, Italy and Spain started off with the virulent one which was seeded into the UK. Germany started earlier with the less virulent strain but the more virulent one eventually dominated. f) A lot of Government decisions are arbitrary and both good and bad outcomes are luck. g) If we'd had a more concentrated outbreak, the government response would have been different. h) Why is this nonsense? This isn't over yet by any means.
Keep clutching at the straws if you must, but this is strong evidence that our "betters" are much worse than those in charge of other countries. That probably doesn't suit the sensibilities of those that believe in British exceptionalism in every area, but to believe any of your conclusions would take a level of gullibility that would make the average Trump supporter blush.
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
I would add that the general public have an element of responsibility to share. We get the NHS we pay for and the governments we vote for. We make individual chioces to wear masks, go to the pub, etc, etc
I think it is a bit more complex than "we get the NHS we pay for". There is an element of this, but it is not an excuse. One of the main challenges is that the NHS and those that run it believe they are above criticism. British doctors (and particularly GPs) are the most well paid and superannuated in Europe (with possible exception of Switzerland). Large amounts of the increases in funding in the Blair years were absorbed in pay increases with no increased proportional increase in efficiency. Yes the NHS is a lot better than it was in 1997, but like the general population and our Prime ministers it has got even flabbier. Any further increases in spending on the NHS as a proportion of GDP should be aligned to productivity increases. It won't happen of course, and Joe Public will keep on clapping while believing that the NHS is the "envy of the world", when it is anything but!
I live in Spain and do not demur from anything you say. There is respect for the health service here too but it is not worshipped as in the UK. For many of the left, the NHS and the BBC and other institutions are given a completely free ride in terms of criticism. I use the Spanish NHS but also have private cover as I was under retirement age when we moved here. It is way cheaper than anything you can get in the UK - the main reason being that doctors in Spain are much more sensibly remunerated.
Cue solemn intonation of the fact that "Yebbut the jury had access to all the evidence," though you'd have thought 25 years of marital observation had its own value.
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
I would add that the general public have an element of responsibility to share. We get the NHS we pay for and the governments we vote for. We make individual chioces to wear masks, go to the pub, etc, etc
Again why are people believing other countries figures? The ONS has just based their work on other countries published figures.
Oh ffs! Don't tell me, our statisticians are the envy of the world! Bloody foreigners don't even know how to count!! What?
Western nations are generally pretty good at knowing how many people die, it is why these are VERY reliable statistics. Stop kidding yourself.We are not talking about China or Russia!
Up to a point Lord Copper - the left leaning El Pais published a paper this week suggesting the true deaths from Covid 19 in Spain were nearer to 45000 than the official 28000. It may be politics or incompetence but either way the lack of a standardised system for international comparisons is a scandal.
Cue solemn intonation of the fact that "Yebbut the jury had access to all the evidence," though you'd have thought 25 years of marital observation had its own value.
You think he behaved like that towards other women when his wife was around?
Cue solemn intonation of the fact that "Yebbut the jury had access to all the evidence," though you'd have thought 25 years of marital observation had its own value.
You think he behaved like that towards other women when his wife was around?
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
d) The UK has more vulnerable people (particularly when it comes to weight related issues) e) The UK got a different strain to some other countries f) The UK was unlucky in that it didn't over-react when over-reacting turned out to be the correct choice g) Other countries had more concentrated outbreaks that led to them locking down earlier h) No conclusions can be fully drawn until a year after this is over
And there's plenty more...
d) Possible, but also therefore relates to a), b) and c), but most likely not significant enough to account for the outright winner status in excess deaths. e) Scientifically implausible. A Trumpian type excuse that government might try because of b). f) Not unlucky, incompetent: see b) g) See b): Government had ample time to plan h) nonsense
Plenty more.... denial and excuses from the government and NHS for years to come, yes of course. England has the highest excess deaths in Europe - fact. Our health and political system has been tested and found seriously wanting
d) Does not relate to a) or b), unless you think the NHS should control what people eat. e) Is actually true. The extent to which this made a difference is not yet known. The far east (including Japan) had the less virulent strain, Italy and Spain started off with the virulent one which was seeded into the UK. Germany started earlier with the less virulent strain but the more virulent one eventually dominated. f) A lot of Government decisions are arbitrary and both good and bad outcomes are luck. g) If we'd had a more concentrated outbreak, the government response would have been different. h) Why is this nonsense? This isn't over yet by any means.
Keep clutching at the straws if you must, but this is strong evidence that our "betters" are much worse than those in charge of other countries. That probably doesn't suit the sensibilities of those that believe in British exceptionalism in every area, but to believe any of your conclusions would take a level of gullibility that would make the average Trump supporter blush.
I don't rule out either of your suggestions but I wouldn't restrict myself to just those two possibilities. Blaming everything on the government implies that they have full control over everything that happens and you'd have to be mad to believe that they do.
On a), though, I'd have thought most people who encounter the NHS frequently know that some aspects of it are crap, so I'm not sure it undershot expectations. It did well in some aspects but not in others, as you'd expect.
Imagine if the government proposed to copy Germany's health system though. What would the reaction be?
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
I would add that the general public have an element of responsibility to share. We get the NHS we pay for and the governments we vote for. We make individual chioces to wear masks, go to the pub, etc, etc
Again why are people believing other countries figures? The ONS has just based their work on other countries published figures.
Oh ffs! Don't tell me, our statisticians are the envy of the world! Bloody foreigners don't even know how to count!! What?
Western nations are generally pretty good at knowing how many people die, it is why these are VERY reliable statistics. Stop kidding yourself.We are not talking about China or Russia!
Up to a point Lord Copper - the left leaning El Pais published a paper this week suggesting the true deaths from Covid 19 in Spain were nearer to 45000 than the official 28000. It may be politics or incompetence but either way the lack of a standardised system for international comparisons is a scandal.
It isn't going to happen though.
1) there wasn't really a need for international comparisons until now. 2) no country is going to support a standardisation that could potentially make themselves look bad.
Separate Regnal numbers (like James VI and I) existed only when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were different.
UK Monarchs have only one Regnal number not different ones for England and Scotland. Her Majesty is QEII in Scotland despite there never having been a Scottish Queen Elizabeth.
The higher Regnal number of the two is used if there's a clash. Hence a future Queen Margaret would be Queen Margaret II and there simply never would have been an English Queen Margaret.
But James VI and I was the King of one United Kingdom (Union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, but that is the bit that counts for regnal numbers.
And on your logic the William of Orange, and the one that was a sailor in the RN, should be IV and V respectively.
As for what happened after 1707, the typical Scottish Post Office Box shows that HM is QE [alone] in Scotland, and that [whoops - edit[ WAS a Government department.
No, James was before the kingdoms were merged into one..
Any citation for the Scottish Post Office Box saying QE alone? I thought it just shows the Scottish crown to appease people who protest the fact that HM is QEII.
IIRC the regnal numbers historically followed the English series, but after the Scots complained about QEII the government announced that the policy in future would be the higher of the two series.
Be interesting to see what happens after the succession to Charles III (for several reasons).
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
d) The UK has more vulnerable people (particularly when it comes to weight related issues) e) The UK got a different strain to some other countries f) The UK was unlucky in that it didn't over-react when over-reacting turned out to be the correct choice g) Other countries had more concentrated outbreaks that led to them locking down earlier h) No conclusions can be fully drawn until a year after this is over
And there's plenty more...
d) Possible, but also therefore relates to a), b) and c), but most likely not significant enough to account for the outright winner status in excess deaths. e) Scientifically implausible. A Trumpian type excuse that government might try because of b). f) Not unlucky, incompetent: see b) g) See b): Government had ample time to plan h) nonsense
Plenty more.... denial and excuses from the government and NHS for years to come, yes of course. England has the highest excess deaths in Europe - fact. Our health and political system has been tested and found seriously wanting
d) Does not relate to a) or b), unless you think the NHS should control what people eat. e) Is actually true. The extent to which this made a difference is not yet known. The far east (including Japan) had the less virulent strain, Italy and Spain started off with the virulent one which was seeded into the UK. Germany started earlier with the less virulent strain but the more virulent one eventually dominated. f) A lot of Government decisions are arbitrary and both good and bad outcomes are luck. g) If we'd had a more concentrated outbreak, the government response would have been different. h) Why is this nonsense? This isn't over yet by any means.
Keep clutching at the straws if you must, but this is strong evidence that our "betters" are much worse than those in charge of other countries. That probably doesn't suit the sensibilities of those that believe in British exceptionalism in every area, but to believe any of your conclusions would take a level of gullibility that would make the average Trump supporter blush.
I don't rule out either of your suggestions but I wouldn't restrict myself to just those two possibilities. Blaming everything on the government implies that they have full control over everything that happens and you'd have to be mad to believe that they do.
On a), though, I'd have thought most people who encounter the NHS frequently know that some aspects of it are crap, so I'm not sure it undershot expectations. It did well in some aspects but not in others, as you'd expect.
Imagine if the government proposed to copy Germany's health system though. What would the reaction be?
The insistence that any change from our current system is exactly the same as adopting the (admittedly badly broken) US system as those are the only two options?
I’m slightly surprised no one on the Leave side of Brexit thought to put out a rumour that if we stayed in the EU then we would eventually have to give up the NHS and adopt a European model.
That it would not have been true can’t have been the reason given what both sides were saying.
Separate Regnal numbers (like James VI and I) existed only when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were different.
UK Monarchs have only one Regnal number not different ones for England and Scotland. Her Majesty is QEII in Scotland despite there never having been a Scottish Queen Elizabeth.
The higher Regnal number of the two is used if there's a clash. Hence a future Queen Margaret would be Queen Margaret II and there simply never would have been an English Queen Margaret.
But James VI and I was the King of one United Kingdom (Union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, but that is the bit that counts for regnal numbers.
And on your logic the William of Orange, and the one that was a sailor in the RN, should be IV and V respectively.
As for what happened after 1707, the typical Scottish Post Office Box shows that HM is QE [alone] in Scotland, and that [whoops - edit[ WAS a Government department.
No, James was before the kingdoms were merged into one..
Any citation for the Scottish Post Office Box saying QE alone? I thought it just shows the Scottish crown to appease people who protest the fact that HM is QEII.
IIRC the regnal numbers historically followed the English series, but after the Scots complained about QEII the government announced that the policy in future would be the higher of the two series.
Be interesting to see what happens after the succession to Charles III (for several reasons).
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
d) The UK has more vulnerable people (particularly when it comes to weight related issues) e) The UK got a different strain to some other countries f) The UK was unlucky in that it didn't over-react when over-reacting turned out to be the correct choice g) Other countries had more concentrated outbreaks that led to them locking down earlier h) No conclusions can be fully drawn until a year after this is over
And there's plenty more...
d) Possible, but also therefore relates to a), b) and c), but most likely not significant enough to account for the outright winner status in excess deaths. e) Scientifically implausible. A Trumpian type excuse that government might try because of b). f) Not unlucky, incompetent: see b) g) See b): Government had ample time to plan h) nonsense
Plenty more.... denial and excuses from the government and NHS for years to come, yes of course. England has the highest excess deaths in Europe - fact. Our health and political system has been tested and found seriously wanting
d) Does not relate to a) or b), unless you think the NHS should control what people eat. e) Is actually true. The extent to which this made a difference is not yet known. The far east (including Japan) had the less virulent strain, Italy and Spain started off with the virulent one which was seeded into the UK. Germany started earlier with the less virulent strain but the more virulent one eventually dominated. f) A lot of Government decisions are arbitrary and both good and bad outcomes are luck. g) If we'd had a more concentrated outbreak, the government response would have been different. h) Why is this nonsense? This isn't over yet by any means.
Keep clutching at the straws if you must, but this is strong evidence that our "betters" are much worse than those in charge of other countries. That probably doesn't suit the sensibilities of those that believe in British exceptionalism in every area, but to believe any of your conclusions would take a level of gullibility that would make the average Trump supporter blush.
I don't rule out either of your suggestions but I wouldn't restrict myself to just those two possibilities. Blaming everything on the government implies that they have full control over everything that happens and you'd have to be mad to believe that they do.
On a), though, I'd have thought most people who encounter the NHS frequently know that some aspects of it are crap, so I'm not sure it undershot expectations. It did well in some aspects but not in others, as you'd expect.
Imagine if the government proposed to copy Germany's health system though. What would the reaction be?
The insistence that any change from our current system is exactly the same as adopting the (admittedly badly broken) US system as those are the only two options?
I’m slightly surprised no one on the Leave side of Brexit thought to put out a rumour that if we stayed in the EU then we would eventually have to give up the NHS and adopt a European model.
That it would not have been true can’t have been the reason given what both sides were saying.
Lol. If nothing else that might have got more people arguing that the European model is the right one.
We need that debate, but nobody seems to be prepared to touch it. Surely it couldn't be worse than the Brexit Wars?
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
I would add that the general public have an element of responsibility to share. We get the NHS we pay for and the governments we vote for. We make individual chioces to wear masks, go to the pub, etc, etc
Again why are people believing other countries figures? The ONS has just based their work on other countries published figures.
Oh ffs! Don't tell me, our statisticians are the envy of the world! Bloody foreigners don't even know how to count!! What?
Western nations are generally pretty good at knowing how many people die, it is why these are VERY reliable statistics. Stop kidding yourself.We are not talking about China or Russia!
Up to a point Lord Copper - the left leaning El Pais published a paper this week suggesting the true deaths from Covid 19 in Spain were nearer to 45000 than the official 28000. It may be politics or incompetence but either way the lack of a standardised system for international comparisons is a scandal.
It isn't going to happen though.
1) there wasn't really a need for international comparisons until now. 2) no country is going to support a standardisation that could potentially make themselves look bad.
The "excess deaths" and life expectancy figures will be harder to hide, though, when they eventually come out.
Of all the sticks used to beat the PM with, "Prime Minister has a Press Secretary" must be the most bizarre and vapid one yet.
Will you still say that if the press briefings turn into a daily dose of Guido TV?
The point remains regardless of what they are like, since Boris doing them himself is not exactly a key PM duty as having them at all in that way is completely his choice.
Ducking interviews and scrutiny is a far stronger attack than attacking him for having a press spokesman, it's crazy and undermines the attacks he does deserve. You help him by going after such things.
Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.
Idi Amin?
Nope.
Donald Duck?
Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House
'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.
The QE 2 was named after QE 2 not as the second ship named Elizabeth. As an aside the chairman of Cunard went to ask the king if he could name their new liner After the greatest queen ever in the tradition Of Cunard ships names ending in ia, the king replied that He would ask Mary when she came home but he was sure she would be delisted to have the shop named Mary.
The QE2 may have been named "QE the Second" by HM but that was a slip of the tongue (?). My version is the official Cunartd one, I believe.
But quite right about Queen Victoria/QM. THough I see Vicky got her Queen in the end, albeit one of the modern cruise ships!
The Queen Victoria/Queen Mary story is a myth. Cunard (-ia endings) had just merged with White Star (-ic endings) so "Queen Mary" was an elegant solution - there never was any intention to call the ship Queen Victoria.
Cunard intended to call what became the QE2 "Queen Elizabeth" (there were printed cards sent to Cunarders at sea in case of communication failure), but on the day HMQEII waved the naming card away and named the ship after herself (well if your Granny & Mum, both Queens Consort had named ships after themselves, why the heck shouldn't a Queen Regnant?).
Cunard initially were delighted until the "Scottish problem" emerged and assiduously did not answer the question whether the ship was named after the ship or the monarch.
When a ship bears the name of a predecessor there is no custom of adding a suffix - otherwise the current Cunard cruise ship Queen Elizabeth would be QE3.
I like to think on naming the QM2, what the Queen actually said was "I name this ship Queen Mary, too..." Of course, because of the QE2 ambiguity they had to call her QM2.....all for one three second slip up by her Maj.....
For Putin the opposition is silent because Putin controls the media and his opposition is too divided to provide a united front.
The one advantage of a two party system is that it's hard to sideline the opposition if it's obvious who that opposition is..
Isn't that deliberate by Putin? The two 'main' 'opposition' parties are effectively controlled by Putin anyway. The communists are too far to the left, whilst I think the other one is too far to the right. And both haven't changed leaders since the 1990s. An opposition leader who doesn't change after one or two elections is just a puppet for the government.
It'd be like if John Major was still the leader of the Conservatives despite the drumming he received in 1997.
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
d) The UK has more vulnerable people (particularly when it comes to weight related issues) e) The UK got a different strain to some other countries f) The UK was unlucky in that it didn't over-react when over-reacting turned out to be the correct choice g) Other countries had more concentrated outbreaks that led to them locking down earlier h) No conclusions can be fully drawn until a year after this is over
And there's plenty more...
I'm on (d), (f) and (g) primarily. Strong evidence that we had many more individual fires (over a thousand start points) and hence extreme spread, unlike say Italy (focussed). Add in a small delay in locking down (just a week would have helped), plus possibly a laxer approach to lock-down (officially sanctioned - no-one in the UK needed a permit to shop).
On the thread header, is it our republican thread writers ignorance, or a little joke that Donald has been stripped of "Royal" - and as King would be "Majesty" in any case?
Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.
Idi Amin?
Nope.
Donald Duck?
Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House
'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
Another thing he got wrong is that you can would normally only refer to a monarch as the first once another with the same name came along. King John isn’t normally called John the First as we haven’t had a second one yet.
I've never really thought of it like that. I've never thought of Elizabeth I as anything other than Elizabeth I, but I suppose that means everything I've read on her has been written after 1950. 'Good Queen Bess' I suppose she was known as before then.
Er, we still haven't had an Elizabeth II, of the UK. There was an unholy fiddle when this was pointed out, belatedly, in 1952-3 - hence EIIR on pillar boxes south of the Border, but the accurate (to a Unionist) ER across Tweed. Ditto the careful use of the Arabic 2 rather than II in the Clyde-built QE2 - formally as successor to the previous ship of that name.
The QE 2 was named after QE 2 not as the second ship named Elizabeth. As an aside the chairman of Cunard went to ask the king if he could name their new liner After the greatest queen ever in the tradition Of Cunard ships names ending in ia, the king replied that He would ask Mary when she came home but he was sure she would be delisted to have the shop named Mary.
The QE2 may have been named "QE the Second" by HM but that was a slip of the tongue (?). My version is the official Cunartd one, I believe.
But quite right about Queen Victoria/QM. THough I see Vicky got her Queen in the end, albeit one of the modern cruise ships!
The Queen Victoria/Queen Mary story is a myth. Cunard (-ia endings) had just merged with White Star (-ic endings) so "Queen Mary" was an elegant solution - there never was any intention to call the ship Queen Victoria.
Cunard intended to call what became the QE2 "Queen Elizabeth" (there were printed cards sent to Cunarders at sea in case of communication failure), but on the day HMQEII waved the naming card away and named the ship after herself (well if your Granny & Mum, both Queens Consort had named ships after themselves, why the heck shouldn't a Queen Regnant?).
Cunard initially were delighted until the "Scottish problem" emerged and assiduously did not answer the question whether the ship was named after the ship or the monarch.
When a ship bears the name of a predecessor there is no custom of adding a suffix - otherwise the current Cunard cruise ship Queen Elizabeth would be QE3.
I like to think on naming the QM2, what the Queen actually said was "I name this ship Queen Mary, too..." Of course, because of the QE2 ambiguity they had to call her QM2.....all for one three second slip up by her Maj.....
I like that idea, like the place in Discworld where people are named whatever the priest said in a ceremony, like Matthew who opened the blasted door Smith and the like.
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
I would add that the general public have an element of responsibility to share. We get the NHS we pay for and the governments we vote for. We make individual chioces to wear masks, go to the pub, etc, etc
Again why are people believing other countries figures? The ONS has just based their work on other countries published figures.
Oh ffs! Don't tell me, our statisticians are the envy of the world! Bloody foreigners don't even know how to count!! What?
Western nations are generally pretty good at knowing how many people die, it is why these are VERY reliable statistics. Stop kidding yourself.We are not talking about China or Russia!
Up to a point Lord Copper - the left leaning El Pais published a paper this week suggesting the true deaths from Covid 19 in Spain were nearer to 45000 than the official 28000. It may be politics or incompetence but either way the lack of a standardised system for international comparisons is a scandal.
It isn't going to happen though.
1) there wasn't really a need for international comparisons until now. 2) no country is going to support a standardisation that could potentially make themselves look bad.
The "excess deaths" and life expectancy figures will be harder to hide, though, when they eventually come out.
Yes, although even excess deaths (and I do think that's the best measure) has the potential to mislead. For example, if a country in a comparison had a particularly hot summer or cold winter - or a bad flu season - in the last five years (if five year baseline) then that has the likely effect of raising the 'normal' number of deaths against which excess deaths are estimated. Such an event would also potentially have the effect of reducing the pool of more susceptible people.
So, say (fictional example) France had a very hot summer in 2019 and a relatively bad flu season winter 2018/19, both of which increased deaths in the elderly. That would increase the baseline deaths and reduce excess deaths for number of deaths X in 2020. It would also reduce the size of the population most susceptible to death from COVID-19, both of which would make France look better even if they had exactly the same response as another country that didn't have an earlier hot summer and bad flu season.
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
I would add that the general public have an element of responsibility to share. We get the NHS we pay for and the governments we vote for. We make individual chioces to wear masks, go to the pub, etc, etc
Again why are people believing other countries figures? The ONS has just based their work on other countries published figures.
Fair question, but what else can we use to compare?
On the thread header, is it our republican thread writers ignorance, or a little joke that Donald has been stripped of "Royal" - and as King would be "Majesty" in any case?
It is a testament to my fantastic education, as I noted upthread.
Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House
'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
I would add that the general public have an element of responsibility to share. We get the NHS we pay for and the governments we vote for. We make individual chioces to wear masks, go to the pub, etc, etc
Again why are people believing other countries figures? The ONS has just based their work on other countries published figures.
Fair question, but what else can we use to compare?
Nothing, but just look at Spain, since late April they have been completely making up their figures, and Italy's system of counting deaths is incredibly bureaucratic and slow. I doubt we will ever get true figures. There is no gain for Governments in being honest on deaths so they are not.
On the thread header, is it our republican thread writers ignorance, or a little joke that Donald has been stripped of "Royal" - and as King would be "Majesty" in any case?
Its a quotation about Abraham Lincoln, the very last person the current POTUS deserves to be compared with.
On the thread header, is it our republican thread writers ignorance, or a little joke that Donald has been stripped of "Royal" - and as King would be "Majesty" in any case?
It is a testament to my fantastic education, as I noted upthread.
Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House
'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
If you think that it is appropriate to compare Trump to Lincoln then I think your education may have been rather lacking.
Conclusions to be drawn from this: a) NHS is crapper than we believe b) UK government is crapper than those that voted for it believe or c) both
I would add that the general public have an element of responsibility to share. We get the NHS we pay for and the governments we vote for. We make individual chioces to wear masks, go to the pub, etc, etc
Again why are people believing other countries figures? The ONS has just based their work on other countries published figures.
Fair question, but what else can we use to compare?
Nothing, but just look at Spain, since late April they have been completely making up their figures, and Italy's system of counting deaths is incredibly bureaucratic and slow. I doubt we will ever get true figures. There is no gain for Governments in being honest on deaths so they are not.
They did a full scale test that proved that the flight was brought down by a bomb on board.
The Italian government at the time was trying to insinuate that the flight had ben shot down. T
hey actually complained to the UK government about the report from the AAIB - stating that producing a report contradicting their story was downright rude, and that the report, as a result, was un-usable.
On the thread header, is it our republican thread writers ignorance, or a little joke that Donald has been stripped of "Royal" - and as King would be "Majesty" in any case?
It is a testament to my fantastic education, as I noted upthread.
Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House
'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
If you think that it is appropriate to compare Trump to Lincoln then I think your education may have been rather lacking.
I was drawing a contrast to the man who was accused of being a usurper for wanting to free the slaves and the usurper who wants to postpone the election.
America has held elections during a civil and world wars.
If Trump’s reason for delaying the election is to reduce postal ballots (or the US equivalent) because he is worried they might be subject to “foreign interference” I assume he must also be calling for the abolition of electronic voting?
Points to the first PBer to get the reference to the headline.
Idi Amin?
Nope.
Donald Duck?
Nearly, Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House
'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
On the thread header, is it our republican thread writers ignorance, or a little joke that Donald has been stripped of "Royal" - and as King would be "Majesty" in any case?
It is a testament to my fantastic education, as I noted upthread.
Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House
'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
If you think that it is appropriate to compare Trump to Lincoln then I think your education may have been rather lacking.
I was drawing a contrast to the man who was accused of being a usurper for wanting to free the slaves and the usurper who wants to postpone the election.
America has held elections during a civil and world wars.
Yes and they also allowed unlimited travel and people going to bars ,restaurants and theatres when they wanted during civil and world wars. heck they qwere making films in 1940. But they do not allow them now.
What's the difference?
Its just having an election, with all the attendant health risks, suits your agenda.
And that is why what Trump has done is actually not stupid. Not stupid at all. Because if the dems think elections are safe, then why aren;t all these other human activities...??
If Trump’s reason for delaying the election is to reduce postal ballots (or the US equivalent) because he is worried they might be subject to “foreign interference” I assume he must also be calling for the abolition of electronic voting?
Comments
RIP
Now that person may be Trump by one or more dubious SCOTUS rulings, but no matter how dubious, the Democrats will accept it in the same way they accepted the outcome of Gore v Bush. Or it may be Nancy Pelosi, as she will be next in succession if for some reason or other no-one has been elected President or Vice-President for the 2020-2024 term.
So who does that leave that could start a civil war? Trump could call on his base to "take to the streets" I suppose, but leaving aside that he is fundamentally a coward and would never have the balls to actually do so, where does that get him, other than a quick trip to Club Fed on charges of treason? Firstly, his base aren't even near "the streets". Some militia types like the Bundys might occupy a national monument or two again, but the incoming Biden or Pelosi adminstration would probably just leave them be until they got bored. And if some Trumpist do decide to start shooting for real, well as Belloc might have said on behalf of the federal government
Any citation for the Scottish Post Office Box saying QE alone? I thought it just shows the Scottish crown to appease people who protest the fact that HM is QEII.
Western nations are generally pretty good at knowing how many people die, it is why these are VERY reliable statistics. Stop kidding yourself.We are not talking about China or Russia!
Re the PO boxes - you are quite right, on checking, my apologies. The whole EIIR was deleted. But indeed as you say as a way of getting round the problem!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_Box_War
July 30th 2020
UK Government would use single market provisions to undermine Scottish Parliament powers.
The STUC today voiced serious concerns over the UK Government White Paper on the UK single market. STUC Deputy General Secretary Dave Moxham said: “While the UK Government continues to pursue its kamizake approach towards a no deal Brexit, it is also seeking to centralise power and promote free market dogma over the competence of the devolved parliaments.
http://www.stuc.org.uk/media-centre/news/1486/scottish-government-correct-to-sound-alarm-over-uk-single-market-white-paper
But I think in every election until 2016 the oppo always accepted the result, basically. A shrug of the shoulders, learn the lessons, move on.
The dems never, ever did that. Not one and not once.
After the merger of Parliaments it was one single crown.
After the merger of Parliament the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist and there was one Kingdom of Great Britain.
It is far from unusual in the past for a monarch to be monarch of more than one Kingdom, hence through the 17th century the monarch had two different regnal numbers, but from the 18th century onwards it is the same Kingdom.
I hope you find a more appropriate buyer quickly. Ashley is awful, but the Saudis were not appropriate.
https://twitter.com/richardajkeys?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
e) Is actually true. The extent to which this made a difference is not yet known. The far east (including Japan) had the less virulent strain, Italy and Spain started off with the virulent one which was seeded into the UK. Germany started earlier with the less virulent strain but the more virulent one eventually dominated.
f) A lot of Government decisions are arbitrary and both good and bad outcomes are luck.
g) If we'd had a more concentrated outbreak, the government response would have been different.
h) Why is this nonsense? This isn't over yet by any means.
The Election is not going to be delayed, and Trump knows it. He's going to say 'We wuz robbed' if he loses and this prepares some of the ground.
firstsecond of hundreds to point out he may choose not to be Charles at all.As a people, I can confirm this.
https://twitter.com/NatalieElphicke/status/1288814457934815232?s=20
I wonder if Trump will go to his funeral?
On a), though, I'd have thought most people who encounter the NHS frequently know that some aspects of it are crap, so I'm not sure it undershot expectations. It did well in some aspects but not in others, as you'd expect.
Imagine if the government proposed to copy Germany's health system though. What would the reaction be?
1) there wasn't really a need for international comparisons until now.
2) no country is going to support a standardisation that could potentially make themselves look bad.
I’m slightly surprised no one on the Leave side of Brexit thought to put out a rumour that if we stayed in the EU then we would eventually have to give up the NHS and adopt a European model.
That it would not have been true can’t have been the reason given what both sides were saying.
In honour of Andrew Parker-Bowles, the only man who I think has porked the wife and sister of the (future) monarch.
If there are any others, then PBers should share.
We need that debate, but nobody seems to be prepared to touch it. Surely it couldn't be worse than the Brexit Wars?
Criticise the content of the briefings if you like, but criticising the PM for having a Press Secretary? Vapid.
Ducking interviews and scrutiny is a far stronger attack than attacking him for having a press spokesman, it's crazy and undermines the attacks he does deserve. You help him by going after such things.
Cunard intended to call what became the QE2 "Queen Elizabeth" (there were printed cards sent to Cunarders at sea in case of communication failure), but on the day HMQEII waved the naming card away and named the ship after herself (well if your Granny & Mum, both Queens Consort had named ships after themselves, why the heck shouldn't a Queen Regnant?).
Cunard initially were delighted until the "Scottish problem" emerged and assiduously did not answer the question whether the ship was named after the ship or the monarch.
When a ship bears the name of a predecessor there is no custom of adding a suffix - otherwise the current Cunard cruise ship Queen Elizabeth would be QE3.
I like to think on naming the QM2, what the Queen actually said was "I name this ship Queen Mary, too..." Of course, because of the QE2 ambiguity they had to call her QM2.....all for one three second slip up by her Maj.....
Pepperridge Farm remembers.
https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1288823173530648581?s=19
It'd be like if John Major was still the leader of the Conservatives despite the drumming he received in 1997.
So, say (fictional example) France had a very hot summer in 2019 and a relatively bad flu season winter 2018/19, both of which increased deaths in the elderly. That would increase the baseline deaths and reduce excess deaths for number of deaths X in 2020. It would also reduce the size of the population most susceptible to death from COVID-19, both of which would make France look better even if they had exactly the same response as another country that didn't have an earlier hot summer and bad flu season.
Fernando Wood on Abraham Lincoln, when Lincoln was trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Wood said in the House
'Estimable colleagues, two bloody years ago this month, his Highness, King Abraham Africanus the First, our Great Usurping Caesar, violator of habeas corpus and freedom of the press, abuser of states' rights.'
“This is personal for me. I fought on the border of East Germany when I was a young soldier I was stationed there.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/jul/30/us-coronavirus-mike-pompeo-senate-donald-trump-john-lewis-joe-biden-live-updates
They did a full scale test that proved that the flight was brought down by a bomb on board.
The Italian government at the time was trying to insinuate that the flight had ben shot down. T
hey actually complained to the UK government about the report from the AAIB - stating that producing a report contradicting their story was downright rude, and that the report, as a result, was un-usable.
America has held elections during a civil and world wars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs
If you haven’t seen this before it is well worth your time.
What's the difference?
Its just having an election, with all the attendant health risks, suits your agenda.
And that is why what Trump has done is actually not stupid. Not stupid at all. Because if the dems think elections are safe, then why aren;t all these other human activities...??