This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
People over-rate Biden just because the alternative is Trump
Virtually all of America’s problems have got way worse under Biden, life expectancy is plunging, the cities burn, he’s helpless with Wokeness, and as for foreign policy he did a cut and run in Afghanistan which was far worse than any error by obama. And he emboldened Putin
Go do a drive around inland America. This is a tottering empire under a doddering leader. He’s the perfect emblem, in that way
Our resident Chicken Little reckons everything is shit and getting worse. Quelle surprise!
No, I rate Biden because I rate Biden, not simply Trump. I didn't say that Biden was better than Trump, I said he was better than Obama too.
"Wokeness" is not a real problem, just press the X button on the top-right hand corner of the browser showing X and move on with your life.
Life expectancy is falling because of drugs and other issues that are not in the Presidents immediate control to turn around in 3 years.
Maui is burning because of the climate its in. Fires happen sometimes. Your hyperventilating about American cities is mostly (but not entirely) unjustified.
And as for Afghanistan the agreement to leave Afghanistan was signed under his predecessor, not him, and besides after two decades it would have been absurd to reverse that agreement anyway.
Nothing is "in the Presidents immediate control to turn around in 3 years," which does not preclude us judging them on general direction of travel.
Remember too Corbyn has not ruled out a bid for London Mayor either.
If it is held solely under FPTP next year you could see Khan, Corbyn and Hall all on 25 to 30% of the vote and each with a chance of winning. Whereas on the old system where preferences would decide the winner between the top 2 either Khan or Corbyn would likely easily beat Hall in London depending on which of them got to that last two
A well observed post.
I know no electoral system is perfect and I don't want to get int another one of the those debates about fptp and pr, etc, but it is a worry when one can look at the system and say, but under this system party A has a better chance of winning. Would be interesting to know if the Tories changed it because they believed in it or for electoral advantage. I found it worrying that they were able to change the system so easily. We have already seen in Bedford it produced a different result to what would have almost certainly been the result under 2nd preference. Many would argue that is how it should be. Others would disagree.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
And Bush was. ("I have looked on his eyes...")
The failure to respond seriously to the invasion of Georgia - still a 'frozen conflict', with Russia occupying a lump of their territory - was the start of emboldening Putin.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
View from the back garden of the place we’re staying in county Waterford. Rather a nice day here. A bit early to put a glass of wine and laptop in the frame I’m afraid.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I rate Biden very highly as a President. It can be hard to compare Presidents, because partisan considerations come into play, and the circumstances faced different, but I'm comfortable in stating that Biden is the best US President for many decades.
He inherited an awful mess, but I think he's done a lot to turn some problems around.
You just wish he was twenty years younger.
But then, what do I know? Biden's approval ratings are in the low 40s.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
And Bush was. ("I have looked on his eyes...")
The failure to respond seriously to the invasion of Georgia - still a 'frozen conflict', with Russia occupying a lump of their territory - was the start of emboldening Putin.
I think that's true enough. Some of the recent online talks about Putin made another point: he vocally advised against the US going into Iraq - and told Bush as much. It allegedly further soured his view on the US and the west.
View from the back garden of the place we’re staying in county Waterford. Rather a nice day here. A bit early to put a glass of wine and laptop in the frame I’m afraid.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
Excellent points.
To be fair to Obama on Iraq, once Bush and, to his shame, Blair had unleashed the dogs of war there was no good outcome likely or even possible.
You think leaving Iraq to Saddam Hussein would have been a good outcome?
There were no good outcomes pre-war. War sometimes is a lesser evil, but lets not pretend that Saddam's Iraq was sunshine and roses.
I suspect that someone would have arranged a nasty accident for Saddam and his sons before long.
Considering he'd been leader of a totalitarian Iraq since 1979, what exactly brings on that suspicion?
And if he had, he'd almost certainly have been replaced with another Ba'athist anyway.
Unpopular opinion in today's west, but Iraq despite its problems is now a much better for us having invaded and freed them from Hussein's dictatorship.
Just a shame we didn't have the same lasting success in Afghanistan.
"Unpopular opinion in today's west, but Iraq despite its problems is now a much better for us having invaded and freed them from Hussein's dictatorship."
It's still fairly unstable AIUI. In ten years it could be a beacon of civilisation and democracy in the Middle East, or it could be a basketcase. What it needs is a lack of interference - from both the west and neighbouring countries.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
Trump's renegotiation of NAFTA is seen as a success.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
People over-rate Biden just because the alternative is Trump
Virtually all of America’s problems have got way worse under Biden, life expectancy is plunging, the cities burn, he’s helpless with Wokeness, and as for foreign policy he did a cut and run in Afghanistan which was far worse than any error by obama. And he emboldened Putin
Go do a drive around inland America. This is a tottering empire under a doddering leader. He’s the perfect emblem, in that way
Afghanistan was Trump’s Art Of The Deal made manifest. Biden just got the blame.
Biden is the best foreign policy president since George Bush I.
I'd say since Clinton personally, Clinton did well in navigating the period post the fall of the Soviet Union, expanding NATO into Eastern Europe, got the closest to getting peace in the Middle East (and much progress there), and did well with Kosovo.
Biden is the best of those elected in the 21st Century though, easily.
Much of the fuck ups with Russia came under Clintons watch. He squandered a lot of the immense prestige that Bush I had built up on the international stage. Somalia, for example.
Clinton used the “lob of few cruise missiles” solution way too much. Leading to the drone warfare stuff we saw in Afghanistan.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
Excellent points.
To be fair to Obama on Iraq, once Bush and, to his shame, Blair had unleashed the dogs of war there was no good outcome likely or even possible.
You think leaving Iraq to Saddam Hussein would have been a good outcome?
There were no good outcomes pre-war. War sometimes is a lesser evil, but lets not pretend that Saddam's Iraq was sunshine and roses.
I suspect that someone would have arranged a nasty accident for Saddam and his sons before long.
Considering he'd been leader of a totalitarian Iraq since 1979, what exactly brings on that suspicion?
And if he had, he'd almost certainly have been replaced with another Ba'athist anyway.
Unpopular opinion in today's west, but Iraq despite its problems is now a much better for us having invaded and freed them from Hussein's dictatorship.
Just a shame we didn't have the same lasting success in Afghanistan.
"Unpopular opinion in today's west, but Iraq despite its problems is now a much better for us having invaded and freed them from Hussein's dictatorship."
It's still fairly unstable AIUI. In ten years it could be a beacon of civilisation and democracy in the Middle East, or it could be a basketcase. What it needs is a lack of interference - from both the west and neighbouring countries.
It's somewhat surprising that Iran hasn't managed to turn Iraq into a theocracy on its own model. That is an encouraging sign.
View from the back garden of the place we’re staying in county Waterford. Rather a nice day here. A bit early to put a glass of wine and laptop in the frame I’m afraid.
View from the back garden of the place we’re staying in county Waterford. Rather a nice day here. A bit early to put a glass of wine and laptop in the frame I’m afraid.
Remember too Corbyn has not ruled out a bid for London Mayor either.
If it is held solely under FPTP next year you could see Khan, Corbyn and Hall all on 25 to 30% of the vote and each with a chance of winning. Whereas on the old system where preferences would decide the winner between the top 2 either Khan or Corbyn would likely easily beat Hall in London depending on which of them got to that last two
A well observed post.
I know no electoral system is perfect and I don't want to get int another one of the those debates about fptp and pr, etc, but it is a worry when one can look at the system and say, but under this system party A has a better chance of winning. Would be interesting to know if the Tories changed it because they believed in it or for electoral advantage. I found it worrying that they were able to change the system so easily. We have already seen in Bedford it produced a different result to what would have almost certainly been the result under 2nd preference. Many would argue that is how it should be. Others would disagree.
Every single change of the electoral system has been for partisan advantage.
1832 to put the Whigs at the head of the Reform bandwagon.
1867 to allow Disraeli to redraw the constituency map as he wished.
1885 ditto (read 'Salisbury' for 'Disraeli')
1918 to give the vote to those women and remaining men likely to support the Lloyd George/Unionist coalition
1928 because CCO counselled that younger women were generally quite Conservative in outlook and Baldwin could in any case not afford to upset men under 25 by disenfranchising them.
1948 because plural voters were generally richer and therefore voted Conservative.
1969 because it was thought teenagers would vote Labour.
2014 because the SNP thought teenagers would vote 'Leave' in SindyRef.
That's one of the tragedies of our system.
In America at least such changes have bipartisan support.*
(The snag being that that's now never forthcoming.)
*TBF the confirmation of the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds was I believe passed without division.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
People over-rate Biden just because the alternative is Trump
Virtually all of America’s problems have got way worse under Biden, life expectancy is plunging, the cities burn, he’s helpless with Wokeness, and as for foreign policy he did a cut and run in Afghanistan which was far worse than any error by obama. And he emboldened Putin
Go do a drive around inland America. This is a tottering empire under a doddering leader. He’s the perfect emblem, in that way
Our resident Chicken Little reckons everything is shit and getting worse. Quelle surprise!
No, I rate Biden because I rate Biden, not simply Trump. I didn't say that Biden was better than Trump, I said he was better than Obama too.
"Wokeness" is not a real problem, just press the X button on the top-right hand corner of the browser showing X and move on with your life.
Life expectancy is falling because of drugs and other issues that are not in the Presidents immediate control to turn around in 3 years.
Maui is burning because of the climate its in. Fires happen sometimes. Your hyperventilating about American cities is mostly (but not entirely) unjustified.
And as for Afghanistan the agreement to leave Afghanistan was signed under his predecessor, not him, and besides after two decades it would have been absurd to reverse that agreement anyway.
I’m not sure you’re entirely in a position to pontificate on the state of America seeing as you have never gone beyond the confines of your Barratt estate on the outskirts of Northampton. Indeed I sometimes wonder if you’ve ever actually left your house other than to go sit in your car and pretend to drive it while making “driving” noises with your mouth
You should embrace the feeling of driving on the open road, if you took your usual anti-car gibberish to America no wonder you have such a downbeat feeling about America.
That's a country designed around the open road, as it works, and is more modern without our clinging onto the pre-technological past. As a result they have a much higher standard of living, despite their great many other problems like endemic racism, guns and drugs.
I agree with you on Biden. He’s been the best, most effective US President since Clinton, despite the Afghanistan debacle. He’ll be a terrible candidate in 2024, though. He is not going to have the stamina for a campaign, so Trump is likely to win. What that does to the US internally bothers me little, that’s their choice, but it’s going to be very bad for Ukraine and that means it will be very bad for Europe, including us.
On US roads, specifically - having driven a fair few of them, I’d say they’re bad to terrible. US public infrastructure generally is awful. The 101 from San Francisco to San Jose - the main route through Silicon Valley, the richest place on earth - makes the North Circular look like paradise. It’s 100 miles of potholed, almost permanent, traffic jam.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
People over-rate Biden just because the alternative is Trump
Virtually all of America’s problems have got way worse under Biden, life expectancy is plunging, the cities burn, he’s helpless with Wokeness, and as for foreign policy he did a cut and run in Afghanistan which was far worse than any error by obama. And he emboldened Putin
Go do a drive around inland America. This is a tottering empire under a doddering leader. He’s the perfect emblem, in that way
Our resident Chicken Little reckons everything is shit and getting worse. Quelle surprise!
No, I rate Biden because I rate Biden, not simply Trump. I didn't say that Biden was better than Trump, I said he was better than Obama too.
"Wokeness" is not a real problem, just press the X button on the top-right hand corner of the browser showing X and move on with your life.
Life expectancy is falling because of drugs and other issues that are not in the Presidents immediate control to turn around in 3 years.
Maui is burning because of the climate its in. Fires happen sometimes. Your hyperventilating about American cities is mostly (but not entirely) unjustified.
And as for Afghanistan the agreement to leave Afghanistan was signed under his predecessor, not him, and besides after two decades it would have been absurd to reverse that agreement anyway.
I’m not sure you’re entirely in a position to pontificate on the state of America seeing as you have never gone beyond the confines of your Barratt estate on the outskirts of Northampton. Indeed I sometimes wonder if you’ve ever actually left your house other than to go sit in your car and pretend to drive it while making “driving” noises with your mouth
You should embrace the feeling of driving on the open road, if you took your usual anti-car gibberish to America no wonder you have such a downbeat feeling about America.
That's a country designed around the open road, as it works, and is more modern without our clinging onto the pre-technological past. As a result they have a much higher standard of living, despite their great many other problems like endemic racism, guns and drugs.
I agree with you on Biden. He’s been the best, most effective US President since Clinton, despite the Afghanistan debacle. He’ll be a terrible candidate in 2024, though. He is not going to have the stamina for a campaign, so Trump is likely to win. What that does to the US internally bothers me little, that’s their choice, but it’s going to be very bad for Ukraine and that means it will be very bad for Europe, including us.
On US roads, specifically - having driven a fair few of them, I’d say they’re bad to terrible. US public infrastructure generally is awful. The 101 from San Francisco to San Jose - the main route through Silicon Valley, the richest place on earth - makes the North Circular look like paradise. It’s 100 miles of potholed, almost permanent, traffic jam.
I’ve found the highways to get upstate from New York very good.
The other thing that I can’t get my head around is that there’s basically no litter on the verges.
Since pretty much every other facet of US life is a tragedy of the commons, it doesn’t add up.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump. Obama's main weakness was his poor ability to work with people in Congress, especially Republicans, which reflected his lack of experience as well as somewhat aloof manner. He wasn't helped by the fact that so many Congressional Republicans are loons or otherwise malign, but Biden has demonstrated that working with Congress can make a presidency much more effective. I would put both Biden and Obama in the middle tier of US presidents, but with Biden near the top of that tier and Obama somewhere in the middle.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump.
Can anybody name a president who was worse than Trump?
I honestly can't think of one.
Even William Henry Harrison or James Buchanan.
Possibly Jefferson Davis if you include the Confedaracy, but even then it would be at best marginal.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
I can't process 'Donald Trump' and 'policy' in the same frame. He was (is) 100% about gratifying his urges. Despite his undoubted impact on America and the wider world everything about him is at heart petty, personal, deeply trivial. He's utterly unique in this respect. Comparing him to other US presidents (doing that pros and cons type analysis that one usually does) doesn't really work. It feels wrong to do it because it lends him a gravitas that isn't merited. It's a false equivalence. A category error.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump.
Can anybody name a president who was worse than Trump?
I honestly can't think of one.
Even William Henry Harrison or James Buchanan.
Possibly Jefferson Davis if you include the Confedaracy, but even then it would be at best marginal.
Historians might give him credit for re-setting Western policy toward China.
I am in Normandy. There is a sense of poverty but the cheese and wine and charcuterie is an astonishing wealth compared with the terrible food offer in Manhattan.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
People over-rate Biden just because the alternative is Trump
Virtually all of America’s problems have got way worse under Biden, life expectancy is plunging, the cities burn, he’s helpless with Wokeness, and as for foreign policy he did a cut and run in Afghanistan which was far worse than any error by obama. And he emboldened Putin
Go do a drive around inland America. This is a tottering empire under a doddering leader. He’s the perfect emblem, in that way
Afghanistan was Trump’s Art Of The Deal made manifest. Biden just got the blame.
Biden is the best foreign policy president since George Bush I.
I'd say since Clinton personally, Clinton did well in navigating the period post the fall of the Soviet Union, expanding NATO into Eastern Europe, got the closest to getting peace in the Middle East (and much progress there), and did well with Kosovo.
Biden is the best of those elected in the 21st Century though, easily.
Much of the fuck ups with Russia came under Clintons watch. He squandered a lot of the immense prestige that Bush I had built up on the international stage. Somalia, for example.
Clinton used the “lob of few cruise missiles” solution way too much. Leading to the drone warfare stuff we saw in Afghanistan.
I'm not sure what Clinton could have done differently over Russia other than refusing to let new countries into Nato.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
I can't process 'Donald Trump' and 'policy' in the same frame. He was (is) 100% about gratifying his urges. Despite his undoubted impact on America and the wider world everything about him is at heart petty, personal, deeply trivial. He's utterly unique in this respect. Comparing him to other US presidents (doing that pros and cons type analysis that one usually does) doesn't really work. It feels wrong to do it because it lends him a gravitas that isn't merited. It's a false equivalence. A category error.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump.
Can anybody name a president who was worse than Trump?
I honestly can't think of one.
Even William Henry Harrison or James Buchanan.
Possibly Jefferson Davis if you include the Confedaracy, but even then it would be at best marginal.
Historians might give him credit for re-setting Western policy toward China.
I’m trying to be incredibly generous.
I'm an historian. And I'm not giving him credit for that, because if any good did come out, it was purely accidental.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump.
Can anybody name a president who was worse than Trump?
I honestly can't think of one.
Even William Henry Harrison or James Buchanan.
Possibly Jefferson Davis if you include the Confedaracy, but even then it would be at best marginal.
Silly question. Trump was an unpleasant boor but was not a disastrous president, at least not until Covid-19 (which he did fuck up, badly). Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover were worse.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump.
Can anybody name a president who was worse than Trump?
I honestly can't think of one.
Even William Henry Harrison or James Buchanan.
Possibly Jefferson Davis if you include the Confedaracy, but even then it would be at best marginal.
I don't think my knowledge of US history is strong enough to provide a well-reasoned answer. I do know a bit about the civil war era so perhaps you could argue that Buchanan's handling of the slavery issue paved the way for the war (in which more Americans died than in all other wars combined) and from that POV he may have been a worse president than Trump. I think it is a tribute to the robustness of the US system that it could contain and survive four years of Trump, and limit his capacity for doing harm, but I'm not at all sure it would survive another four years of him as president.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump.
Can anybody name a president who was worse than Trump?
I honestly can't think of one.
Even William Henry Harrison or James Buchanan.
Possibly Jefferson Davis if you include the Confedaracy, but even then it would be at best marginal.
Andrew Johnson.
James Buchanan gets too much blame for the Civil War but it was kind of a war that was coming anyway. Andrew Johnson doesn't get enough criticism, for the mess he made post Civil War that took far too long to then clean up.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump.
Can anybody name a president who was worse than Trump?
I honestly can't think of one.
Even William Henry Harrison or James Buchanan.
Possibly Jefferson Davis if you include the Confedaracy, but even then it would be at best marginal.
Silly question. Trump was an unpleasant boor but was not a disastrous president, at least not until Covid-19 (which he did fuck up, badly). Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover were worse.
That's extremely unfair to Herbert Hoover. All other issues aside, he made many mistakes but nobody ever dreamed of questioning his personal integrity. You could also make a case the Wall Street Crash was his Covid-19.
As for Wilson, decidedly mixed - notably about his segregationist policies - but he was able to bring WW1 to a conclusion, however unsatisfactorily.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump.
Can anybody name a president who was worse than Trump?
I honestly can't think of one.
Even William Henry Harrison or James Buchanan.
Possibly Jefferson Davis if you include the Confedaracy, but even then it would be at best marginal.
Andrew Johnson.
James Buchanan gets too much blame for the Civil War but it was kind of a war that was coming anyway. Andrew Johnson doesn't get enough criticism, for the mess he made post Civil War that took far too long to then clean up.
Yes that is a good point - to have sacrificed so much in the civil war and then allow slavery or at least abject racial discrimination to be reestablished via Jim Crow seems like a terrible mistake. Such a tragedy that Lincoln was murdered.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump.
Can anybody name a president who was worse than Trump?
I honestly can't think of one.
Even William Henry Harrison or James Buchanan.
Possibly Jefferson Davis if you include the Confedaracy, but even then it would be at best marginal.
Andrew Johnson.
James Buchanan gets too much blame for the Civil War but it was kind of a war that was coming anyway. Andrew Johnson doesn't get enough criticism, for the mess he made post Civil War that took far too long to then clean up.
Johnson also had the excuse that he was rather dropped in it and the Senate in particular spent three years making his life impossible.
If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.
ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.
Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...
Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.
Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.
Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
The media were only ever interested in Covid for three stories.
1. OhMyGod we're all gonna die! The Tory plan to kill YOUR granny to save Whetherspoons. 2. The Covid rules are so confusing - why can't I do x if so-and-so is doing y? 3. Hypocrisy!
They are consequently only interested in the inquiry insofar as it touches on these stories, and even then only the first and third of these. I have been very critical of the government's failures over Covid, but the media manage to make them look good.
The fun bit of the enquiry, is going to be when they get to the role of the media during the pandemic.
Watching from afar, it apppeared that they didn’t have a clue how to approach it, and the broadcast news media in particular were terrible. In particular, the press conference grandstanding by political correspondents, and the airtime given to the activist group that called themselves “Independent SAGE”, stand out as somewhat poor examples of journalism.
However, the UK media was a lot better than the US media, who tried their best to overtly politicise everything. The UK politicians were also a lot better behaved than their American counterparts as well, which definitely helped.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump.
Can anybody name a president who was worse than Trump?
I honestly can't think of one.
Even William Henry Harrison or James Buchanan.
Possibly Jefferson Davis if you include the Confedaracy, but even then it would be at best marginal.
I don't think my knowledge of US history is strong enough to provide a well-reasoned answer. I do know a bit about the civil war era so perhaps you could argue that Buchanan's handling of the slavery issue paved the way for the war (in which more Americans died than in all other wars combined) and from that POV he may have been a worse president than Trump. I think it is a tribute to the robustness of the US system that it could contain and survive four years of Trump, and limit his capacity for doing harm, but I'm not at all sure it would survive another four years of him as president.
I am in Normandy. There is a sense of poverty but the cheese and wine and charcuterie is an astonishing wealth compared with the terrible food offer in Manhattan.
What use is money if it can't buy decent cheese, wine and meat?
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump.
Can anybody name a president who was worse than Trump?
I honestly can't think of one.
Even William Henry Harrison or James Buchanan.
Possibly Jefferson Davis if you include the Confedaracy, but even then it would be at best marginal.
Andrew Johnson.
James Buchanan gets too much blame for the Civil War but it was kind of a war that was coming anyway. Andrew Johnson doesn't get enough criticism, for the mess he made post Civil War that took far too long to then clean up.
Johnson also had the excuse that he was rather dropped in it and the Senate in particular spent three years making his life impossible.
No he doesn't. The Senate was trying to curb his excesses and problems. Congress had been elected along with Lincoln and was trying to continue Lincoln's legacy and stand against Jim Crow laws etc - it was Johnson that vetoed that.
Johnson even opposed the 14th Amendment.
Had Lincoln not been replaced with Johnson then America would have been a far, far better place.
Trump is modern so we know his problems. Johnson is the worst of the worst.
The current guy is far too sensible. ...President Yoon Suk Yeol has not shown support for either view. In his Liberation Day speech in 2022, he honored those who fought for the country's independence, emphasizing their efforts to protect the values of freedom and human rights.
Amid ongoing debates, Yoon is expected to try to put an end to the controversy through his Liberation Day speech which will be delivered on Tuesday...
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
I can't process 'Donald Trump' and 'policy' in the same frame. He was (is) 100% about gratifying his urges. Despite his undoubted impact on America and the wider world everything about him is at heart petty, personal, deeply trivial. He's utterly unique in this respect. Comparing him to other US presidents (doing that pros and cons type analysis that one usually does) doesn't really work. It feels wrong to do it because it lends him a gravitas that isn't merited. It's a false equivalence. A category error.
He didn't start a war.
This would certainly be a 'pro' in any pros/cons analysis. But as I say, for me 'President' Trump doesn't lend himself to that type of exercise. Easily the most interesting and important thing about his presidency is how on earth it came to be.
It's something I still struggle with. Yes, I know about 'left behind' and 'jobs to China' and 'sneery east coast elites' yada yada, I've read a million words on all of that, but still, c'mon, Donald Trump, president of the USA, what the actual fuck?
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
The GOP’s Man in Kyiv Has a Message for Ukraine Skeptics https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/13/ukraine-capitol-hill-steven-moore-00108134 ...Moore spent seven years on Capitol Hill working in the House of Representatives mostly as chief of staff for former Rep. Pete Roskam (R-Ill.), the former chief deputy GOP whip. In that role, Moore was one of the most influential staff members on the Republican side of the aisle.
“I’m probably the only person in the world who has delivered humanitarian aid to the Ukrainian front and whipped votes on the floor of the House of Representatives for Kevin McCarthy,”
Moore told me over a cappuccino at one of his favorite cafes in Kyiv a few blocks away from the city’s ancient 1,300-year-old entrance, the Golden Gate. “I think that puts me in a really unique position to be a trusted source of information among Republican policymakers.”..
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
Isolationism will continue as a thread in American politics. Its dramatic drop in reliance on Middle East oil due to fracking and its repositioning towards producing goods domestically in preference to importing from abroad will ensure that
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The common factor for most of those is a reluctance to engage in international confrontation, very much in the isolationist Republican tradition which caused Roosevelt such difficulty until the Japanese helped out with Pearl Harbor. Clearly isolationism was wrong in that case. But there's a case for saying that that approach is sometimes better than constantly seeking opportunities to exert US power, which is the tradition that led them to disaster in Vietnam and the strategic mistake of arming the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. Specifically, I think the deal with the Taliban was right, nasty though they are - as in Vietnam, the West didn't have sufficient real support in the country to justify endless conflict to prop up our local allies.
None of which denies that Trump is an egotistical, unscrupulous thug. But his policies are not as crazy as his personality (he's also less bonkers than de Santis and others on abortion, though that's a low bar).
Remember too Corbyn has not ruled out a bid for London Mayor either.
If it is held solely under FPTP next year you could see Khan, Corbyn and Hall all on 25 to 30% of the vote and each with a chance of winning. Whereas on the old system where preferences would decide the winner between the top 2 either Khan or Corbyn would likely easily beat Hall in London depending on which of them got to that last two
A well observed post.
I know no electoral system is perfect and I don't want to get int another one of the those debates about fptp and pr, etc, but it is a worry when one can look at the system and say, but under this system party A has a better chance of winning. Would be interesting to know if the Tories changed it because they believed in it or for electoral advantage. I found it worrying that they were able to change the system so easily. We have already seen in Bedford it produced a different result to what would have almost certainly been the result under 2nd preference. Many would argue that is how it should be. Others would disagree.
Every single change of the electoral system has been for partisan advantage.
1832 to put the Whigs at the head of the Reform bandwagon.
1867 to allow Disraeli to redraw the constituency map as he wished.
1885 ditto (read 'Salisbury' for 'Disraeli')
1918 to give the vote to those women and remaining men likely to support the Lloyd George/Unionist coalition
1928 because CCO counselled that younger women were generally quite Conservative in outlook and Baldwin could in any case not afford to upset men under 25 by disenfranchising them.
1948 because plural voters were generally richer and therefore voted Conservative.
1969 because it was thought teenagers would vote Labour.
2014 because the SNP thought teenagers would vote 'Leave' in SindyRef.
That's one of the tragedies of our system.
In America at least such changes have bipartisan support.*
(The snag being that that's now never forthcoming.)
*TBF the confirmation of the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds was I believe passed without division.
With legal/medical advice that twenty something people are not fully responsible for their actions due to ongoing brain development, is it time to consider raising the franchise age?
I am in Normandy. There is a sense of poverty but the cheese and wine and charcuterie is an astonishing wealth compared with the terrible food offer in Manhattan.
What use is money if it can't buy decent cheese, wine and meat?
Normandy over Manhattan anyday, for me.
Anywhere appeals more than Manhattan.
If I wanted to visit a massive metropolis for a tourist visit, it would be Seoul or Tokyo. Otherwise I'd prefer to stay away.
View from the back garden of the place we’re staying in county Waterford. Rather a nice day here. A bit early to put a glass of wine and laptop in the frame I’m afraid.
Remember too Corbyn has not ruled out a bid for London Mayor either.
If it is held solely under FPTP next year you could see Khan, Corbyn and Hall all on 25 to 30% of the vote and each with a chance of winning. Whereas on the old system where preferences would decide the winner between the top 2 either Khan or Corbyn would likely easily beat Hall in London depending on which of them got to that last two
A well observed post.
I know no electoral system is perfect and I don't want to get int another one of the those debates about fptp and pr, etc, but it is a worry when one can look at the system and say, but under this system party A has a better chance of winning. Would be interesting to know if the Tories changed it because they believed in it or for electoral advantage. I found it worrying that they were able to change the system so easily. We have already seen in Bedford it produced a different result to what would have almost certainly been the result under 2nd preference. Many would argue that is how it should be. Others would disagree.
Every single change of the electoral system has been for partisan advantage.
1832 to put the Whigs at the head of the Reform bandwagon.
1867 to allow Disraeli to redraw the constituency map as he wished.
1885 ditto (read 'Salisbury' for 'Disraeli')
1918 to give the vote to those women and remaining men likely to support the Lloyd George/Unionist coalition
1928 because CCO counselled that younger women were generally quite Conservative in outlook and Baldwin could in any case not afford to upset men under 25 by disenfranchising them.
1948 because plural voters were generally richer and therefore voted Conservative.
1969 because it was thought teenagers would vote Labour.
2014 because the SNP thought teenagers would vote 'Leave' in SindyRef.
That's one of the tragedies of our system.
In America at least such changes have bipartisan support.*
(The snag being that that's now never forthcoming.)
*TBF the confirmation of the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds was I believe passed without division.
With legal/medical advice that twenty something people are not fully responsible for their actions due to ongoing brain development, is it time to consider raising the franchise age?
Perhaps with a similar consderation of brain deterioration at the the other end of the age trajectory?
If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.
ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.
Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...
Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.
Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.
Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
The media were only ever interested in Covid for three stories.
1. OhMyGod we're all gonna die! The Tory plan to kill YOUR granny to save Whetherspoons. 2. The Covid rules are so confusing - why can't I do x if so-and-so is doing y? 3. Hypocrisy!
They are consequently only interested in the inquiry insofar as it touches on these stories, and even then only the first and third of these. I have been very critical of the government's failures over Covid, but the media manage to make them look good.
The fun bit of the enquiry, is going to be when they get to the role of the media during the pandemic.
Watching from afar, it apppeared that they didn’t have a clue how to approach it, and the broadcast news media in particular were terrible. In particular, the press conference grandstanding by political correspondents, and the airtime given to the activist group that called themselves “Independent SAGE”, stand out as somewhat poor examples of journalism.
However, the UK media was a lot better than the US media, who tried their best to overtly politicise everything. The UK politicians were also a lot better behaved than their American counterparts as well, which definitely helped.
IMO one of the media's biggest issues during the pandemic was not giving subject experts more airtime. Instead, non-specialist journalists were used, and often asked brain-dead questions. Because they are the 'stars'.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The common factor for most of those is a reluctance to engage in international confrontation, very much in the isolationist Republican tradition which caused Roosevelt such difficulty until the Japanese helped out with Pearl Harbor. Clearly isolationism was wrong in that case. But there's a case for saying that that approach is sometimes better than constantly seeking opportunities to exert US power, which is the tradition that led them to disaster in Vietnam and the strategic mistake of arming the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. Specifically, I think the deal with the Taliban was right, nasty though they are - as in Vietnam, the West didn't have sufficient real support in the country to justify endless conflict to prop up our local allies.
None of which denies that Trump is an egotistical, unscrupulous thug. But his policies are not as crazy as his personality (he's also less bonkers than de Santis and others on abortion, though that's a low bar).
Yes, and isolationism is terrible and a huge mistake whenever it has been tried.
That's not to say all interventions work, but isolation categorically does not.
De Santis is far worse than Trump, I agree on that.
Remember too Corbyn has not ruled out a bid for London Mayor either.
If it is held solely under FPTP next year you could see Khan, Corbyn and Hall all on 25 to 30% of the vote and each with a chance of winning. Whereas on the old system where preferences would decide the winner between the top 2 either Khan or Corbyn would likely easily beat Hall in London depending on which of them got to that last two
A well observed post.
I know no electoral system is perfect and I don't want to get int another one of the those debates about fptp and pr, etc, but it is a worry when one can look at the system and say, but under this system party A has a better chance of winning. Would be interesting to know if the Tories changed it because they believed in it or for electoral advantage. I found it worrying that they were able to change the system so easily. We have already seen in Bedford it produced a different result to what would have almost certainly been the result under 2nd preference. Many would argue that is how it should be. Others would disagree.
Every single change of the electoral system has been for partisan advantage.
1832 to put the Whigs at the head of the Reform bandwagon.
1867 to allow Disraeli to redraw the constituency map as he wished.
1885 ditto (read 'Salisbury' for 'Disraeli')
1918 to give the vote to those women and remaining men likely to support the Lloyd George/Unionist coalition
1928 because CCO counselled that younger women were generally quite Conservative in outlook and Baldwin could in any case not afford to upset men under 25 by disenfranchising them.
1948 because plural voters were generally richer and therefore voted Conservative.
1969 because it was thought teenagers would vote Labour.
2014 because the SNP thought teenagers would vote 'Leave' in SindyRef.
That's one of the tragedies of our system.
In America at least such changes have bipartisan support.*
(The snag being that that's now never forthcoming.)
*TBF the confirmation of the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds was I believe passed without division.
1918 enfranchisement of all working class men benefited Labour in reality far more than the Liberals and Tories and ensured Labour overtook the Liberals by the mid 1920s as the main non Conservative party.
(Back when Labour was still the party mainly of the working classes rather than public sector workers, the unemployed and those in social housing, students, Remainers and most ethnic minorities like it is now)
If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.
ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.
Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...
Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.
Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.
Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
That's part of the (tacit) conspiracy of silence of course - political debate on the disaster of our COVID response is effectively shut down for probably a decade while people say "wait for the inquiry", even though it won't tell us anything that isn't blindingly obvious and all we'll get is one opinion out of many farcically given official sanction because of the prejudices of the panel. Not only a complete waste of money but also damaging because of the delay to the national debate.
The Inquiry is not due to take a decade. I have seen numerous articles reporting on evidence given in the Inquiry and discussing the issues raised by the Inquiry. There's a constant stream of articles in the Telegraph, for example, taking a similar line to yours. There is no conspiracy of silence.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
Isolationism will continue as a thread in American politics. Its dramatic drop in reliance on Middle East oil due to fracking and its repositioning towards producing goods domestically in preference to importing from abroad will ensure that
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
Despite the one child policy, China's total fertility rate has been about 1.5, comparable to many European nations.
China is going to be a problem for decades to come. More than Russia.
Remember too Corbyn has not ruled out a bid for London Mayor either.
If it is held solely under FPTP next year you could see Khan, Corbyn and Hall all on 25 to 30% of the vote and each with a chance of winning. Whereas on the old system where preferences would decide the winner between the top 2 either Khan or Corbyn would likely easily beat Hall in London depending on which of them got to that last two
A well observed post.
I know no electoral system is perfect and I don't want to get int another one of the those debates about fptp and pr, etc, but it is a worry when one can look at the system and say, but under this system party A has a better chance of winning. Would be interesting to know if the Tories changed it because they believed in it or for electoral advantage. I found it worrying that they were able to change the system so easily. We have already seen in Bedford it produced a different result to what would have almost certainly been the result under 2nd preference. Many would argue that is how it should be. Others would disagree.
Every single change of the electoral system has been for partisan advantage.
1832 to put the Whigs at the head of the Reform bandwagon.
1867 to allow Disraeli to redraw the constituency map as he wished.
1885 ditto (read 'Salisbury' for 'Disraeli')
1918 to give the vote to those women and remaining men likely to support the Lloyd George/Unionist coalition
1928 because CCO counselled that younger women were generally quite Conservative in outlook and Baldwin could in any case not afford to upset men under 25 by disenfranchising them.
1948 because plural voters were generally richer and therefore voted Conservative.
1969 because it was thought teenagers would vote Labour.
2014 because the SNP thought teenagers would vote 'Leave' in SindyRef.
That's one of the tragedies of our system.
In America at least such changes have bipartisan support.*
(The snag being that that's now never forthcoming.)
*TBF the confirmation of the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds was I believe passed without division.
With legal/medical advice that twenty something people are not fully responsible for their actions due to ongoing brain development, is it time to consider raising the franchise age?
Well you can fuck off with that, then go into the other room, fuck off some more, and keep fucking off until you get to the next town. Typical Boomer rubbish. If you are old enough to marry, bear children and fight in the army then you are old enough to vote. Voting isn't about making wise decisions, it's about obtaining consent.
Remember too Corbyn has not ruled out a bid for London Mayor either.
If it is held solely under FPTP next year you could see Khan, Corbyn and Hall all on 25 to 30% of the vote and each with a chance of winning. Whereas on the old system where preferences would decide the winner between the top 2 either Khan or Corbyn would likely easily beat Hall in London depending on which of them got to that last two
A well observed post.
I know no electoral system is perfect and I don't want to get int another one of the those debates about fptp and pr, etc, but it is a worry when one can look at the system and say, but under this system party A has a better chance of winning. Would be interesting to know if the Tories changed it because they believed in it or for electoral advantage. I found it worrying that they were able to change the system so easily. We have already seen in Bedford it produced a different result to what would have almost certainly been the result under 2nd preference. Many would argue that is how it should be. Others would disagree.
Every single change of the electoral system has been for partisan advantage.
1832 to put the Whigs at the head of the Reform bandwagon.
1867 to allow Disraeli to redraw the constituency map as he wished.
1885 ditto (read 'Salisbury' for 'Disraeli')
1918 to give the vote to those women and remaining men likely to support the Lloyd George/Unionist coalition
1928 because CCO counselled that younger women were generally quite Conservative in outlook and Baldwin could in any case not afford to upset men under 25 by disenfranchising them.
1948 because plural voters were generally richer and therefore voted Conservative.
1969 because it was thought teenagers would vote Labour.
2014 because the SNP thought teenagers would vote 'Leave' in SindyRef.
That's one of the tragedies of our system.
In America at least such changes have bipartisan support.*
(The snag being that that's now never forthcoming.)
*TBF the confirmation of the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds was I believe passed without division.
With legal/medical advice that twenty something people are not fully responsible for their actions due to ongoing brain development, is it time to consider raising the franchise age?
Perhaps with a similar consderation of brain deterioration at the the other end of the age trajectory?
Indeed.
But it’s an interest consideration - if the progressive position is that you can’t hold twenty somethings entirely responsible for rape and murder, that opens a philosophical debate.
Since responsibility and rights are directly linked in most philosophical frameworks. If you aren’t responsible for your actions, then can you have full civil rights? Or are you still a child?
If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.
ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.
Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...
Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.
Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.
Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
The media were only ever interested in Covid for three stories.
1. OhMyGod we're all gonna die! The Tory plan to kill YOUR granny to save Whetherspoons. 2. The Covid rules are so confusing - why can't I do x if so-and-so is doing y? 3. Hypocrisy!
They are consequently only interested in the inquiry insofar as it touches on these stories, and even then only the first and third of these. I have been very critical of the government's failures over Covid, but the media manage to make them look good.
The fun bit of the enquiry, is going to be when they get to the role of the media during the pandemic.
Watching from afar, it apppeared that they didn’t have a clue how to approach it, and the broadcast news media in particular were terrible. In particular, the press conference grandstanding by political correspondents, and the airtime given to the activist group that called themselves “Independent SAGE”, stand out as somewhat poor examples of journalism.
However, the UK media was a lot better than the US media, who tried their best to overtly politicise everything. The UK politicians were also a lot better behaved than their American counterparts as well, which definitely helped.
Is the enquiry even going to challenge that?
I'm not holding my breath that it will.
Or to be fair if it should. I don't have faith in government/enquiries challenging the media, it should be the other way around even if the media isn't good at it.
If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.
ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.
Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...
Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.
Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.
Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
The media were only ever interested in Covid for three stories.
1. OhMyGod we're all gonna die! The Tory plan to kill YOUR granny to save Whetherspoons. 2. The Covid rules are so confusing - why can't I do x if so-and-so is doing y? 3. Hypocrisy!
They are consequently only interested in the inquiry insofar as it touches on these stories, and even then only the first and third of these. I have been very critical of the government's failures over Covid, but the media manage to make them look good.
The fun bit of the enquiry, is going to be when they get to the role of the media during the pandemic.
Watching from afar, it apppeared that they didn’t have a clue how to approach it, and the broadcast news media in particular were terrible. In particular, the press conference grandstanding by political correspondents, and the airtime given to the activist group that called themselves “Independent SAGE”, stand out as somewhat poor examples of journalism.
However, the UK media was a lot better than the US media, who tried their best to overtly politicise everything. The UK politicians were also a lot better behaved than their American counterparts as well, which definitely helped.
IMO one of the media's biggest issues during the pandemic was not giving subject experts more airtime. Instead, non-specialist journalists were used, and often asked brain-dead questions. Because they are the 'stars'.
Well quite. We didn’t need to hear some arts graduate politics hack asking the minister how people feel, or trying to find loopholes in guidance, we wanted to hear scientific and medical journalists translating technical concepts for a general audience - exponential growth anyone?
The knowledge and understanding on this forum, was way above the level of debate almost anywhere else bar specific medical and scientific discussion groups.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump. Obama's main weakness was his poor ability to work with people in Congress, especially Republicans, which reflected his lack of experience as well as somewhat aloof manner. He wasn't helped by the fact that so many Congressional Republicans are loons or otherwise malign, but Biden has demonstrated that working with Congress can make a presidency much more effective. I would put both Biden and Obama in the middle tier of US presidents, but with Biden near the top of that tier and Obama somewhere in the middle.
Biden is much worse than Clinton and even both Bushes.
His legacy at the moment is leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban, an expanded deficit and higher taxes and higher inflation than he inherited and a nation divided by culture wars and an economy still hit by the lockdowns he pushed over Covid. Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris and Poland supplying weapons to Zelensky than anything Biden did.
Remember too Corbyn has not ruled out a bid for London Mayor either.
If it is held solely under FPTP next year you could see Khan, Corbyn and Hall all on 25 to 30% of the vote and each with a chance of winning. Whereas on the old system where preferences would decide the winner between the top 2 either Khan or Corbyn would likely easily beat Hall in London depending on which of them got to that last two
A well observed post.
I know no electoral system is perfect and I don't want to get int another one of the those debates about fptp and pr, etc, but it is a worry when one can look at the system and say, but under this system party A has a better chance of winning. Would be interesting to know if the Tories changed it because they believed in it or for electoral advantage. I found it worrying that they were able to change the system so easily. We have already seen in Bedford it produced a different result to what would have almost certainly been the result under 2nd preference. Many would argue that is how it should be. Others would disagree.
Every single change of the electoral system has been for partisan advantage.
1832 to put the Whigs at the head of the Reform bandwagon.
1867 to allow Disraeli to redraw the constituency map as he wished.
1885 ditto (read 'Salisbury' for 'Disraeli')
1918 to give the vote to those women and remaining men likely to support the Lloyd George/Unionist coalition
1928 because CCO counselled that younger women were generally quite Conservative in outlook and Baldwin could in any case not afford to upset men under 25 by disenfranchising them.
1948 because plural voters were generally richer and therefore voted Conservative.
1969 because it was thought teenagers would vote Labour.
2014 because the SNP thought teenagers would vote 'Leave' in SindyRef.
That's one of the tragedies of our system.
In America at least such changes have bipartisan support.*
(The snag being that that's now never forthcoming.)
*TBF the confirmation of the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds was I believe passed without division.
1918 enfranchisement of all working class men benefited Labour in reality far more than the Liberals and Tories and ensured Labour overtook the Liberals by the mid 1920s as the main non Conservative party.
(Back when Labour was still the party mainly of the working classes rather than public sector workers, the unemployed and those in social housing, students, Remainers and most ethnic minorities like it is now)
The Liberals were in opposition in 1918 apart from the fairly small Lloyd George faction and although the franchise among men had a slight benefit towards Labour that was more than compensated for by the tendency of older women to vote Conservative (or Unionist, to be exact).
Also - it wasn't just the franchise that destroyed the Liberals. A number of other factors were at play, especially the intra-party warfare that continued to bedevil them until 1951 reduced them to just 6 MPs rendering them more or less irrelevant.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The common factor for most of those is a reluctance to engage in international confrontation, very much in the isolationist Republican tradition which caused Roosevelt such difficulty until the Japanese helped out with Pearl Harbor. Clearly isolationism was wrong in that case. But there's a case for saying that that approach is sometimes better than constantly seeking opportunities to exert US power, which is the tradition that led them to disaster in Vietnam and the strategic mistake of arming the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. Specifically, I think the deal with the Taliban was right, nasty though they are - as in Vietnam, the West didn't have sufficient real support in the country to justify endless conflict to prop up our local allies.
None of which denies that Trump is an egotistical, unscrupulous thug. But his policies are not as crazy as his personality (he's also less bonkers than de Santis and others on abortion, though that's a low bar).
If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.
ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.
Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...
Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.
Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.
Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
The media were only ever interested in Covid for three stories.
1. OhMyGod we're all gonna die! The Tory plan to kill YOUR granny to save Whetherspoons. 2. The Covid rules are so confusing - why can't I do x if so-and-so is doing y? 3. Hypocrisy!
They are consequently only interested in the inquiry insofar as it touches on these stories, and even then only the first and third of these. I have been very critical of the government's failures over Covid, but the media manage to make them look good.
The fun bit of the enquiry, is going to be when they get to the role of the media during the pandemic.
Watching from afar, it apppeared that they didn’t have a clue how to approach it, and the broadcast news media in particular were terrible. In particular, the press conference grandstanding by political correspondents, and the airtime given to the activist group that called themselves “Independent SAGE”, stand out as somewhat poor examples of journalism.
However, the UK media was a lot better than the US media, who tried their best to overtly politicise everything. The UK politicians were also a lot better behaved than their American counterparts as well, which definitely helped.
IMO one of the media's biggest issues during the pandemic was not giving subject experts more airtime. Instead, non-specialist journalists were used, and often asked brain-dead questions. Because they are the 'stars'.
Well quite. We didn’t need to hear some arts graduate politics hack asking the minister how people feel, or trying to find loopholes in guidance, we wanted to hear scientific and medical journalists translating technical concepts for a general audience - exponential growth anyone?
The knowledge and understanding on this forum, was way above the level of debate almost anywhere else bar specific medical and scientific discussion groups.
I'm not competent to judge whether that's correct, but generally the standard of debate on here around a variety of issues is very high. It's one reason I read it.
If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.
ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.
Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...
Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.
Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.
Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
The use of inquiries is central to how power, mostly government power, works. They are used to deflect legitimate criticism of the powerful at the time, then used to bore, delay and complexify/lawyerify any and all issues until people can't remember, don't care and have moved on.
Basically they disperse trouble over extended time.
In the end (Iraq is a classic) the reports are so long that even the serious media can't cope with it.
The list is endless, and the current list is quite long.
I think that's overly cynical. I don't think the COVID-19 Inquiry is deflecting legitimate criticism of the powerful at the time.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump. Obama's main weakness was his poor ability to work with people in Congress, especially Republicans, which reflected his lack of experience as well as somewhat aloof manner. He wasn't helped by the fact that so many Congressional Republicans are loons or otherwise malign, but Biden has demonstrated that working with Congress can make a presidency much more effective. I would put both Biden and Obama in the middle tier of US presidents, but with Biden near the top of that tier and Obama somewhere in the middle.
Biden is much worse than Clinton and even both Bushes.
His legacy at the moment is leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban, an expanded deficit and higher taxes and higher inflation than he inherited and a nation divided by culture wars and an economy still hit by the lockdowns he pushed over Covid. Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris and Poland supplying weapons to Zelensky than anything Biden did.
His main credit it he is not Trump
"Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris"
It's a crying shame Boris relinquished his US citizenship. If he could swing the residency issue he would have been a shoo-in for POTUS.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump. Obama's main weakness was his poor ability to work with people in Congress, especially Republicans, which reflected his lack of experience as well as somewhat aloof manner. He wasn't helped by the fact that so many Congressional Republicans are loons or otherwise malign, but Biden has demonstrated that working with Congress can make a presidency much more effective. I would put both Biden and Obama in the middle tier of US presidents, but with Biden near the top of that tier and Obama somewhere in the middle.
Biden is much worse than Clinton and even both Bushes.
His legacy at the moment is leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban, an expanded deficit and higher taxes and higher inflation than he inherited and a nation divided by culture wars and an economy still hit by the lockdowns he pushed over Covid. Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris and Poland supplying weapons to Zelensky than anything Biden did.
His main credit it he is not Trump
You're a living, walking embodiment of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban was an agreement signed by Trump.
The deficit was $3,132,457 in Trump's final year and $1,375,925 last year so I'm curious how you consider that an "expanded deficit".
Inflation at 3.2% is remarkably low compared to the rest of the western world and not high.
Boris, Poland etc absolutely deserve credit over Ukraine but so too does Biden. An immense amount of credit for the weapons given to Ukraine.
Remember too Corbyn has not ruled out a bid for London Mayor either.
If it is held solely under FPTP next year you could see Khan, Corbyn and Hall all on 25 to 30% of the vote and each with a chance of winning. Whereas on the old system where preferences would decide the winner between the top 2 either Khan or Corbyn would likely easily beat Hall in London depending on which of them got to that last two
A well observed post.
I know no electoral system is perfect and I don't want to get int another one of the those debates about fptp and pr, etc, but it is a worry when one can look at the system and say, but under this system party A has a better chance of winning. Would be interesting to know if the Tories changed it because they believed in it or for electoral advantage. I found it worrying that they were able to change the system so easily. We have already seen in Bedford it produced a different result to what would have almost certainly been the result under 2nd preference. Many would argue that is how it should be. Others would disagree.
Every single change of the electoral system has been for partisan advantage.
1832 to put the Whigs at the head of the Reform bandwagon.
1867 to allow Disraeli to redraw the constituency map as he wished.
1885 ditto (read 'Salisbury' for 'Disraeli')
1918 to give the vote to those women and remaining men likely to support the Lloyd George/Unionist coalition
1928 because CCO counselled that younger women were generally quite Conservative in outlook and Baldwin could in any case not afford to upset men under 25 by disenfranchising them.
1948 because plural voters were generally richer and therefore voted Conservative.
1969 because it was thought teenagers would vote Labour.
2014 because the SNP thought teenagers would vote 'Leave' in SindyRef.
That's one of the tragedies of our system.
In America at least such changes have bipartisan support.*
(The snag being that that's now never forthcoming.)
*TBF the confirmation of the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds was I believe passed without division.
With legal/medical advice that twenty something people are not fully responsible for their actions due to ongoing brain development, is it time to consider raising the franchise age?
Perhaps with a similar consderation of brain deterioration at the the other end of the age trajectory?
Indeed.
But it’s an interest consideration - if the progressive position is that you can’t hold twenty somethings entirely responsible for rape and murder, that opens a philosophical debate.
Since responsibility and rights are directly linked in most philosophical frameworks. If you aren’t responsible for your actions, then can you have full civil rights? Or are you still a child?
Isn't it 20 somethings tried for crimes committed when they were in their teens?
If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.
ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.
Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...
Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.
Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.
Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
Well, the first set of hearings, on pandemic preparations, was front page news on the BBC News website every day. The next hearings will be more interesting, I suspect, but haven’t started yet.
If the covid hearings start questioning the BBC line of lockdown good, freedom bad, the BBC will go strangely quiet.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump. Obama's main weakness was his poor ability to work with people in Congress, especially Republicans, which reflected his lack of experience as well as somewhat aloof manner. He wasn't helped by the fact that so many Congressional Republicans are loons or otherwise malign, but Biden has demonstrated that working with Congress can make a presidency much more effective. I would put both Biden and Obama in the middle tier of US presidents, but with Biden near the top of that tier and Obama somewhere in the middle.
Biden is much worse than Clinton and even both Bushes.
His legacy at the moment is leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban, an expanded deficit and higher taxes and higher inflation than he inherited and a nation divided by culture wars and an economy still hit by the lockdowns he pushed over Covid. Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris and Poland supplying weapons to Zelensky than anything Biden did.
His main credit it he is not Trump
"Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris"
It's a crying shame Boris relinquished his US citizenship. If he could swing the residency issue he would have been a shoo-in for POTUS.
Yes, Boris would probably have comfortably beaten Biden, Hillary or Trump in a US general election, his only problem is he was probably too conservative to win the Democratic nomination but too liberal to win the Republican nomination
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump. Obama's main weakness was his poor ability to work with people in Congress, especially Republicans, which reflected his lack of experience as well as somewhat aloof manner. He wasn't helped by the fact that so many Congressional Republicans are loons or otherwise malign, but Biden has demonstrated that working with Congress can make a presidency much more effective. I would put both Biden and Obama in the middle tier of US presidents, but with Biden near the top of that tier and Obama somewhere in the middle.
Biden is much worse than Clinton and even both Bushes.
His legacy at the moment is leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban, an expanded deficit and higher taxes and higher inflation than he inherited and a nation divided by culture wars and an economy still hit by the lockdowns he pushed over Covid. Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris and Poland supplying weapons to Zelensky than anything Biden did.
His main credit it he is not Trump
I would disagree. Inflation I would put at his door, but I think given the uncertainties around the strength of the post Covid recovery it was an understandable mistake. Trump put the US on a path of a rapidly widening budget deficit. Biden has stabilised it, albeit at too high a level, despite the Covid shock and higher debt interest. Afghanistan was Trump's policy, Biden didn't have much choice. And he has been steadfast in support for Ukraine, while managing isolationist tendencies at home. Meanwhile he has presided over a manufacturing investment boom and sustained low unemployment, while delivering a bipartisan infrastructure bill. He's not a great president but he has been a pretty effective one. No pointless wars, no financial crises, no sex scandals, worked with Congress, limited his party's midterm losses... Not a bad record at this point.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump. Obama's main weakness was his poor ability to work with people in Congress, especially Republicans, which reflected his lack of experience as well as somewhat aloof manner. He wasn't helped by the fact that so many Congressional Republicans are loons or otherwise malign, but Biden has demonstrated that working with Congress can make a presidency much more effective. I would put both Biden and Obama in the middle tier of US presidents, but with Biden near the top of that tier and Obama somewhere in the middle.
Biden is much worse than Clinton and even both Bushes.
His legacy at the moment is leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban, an expanded deficit and higher taxes and higher inflation than he inherited and a nation divided by culture wars and an economy still hit by the lockdowns he pushed over Covid. Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris and Poland supplying weapons to Zelensky than anything Biden did.
His main credit it he is not Trump
I would disagree. Inflation I would put at his door, but I think given the uncertainties around the strength of the post Covid recovery it was an understandable mistake. Trump put the US on a path of a rapidly widening budget deficit. Biden has stabilised it, albeit at too high a level, despite the Covid shock and higher debt interest. Afghanistan was Trump's policy, Biden didn't have much choice. And he has been steadfast in support for Ukraine, while managing isolationist tendencies at home. Meanwhile he has presided over a manufacturing investment boom and sustained low unemployment, while delivering a bipartisan infrastructure bill. He's not a great president but he has been a pretty effective one. No pointless wars, no financial crises, no sex scandals, worked with Congress, limited his party's midterm losses... Not a bad record at this point.
"Inflation I would put at his door"
Inflation in the US is 3.2%
Post-covid, post-Russia/Ukraine conflict. At a time where the economy is still growing and full employment.
That's pretty damned impressive, not a negative. Sunak would absolutely love to have those figures.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
I can't process 'Donald Trump' and 'policy' in the same frame. He was (is) 100% about gratifying his urges. Despite his undoubted impact on America and the wider world everything about him is at heart petty, personal, deeply trivial. He's utterly unique in this respect. Comparing him to other US presidents (doing that pros and cons type analysis that one usually does) doesn't really work. It feels wrong to do it because it lends him a gravitas that isn't merited. It's a false equivalence. A category error.
Yes. I wanted to make that point.
On European NATO spending he was only interested in it because he wanted Europeans to buy more equipment from US defence firms, on the assumption that those defence firms would give him some money as a quid pro quo (or perhaps they already had).
If any increased spending went to German/French/Swedish/Korean defence firms instead then it wouldn't have counted in the Trump calculus. It only looks reasonable as a policy position because by happenstance it lined up with what was desirable.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump. Obama's main weakness was his poor ability to work with people in Congress, especially Republicans, which reflected his lack of experience as well as somewhat aloof manner. He wasn't helped by the fact that so many Congressional Republicans are loons or otherwise malign, but Biden has demonstrated that working with Congress can make a presidency much more effective. I would put both Biden and Obama in the middle tier of US presidents, but with Biden near the top of that tier and Obama somewhere in the middle.
Biden is much worse than Clinton and even both Bushes.
His legacy at the moment is leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban, an expanded deficit and higher taxes and higher inflation than he inherited and a nation divided by culture wars and an economy still hit by the lockdowns he pushed over Covid. Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris and Poland supplying weapons to Zelensky than anything Biden did.
His main credit it he is not Trump
"Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris"
It's a crying shame Boris relinquished his US citizenship. If he could swing the residency issue he would have been a shoo-in for POTUS.
Yes, Boris would probably have comfortably beaten Biden, Hillary or Trump in a US general election, his only problem is he was probably too conservative to win the Democratic nomination but too liberal to win the Republican nomination
I can confidently say that Boris Johnson's chance of winning a US presidential election is zero, even if he had retained his citizenship.
Remember too Corbyn has not ruled out a bid for London Mayor either.
If it is held solely under FPTP next year you could see Khan, Corbyn and Hall all on 25 to 30% of the vote and each with a chance of winning. Whereas on the old system where preferences would decide the winner between the top 2 either Khan or Corbyn would likely easily beat Hall in London depending on which of them got to that last two
A well observed post.
I know no electoral system is perfect and I don't want to get int another one of the those debates about fptp and pr, etc, but it is a worry when one can look at the system and say, but under this system party A has a better chance of winning. Would be interesting to know if the Tories changed it because they believed in it or for electoral advantage. I found it worrying that they were able to change the system so easily. We have already seen in Bedford it produced a different result to what would have almost certainly been the result under 2nd preference. Many would argue that is how it should be. Others would disagree.
Every single change of the electoral system has been for partisan advantage.
1832 to put the Whigs at the head of the Reform bandwagon.
1867 to allow Disraeli to redraw the constituency map as he wished.
1885 ditto (read 'Salisbury' for 'Disraeli')
1918 to give the vote to those women and remaining men likely to support the Lloyd George/Unionist coalition
1928 because CCO counselled that younger women were generally quite Conservative in outlook and Baldwin could in any case not afford to upset men under 25 by disenfranchising them.
1948 because plural voters were generally richer and therefore voted Conservative.
1969 because it was thought teenagers would vote Labour.
2014 because the SNP thought teenagers would vote 'Leave' in SindyRef.
That's one of the tragedies of our system.
In America at least such changes have bipartisan support.*
(The snag being that that's now never forthcoming.)
*TBF the confirmation of the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds was I believe passed without division.
1918 enfranchisement of all working class men benefited Labour in reality far more than the Liberals and Tories and ensured Labour overtook the Liberals by the mid 1920s as the main non Conservative party.
(Back when Labour was still the party mainly of the working classes rather than public sector workers, the unemployed and those in social housing, students, Remainers and most ethnic minorities like it is now)
The Liberals were in opposition in 1918 apart from the fairly small Lloyd George faction and although the franchise among men had a slight benefit towards Labour that was more than compensated for by the tendency of older women to vote Conservative (or Unionist, to be exact).
Also - it wasn't just the franchise that destroyed the Liberals. A number of other factors were at play, especially the intra-party warfare that continued to bedevil them until 1951 reduced them to just 6 MPs rendering them more or less irrelevant.
In December 1910 the Liberals got 44% of the vote and 272 seats, the Tories 46% and 271 seats and Labour just 6% and 42 seats.
In 1918 however the Tories got 38% and 379 seats, Labour were second on votes on 20% and 57 seats and the Lloyd George Liberals 13.4% and 127 seats and Asquith Liberals 13% and just 36 seats.
By 1922 Labour were second on both votes and seats. The Conservatives got 38% and 344 seats, Labour 29% and 147 seats, the Asquith Liberals 18% and 62 seats and Lloyd George Liberals 9% and 53 seats.
In December 1923 Labour formed its first ever government led by Ramsay Macdonald as first Labour PM in a hung parliament. Labour got 30.7% and 191 seats to 29.7% and 158 seats for Asquith's reunited Liberal Party
If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.
ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.
Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...
Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.
Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.
Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
The use of inquiries is central to how power, mostly government power, works. They are used to deflect legitimate criticism of the powerful at the time, then used to bore, delay and complexify/lawyerify any and all issues until people can't remember, don't care and have moved on.
Basically they disperse trouble over extended time.
In the end (Iraq is a classic) the reports are so long that even the serious media can't cope with it.
The list is endless, and the current list is quite long.
I think that's overly cynical. I don't think the COVID-19 Inquiry is deflecting legitimate criticism of the powerful at the time.
I wonder how many civil servants will be criticised...
Remember too Corbyn has not ruled out a bid for London Mayor either.
If it is held solely under FPTP next year you could see Khan, Corbyn and Hall all on 25 to 30% of the vote and each with a chance of winning. Whereas on the old system where preferences would decide the winner between the top 2 either Khan or Corbyn would likely easily beat Hall in London depending on which of them got to that last two
A well observed post.
I know no electoral system is perfect and I don't want to get int another one of the those debates about fptp and pr, etc, but it is a worry when one can look at the system and say, but under this system party A has a better chance of winning. Would be interesting to know if the Tories changed it because they believed in it or for electoral advantage. I found it worrying that they were able to change the system so easily. We have already seen in Bedford it produced a different result to what would have almost certainly been the result under 2nd preference. Many would argue that is how it should be. Others would disagree.
Every single change of the electoral system has been for partisan advantage.
1832 to put the Whigs at the head of the Reform bandwagon.
1867 to allow Disraeli to redraw the constituency map as he wished.
1885 ditto (read 'Salisbury' for 'Disraeli')
1918 to give the vote to those women and remaining men likely to support the Lloyd George/Unionist coalition
1928 because CCO counselled that younger women were generally quite Conservative in outlook and Baldwin could in any case not afford to upset men under 25 by disenfranchising them.
1948 because plural voters were generally richer and therefore voted Conservative.
1969 because it was thought teenagers would vote Labour.
2014 because the SNP thought teenagers would vote 'Leave' in SindyRef.
That's one of the tragedies of our system.
In America at least such changes have bipartisan support.*
(The snag being that that's now never forthcoming.)
*TBF the confirmation of the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds was I believe passed without division.
1918 enfranchisement of all working class men benefited Labour in reality far more than the Liberals and Tories and ensured Labour overtook the Liberals by the mid 1920s as the main non Conservative party.
(Back when Labour was still the party mainly of the working classes rather than public sector workers, the unemployed and those in social housing, students, Remainers and most ethnic minorities like it is now)
The Liberals were in opposition in 1918 apart from the fairly small Lloyd George faction and although the franchise among men had a slight benefit towards Labour that was more than compensated for by the tendency of older women to vote Conservative (or Unionist, to be exact).
Also - it wasn't just the franchise that destroyed the Liberals. A number of other factors were at play, especially the intra-party warfare that continued to bedevil them until 1951 reduced them to just 6 MPs rendering them more or less irrelevant.
In December 1910 the Liberals got 44% of the vote and 272 seats, the Tories 46% and 271 seats and Labour just 6% and 42 seats.
In 1918 however the Tories got 38% and 379 seats, Labour were second on votes on 20% and 57 seats and the Lloyd George Liberals 13.4% and 127 seats and Asquith Liberals 13% and just 36 seats.
By 1922 Labour were second on both votes and seats. The Conservatives got 38% and 344 seats, Labour 29% and 147 seats, the Asquith Liberals 18% and 62 seats and Lloyd George Liberals 9% and 53 seats.
In December 1923 Labour formed its first ever government led by Ramsay Macdonald as first Labour PM in a hung parliament. Labour got 30.7% and 191 seats to 29.7% and 158 seats for Asquith's reunited Liberal Party
Or, to put it another way: in the first election after electoral reform, the Liberals could still have come second had they not stood as two parties, and perhaps might have continued coming second had Lloyd George and Asquith not spent more time squabbling over who had or had not attended shadow cabinet meetings* than over policy.
*Yes, that was one of the things they very publicly disagreed about.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
Isolationism will continue as a thread in American politics. Its dramatic drop in reliance on Middle East oil due to fracking and its repositioning towards producing goods domestically in preference to importing from abroad will ensure that
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
In trying to understand why Putin decided to gamble on an all-out invasion of Ukraine, the explanation that makes most sense is that he felt the odds were always going to be worse in the future.
If Xi gets the sense that demography is so far against him that his best chance of a successful military invasion of Taiwan is now, and it will only get more difficult as time passes and China ages, then we are in for an extremely dangerous few years.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
People over-rate Biden just because the alternative is Trump
Virtually all of America’s problems have got way worse under Biden, life expectancy is plunging, the cities burn, he’s helpless with Wokeness, and as for foreign policy he did a cut and run in Afghanistan which was far worse than any error by obama. And he emboldened Putin
Go do a drive around inland America. This is a tottering empire under a doddering leader. He’s the perfect emblem, in that way
Our resident Chicken Little reckons everything is shit and getting worse. Quelle surprise!
No, I rate Biden because I rate Biden, not simply Trump. I didn't say that Biden was better than Trump, I said he was better than Obama too.
"Wokeness" is not a real problem, just press the X button on the top-right hand corner of the browser showing X and move on with your life.
Life expectancy is falling because of drugs and other issues that are not in the Presidents immediate control to turn around in 3 years.
Maui is burning because of the climate its in. Fires happen sometimes. Your hyperventilating about American cities is mostly (but not entirely) unjustified.
And as for Afghanistan the agreement to leave Afghanistan was signed under his predecessor, not him, and besides after two decades it would have been absurd to reverse that agreement anyway.
I’m not sure you’re entirely in a position to pontificate on the state of America seeing as you have never gone beyond the confines of your Barratt estate on the outskirts of Northampton. Indeed I sometimes wonder if you’ve ever actually left your house other than to go sit in your car and pretend to drive it while making “driving” noises with your mouth
You should embrace the feeling of driving on the open road, if you took your usual anti-car gibberish to America no wonder you have such a downbeat feeling about America.
That's a country designed around the open road, as it works, and is more modern without our clinging onto the pre-technological past. As a result they have a much higher standard of living, despite their great many other problems like endemic racism, guns and drugs.
You do make “driving” noises with your mouth, tho, don’t you? You sit on the car seat turning the wheel going “parp parp brrrrwoooh” as your carer looks anxiously out of the window
You misunderstand. What you need is a driving wheel on a stem which ends in a rubber sucker, which fits on to the glove box cover, or perhaps windscreen, [edit] while the person sits in the front passenger seat. That wheel can be manipulated to one's heart's content while someone else does the actual driving.
The Rouble has been tumbling to less than $0.01 but energy prices have been creeping up. Any explanation?
If China is slowing down, I presume their oil demand will fall too.
The oil price is up in recent weeks following a production cut by OPEC+. However, Putin didn’t keep up his end of the cuts, and made record O&G revenue last month, mostly selling his production at a 20%ish discount through China and India. The weakened rouble helps with this, as O&G is pretty much their only way of getting hold of hard currency at the moment.
The Gulf States, pissed off with Putin at the lack of production cuts, are also now upset with him over the weaponisation of the food supply out of Ukraine, much of which ends up in the wider MENA region.
I’m expecting the next OPEC summit to herald the return of the pandemic-era willy-waving contest between MBS and VVP, which ends up with the taps being turned on full in the Gulf, and putin starved of dollars. Anyone who wants to see Western inflation put back in its box, should be cheering on the Arabs.
China’s rate of growth may be slowing down, but their economy continues to go gangbusters. Expected growth this year is in the 4-5% range.
If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.
ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.
Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...
Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.
Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.
Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
The use of inquiries is central to how power, mostly government power, works. They are used to deflect legitimate criticism of the powerful at the time, then used to bore, delay and complexify/lawyerify any and all issues until people can't remember, don't care and have moved on.
Basically they disperse trouble over extended time.
In the end (Iraq is a classic) the reports are so long that even the serious media can't cope with it.
The list is endless, and the current list is quite long.
I think that's overly cynical. I don't think the COVID-19 Inquiry is deflecting legitimate criticism of the powerful at the time.
I wonder how many civil servants will be criticised...
1% of the number who deserve it.
Oddly, the one civil servant in my field of education who was actually fired for the DfE's crass blunders probably didn't deserve it. Jonathan Slater was made the scapegoat for the exams train crash which was largely the responsibility of Nick Gibb who refused to accept a problem we could all see coming a mile away might be due to his beloved new exams.
And certainly given he was replaced by the truly ghastly Acland-Hood, who makes Cummings look like a model of integrity and administrative efficiency, I really wish Crichel Down had been applied.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
People over-rate Biden just because the alternative is Trump
Virtually all of America’s problems have got way worse under Biden, life expectancy is plunging, the cities burn, he’s helpless with Wokeness, and as for foreign policy he did a cut and run in Afghanistan which was far worse than any error by obama. And he emboldened Putin
Go do a drive around inland America. This is a tottering empire under a doddering leader. He’s the perfect emblem, in that way
Our resident Chicken Little reckons everything is shit and getting worse. Quelle surprise!
No, I rate Biden because I rate Biden, not simply Trump. I didn't say that Biden was better than Trump, I said he was better than Obama too.
"Wokeness" is not a real problem, just press the X button on the top-right hand corner of the browser showing X and move on with your life.
Life expectancy is falling because of drugs and other issues that are not in the Presidents immediate control to turn around in 3 years.
Maui is burning because of the climate its in. Fires happen sometimes. Your hyperventilating about American cities is mostly (but not entirely) unjustified.
And as for Afghanistan the agreement to leave Afghanistan was signed under his predecessor, not him, and besides after two decades it would have been absurd to reverse that agreement anyway.
I’m not sure you’re entirely in a position to pontificate on the state of America seeing as you have never gone beyond the confines of your Barratt estate on the outskirts of Northampton. Indeed I sometimes wonder if you’ve ever actually left your house other than to go sit in your car and pretend to drive it while making “driving” noises with your mouth
You should embrace the feeling of driving on the open road, if you took your usual anti-car gibberish to America no wonder you have such a downbeat feeling about America.
That's a country designed around the open road, as it works, and is more modern without our clinging onto the pre-technological past. As a result they have a much higher standard of living, despite their great many other problems like endemic racism, guns and drugs.
I agree with you on Biden. He’s been the best, most effective US President since Clinton, despite the Afghanistan debacle. He’ll be a terrible candidate in 2024, though. He is not going to have the stamina for a campaign, so Trump is likely to win. What that does to the US internally bothers me little, that’s their choice, but it’s going to be very bad for Ukraine and that means it will be very bad for Europe, including us.
On US roads, specifically - having driven a fair few of them, I’d say they’re bad to terrible. US public infrastructure generally is awful. The 101 from San Francisco to San Jose - the main route through Silicon Valley, the richest place on earth - makes the North Circular look like paradise. It’s 100 miles of potholed, almost permanent, traffic jam.
I’ve found the highways to get upstate from New York very good.
The other thing that I can’t get my head around is that there’s basically no litter on the verges.
Since pretty much every other facet of US life is a tragedy of the commons, it doesn’t add up.
American roads are excellent, especially given the fact they have to cover half an entire continent. They also need to be good as the country is designed around the car, and all other forms of land transport are dire. Perhaps @Southam is encountering a specific Californian issue
I also agree on litter. Beyond the absolute hell of some downtowns, America is notably less litter strewn than the UK
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
Isolationism will continue as a thread in American politics. Its dramatic drop in reliance on Middle East oil due to fracking and its repositioning towards producing goods domestically in preference to importing from abroad will ensure that
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
Despite the one child policy, China's total fertility rate has been about 1.5, comparable to many European nations.
China is going to be a problem for decades to come. More than Russia.
I get a recent TFR for China of 1.28
The rapid decline of China's population will be one of the major themes of the rest of the century.
Remember too Corbyn has not ruled out a bid for London Mayor either.
If it is held solely under FPTP next year you could see Khan, Corbyn and Hall all on 25 to 30% of the vote and each with a chance of winning. Whereas on the old system where preferences would decide the winner between the top 2 either Khan or Corbyn would likely easily beat Hall in London depending on which of them got to that last two
A well observed post.
I know no electoral system is perfect and I don't want to get int another one of the those debates about fptp and pr, etc, but it is a worry when one can look at the system and say, but under this system party A has a better chance of winning. Would be interesting to know if the Tories changed it because they believed in it or for electoral advantage. I found it worrying that they were able to change the system so easily. We have already seen in Bedford it produced a different result to what would have almost certainly been the result under 2nd preference. Many would argue that is how it should be. Others would disagree.
Every single change of the electoral system has been for partisan advantage.
1832 to put the Whigs at the head of the Reform bandwagon.
1867 to allow Disraeli to redraw the constituency map as he wished.
1885 ditto (read 'Salisbury' for 'Disraeli')
1918 to give the vote to those women and remaining men likely to support the Lloyd George/Unionist coalition
1928 because CCO counselled that younger women were generally quite Conservative in outlook and Baldwin could in any case not afford to upset men under 25 by disenfranchising them.
1948 because plural voters were generally richer and therefore voted Conservative.
1969 because it was thought teenagers would vote Labour.
2014 because the SNP thought teenagers would vote 'Leave' in SindyRef.
That's one of the tragedies of our system.
In America at least such changes have bipartisan support.*
(The snag being that that's now never forthcoming.)
*TBF the confirmation of the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds was I believe passed without division.
With legal/medical advice that twenty something people are not fully responsible for their actions due to ongoing brain development, is it time to consider raising the franchise age?
Well you can fuck off with that, then go into the other room, fuck off some more, and keep fucking off until you get to the next town. Typical Boomer rubbish. If you are old enough to marry, bear children and fight in the army then you are old enough to vote. Voting isn't about making wise decisions, it's about obtaining consent.
A forty shilling freehold grosses up and modernises to having about £50,000 equity in a buy to let. I think we can all agree that would not be an unreasonable minimum qualification for the right to vote.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
I can't process 'Donald Trump' and 'policy' in the same frame. He was (is) 100% about gratifying his urges. Despite his undoubted impact on America and the wider world everything about him is at heart petty, personal, deeply trivial. He's utterly unique in this respect. Comparing him to other US presidents (doing that pros and cons type analysis that one usually does) doesn't really work. It feels wrong to do it because it lends him a gravitas that isn't merited. It's a false equivalence. A category error.
Yes. I wanted to make that point.
On European NATO spending he was only interested in it because he wanted Europeans to buy more equipment from US defence firms, on the assumption that those defence firms would give him some money as a quid pro quo (or perhaps they already had).
If any increased spending went to German/French/Swedish/Korean defence firms instead then it wouldn't have counted in the Trump calculus. It only looks reasonable as a policy position because by happenstance it lined up with what was desirable.
Yes, some of the things done when he was president were perfectly fine, either by accident or design. It's the *essence* of his presidency that was uniquely malign and trivial. Eg you know those stolid weighty multipart progs on PBS that they've done for each president? The ins and outs of the major policy decisions taken by the guy in the hot seat. The big stuff he had to grapple with. How it all went down. The presidential thinking behind it. The meetings. The drivers. The key players. Etc. I love watching those - but no way will they manage to do one on President Donald Trump. Not with a straight face. You just couldn't.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
Isolationism will continue as a thread in American politics. Its dramatic drop in reliance on Middle East oil due to fracking and its repositioning towards producing goods domestically in preference to importing from abroad will ensure that
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
Despite the one child policy, China's total fertility rate has been about 1.5, comparable to many European nations.
China is going to be a problem for decades to come. More than Russia.
I get a recent TFR for China of 1.28
The rapid decline of China's population will be one of the major themes of the rest of the century.
Only post-Covid, fertility rates have collapsed post-Covid in much of the world. Oddly enough telling young, fertile people they can't go out and get drunk and hook up with other young, fertile people doesn't do much for total fertility.
For the past few decades pre-Covid its been around 1.5
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
Isolationism will continue as a thread in American politics. Its dramatic drop in reliance on Middle East oil due to fracking and its repositioning towards producing goods domestically in preference to importing from abroad will ensure that
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
Despite the one child policy, China's total fertility rate has been about 1.5, comparable to many European nations.
China is going to be a problem for decades to come. More than Russia.
I get a recent TFR for China of 1.28
The rapid decline of China's population will be one of the major themes of the rest of the century.
China is only a few years away from having a problem of tens of millions of disaffected and single young men. That situation rarely ends well for any country, no matter how authoritarian.
Remember too Corbyn has not ruled out a bid for London Mayor either.
If it is held solely under FPTP next year you could see Khan, Corbyn and Hall all on 25 to 30% of the vote and each with a chance of winning. Whereas on the old system where preferences would decide the winner between the top 2 either Khan or Corbyn would likely easily beat Hall in London depending on which of them got to that last two
A well observed post.
I know no electoral system is perfect and I don't want to get int another one of the those debates about fptp and pr, etc, but it is a worry when one can look at the system and say, but under this system party A has a better chance of winning. Would be interesting to know if the Tories changed it because they believed in it or for electoral advantage. I found it worrying that they were able to change the system so easily. We have already seen in Bedford it produced a different result to what would have almost certainly been the result under 2nd preference. Many would argue that is how it should be. Others would disagree.
Every single change of the electoral system has been for partisan advantage.
1832 to put the Whigs at the head of the Reform bandwagon.
1867 to allow Disraeli to redraw the constituency map as he wished.
1885 ditto (read 'Salisbury' for 'Disraeli')
1918 to give the vote to those women and remaining men likely to support the Lloyd George/Unionist coalition
1928 because CCO counselled that younger women were generally quite Conservative in outlook and Baldwin could in any case not afford to upset men under 25 by disenfranchising them.
1948 because plural voters were generally richer and therefore voted Conservative.
1969 because it was thought teenagers would vote Labour.
2014 because the SNP thought teenagers would vote 'Leave' in SindyRef.
That's one of the tragedies of our system.
In America at least such changes have bipartisan support.*
(The snag being that that's now never forthcoming.)
*TBF the confirmation of the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds was I believe passed without division.
With legal/medical advice that twenty something people are not fully responsible for their actions due to ongoing brain development, is it time to consider raising the franchise age?
Well you can fuck off with that, then go into the other room, fuck off some more, and keep fucking off until you get to the next town. Typical Boomer rubbish. If you are old enough to marry, bear children and fight in the army then you are old enough to vote. Voting isn't about making wise decisions, it's about obtaining consent.
A forty shilling freehold grosses up and modernises to having about £50,000 equity in a buy to let. I think we can all agree that would not be an unreasonable minimum qualification for the right to vote.
Because the property-owning franchise worked out so well...
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump. Obama's main weakness was his poor ability to work with people in Congress, especially Republicans, which reflected his lack of experience as well as somewhat aloof manner. He wasn't helped by the fact that so many Congressional Republicans are loons or otherwise malign, but Biden has demonstrated that working with Congress can make a presidency much more effective. I would put both Biden and Obama in the middle tier of US presidents, but with Biden near the top of that tier and Obama somewhere in the middle.
Biden is much worse than Clinton and even both Bushes.
His legacy at the moment is leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban, an expanded deficit and higher taxes and higher inflation than he inherited and a nation divided by culture wars and an economy still hit by the lockdowns he pushed over Covid. Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris and Poland supplying weapons to Zelensky than anything Biden did.
His main credit it he is not Trump
I would disagree. Inflation I would put at his door, but I think given the uncertainties around the strength of the post Covid recovery it was an understandable mistake. Trump put the US on a path of a rapidly widening budget deficit. Biden has stabilised it, albeit at too high a level, despite the Covid shock and higher debt interest. Afghanistan was Trump's policy, Biden didn't have much choice. And he has been steadfast in support for Ukraine, while managing isolationist tendencies at home. Meanwhile he has presided over a manufacturing investment boom and sustained low unemployment, while delivering a bipartisan infrastructure bill. He's not a great president but he has been a pretty effective one. No pointless wars, no financial crises, no sex scandals, worked with Congress, limited his party's midterm losses... Not a bad record at this point.
And a clear sense of doing the job in a sober serious spirit of public service. This shouldn't be such a notable plus, it should be a minimum expectation and the norm, but recent times both there and here have sadly made it one.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
Isolationism will continue as a thread in American politics. Its dramatic drop in reliance on Middle East oil due to fracking and its repositioning towards producing goods domestically in preference to importing from abroad will ensure that
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
Despite the one child policy, China's total fertility rate has been about 1.5, comparable to many European nations.
China is going to be a problem for decades to come. More than Russia.
I get a recent TFR for China of 1.28
The rapid decline of China's population will be one of the major themes of the rest of the century.
China is only a few years away from having a problem of tens of millions of disaffected and single young men. That situation rarely ends well for any country, no matter how authoritarian.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
Isolationism will continue as a thread in American politics. Its dramatic drop in reliance on Middle East oil due to fracking and its repositioning towards producing goods domestically in preference to importing from abroad will ensure that
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
Despite the one child policy, China's total fertility rate has been about 1.5, comparable to many European nations.
China is going to be a problem for decades to come. More than Russia.
I get a recent TFR for China of 1.28
The rapid decline of China's population will be one of the major themes of the rest of the century.
Only post-Covid, fertility rates have collapsed post-Covid in much of the world. Oddly enough telling young, fertile people they can't go out and get drunk and hook up with other young, fertile people doesn't do much for total fertility.
For the past few decades pre-Covid its been around 1.5
On this, we agree. There is far too much cautious joyless nannying Puritanism. No wonder people aren’t shagging and having kids
Look at this desperately depressing article about the end of the bacchanalian touring band
“Touring with Green Day at 25, when Billy Joe Armstrong had just embraced sobriety, also made her realise that “maybe when you get older, you settle down and you actually take your health seriously”. Now, she says, “I go to a friend’s dinner party, have a glass of wine, then go home and go to sleep. That’s my idea of partying.””
She gave up booze and fun at 25. Now she goes to bed early coz she’s 26. FFS
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
Isolationism will continue as a thread in American politics. Its dramatic drop in reliance on Middle East oil due to fracking and its repositioning towards producing goods domestically in preference to importing from abroad will ensure that
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
Despite the one child policy, China's total fertility rate has been about 1.5, comparable to many European nations.
China is going to be a problem for decades to come. More than Russia.
I get a recent TFR for China of 1.28
The rapid decline of China's population will be one of the major themes of the rest of the century.
China is only a few years away from having a problem of tens of millions of disaffected and single young men. That situation rarely ends well for any country, no matter how authoritarian.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump. Obama's main weakness was his poor ability to work with people in Congress, especially Republicans, which reflected his lack of experience as well as somewhat aloof manner. He wasn't helped by the fact that so many Congressional Republicans are loons or otherwise malign, but Biden has demonstrated that working with Congress can make a presidency much more effective. I would put both Biden and Obama in the middle tier of US presidents, but with Biden near the top of that tier and Obama somewhere in the middle.
Biden is much worse than Clinton and even both Bushes.
His legacy at the moment is leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban, an expanded deficit and higher taxes and higher inflation than he inherited and a nation divided by culture wars and an economy still hit by the lockdowns he pushed over Covid. Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris and Poland supplying weapons to Zelensky than anything Biden did.
His main credit it he is not Trump
I would disagree. Inflation I would put at his door, but I think given the uncertainties around the strength of the post Covid recovery it was an understandable mistake. Trump put the US on a path of a rapidly widening budget deficit. Biden has stabilised it, albeit at too high a level, despite the Covid shock and higher debt interest. Afghanistan was Trump's policy, Biden didn't have much choice. And he has been steadfast in support for Ukraine, while managing isolationist tendencies at home. Meanwhile he has presided over a manufacturing investment boom and sustained low unemployment, while delivering a bipartisan infrastructure bill. He's not a great president but he has been a pretty effective one. No pointless wars, no financial crises, no sex scandals, worked with Congress, limited his party's midterm losses... Not a bad record at this point.
"Inflation I would put at his door"
Inflation in the US is 3.2%
Post-covid, post-Russia/Ukraine conflict. At a time where the economy is still growing and full employment.
That's pretty damned impressive, not a negative. Sunak would absolutely love to have those figures.
True but US inflation has gone on a bit of journey, driven to some extent by overly stimulative fiscal policy in 2020-21. A mistake but an understandable one IMHO given the risks and uncertainties at the time.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump. Obama's main weakness was his poor ability to work with people in Congress, especially Republicans, which reflected his lack of experience as well as somewhat aloof manner. He wasn't helped by the fact that so many Congressional Republicans are loons or otherwise malign, but Biden has demonstrated that working with Congress can make a presidency much more effective. I would put both Biden and Obama in the middle tier of US presidents, but with Biden near the top of that tier and Obama somewhere in the middle.
Biden is much worse than Clinton and even both Bushes.
His legacy at the moment is leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban, an expanded deficit and higher taxes and higher inflation than he inherited and a nation divided by culture wars and an economy still hit by the lockdowns he pushed over Covid. Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris and Poland supplying weapons to Zelensky than anything Biden did.
His main credit it he is not Trump
"Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris"
It's a crying shame Boris relinquished his US citizenship. If he could swing the residency issue he would have been a shoo-in for POTUS.
Yes, Boris would probably have comfortably beaten Biden, Hillary or Trump in a US general election, his only problem is he was probably too conservative to win the Democratic nomination but too liberal to win the Republican nomination
The Republicans would love the chameleon like Johnson. If illiberal is what they want, illiberal is what Johnson would give them.
I genuinely believe he could have won. Mad as that may appear.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
Isolationism will continue as a thread in American politics. Its dramatic drop in reliance on Middle East oil due to fracking and its repositioning towards producing goods domestically in preference to importing from abroad will ensure that
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
Despite the one child policy, China's total fertility rate has been about 1.5, comparable to many European nations.
China is going to be a problem for decades to come. More than Russia.
I get a recent TFR for China of 1.28
The rapid decline of China's population will be one of the major themes of the rest of the century.
China is only a few years away from having a problem of tens of millions of disaffected and single young men. That situation rarely ends well for any country, no matter how authoritarian.
China may think it needs an invasion of Taiwan keep the young men occupied.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
Isolationism will continue as a thread in American politics. Its dramatic drop in reliance on Middle East oil due to fracking and its repositioning towards producing goods domestically in preference to importing from abroad will ensure that
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
Despite the one child policy, China's total fertility rate has been about 1.5, comparable to many European nations.
China is going to be a problem for decades to come. More than Russia.
I get a recent TFR for China of 1.28
The rapid decline of China's population will be one of the major themes of the rest of the century.
Only post-Covid, fertility rates have collapsed post-Covid in much of the world. Oddly enough telling young, fertile people they can't go out and get drunk and hook up with other young, fertile people doesn't do much for total fertility.
For the past few decades pre-Covid its been around 1.5
On this, we agree. There is far too much cautious joyless nannying Puritanism. No wonder people aren’t shagging and having kids
Look at this desperately depressing article about the end of the bacchanalian touring band
“Touring with Green Day at 25, when Billy Joe Armstrong had just embraced sobriety, also made her realise that “maybe when you get older, you settle down and you actually take your health seriously”. Now, she says, “I go to a friend’s dinner party, have a glass of wine, then go home and go to sleep. That’s my idea of partying.””
She gave up booze and fun at 25. Now she goes to bed early coz she’s 26. FFS
Having you know who as the poster boy for incontinent shagging probably hasn't helped either, not with the Jungvolk anyway.
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
Isolationism will continue as a thread in American politics. Its dramatic drop in reliance on Middle East oil due to fracking and its repositioning towards producing goods domestically in preference to importing from abroad will ensure that
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
Despite the one child policy, China's total fertility rate has been about 1.5, comparable to many European nations.
China is going to be a problem for decades to come. More than Russia.
I get a recent TFR for China of 1.28
The rapid decline of China's population will be one of the major themes of the rest of the century.
Only post-Covid, fertility rates have collapsed post-Covid in much of the world. Oddly enough telling young, fertile people they can't go out and get drunk and hook up with other young, fertile people doesn't do much for total fertility.
For the past few decades pre-Covid its been around 1.5
I think the gender imbalance is going to make this worse in China. I'd be very surprised if their TFR gets back up to 1.5
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
I'm a big Obama fan - what a class act - but at the same time I agree with much of this. Biden has been excellent.
Obama was a worse president than Biden IMHO but better than Clinton or Bush 1 or 2, and far better than Trump. Obama's main weakness was his poor ability to work with people in Congress, especially Republicans, which reflected his lack of experience as well as somewhat aloof manner. He wasn't helped by the fact that so many Congressional Republicans are loons or otherwise malign, but Biden has demonstrated that working with Congress can make a presidency much more effective. I would put both Biden and Obama in the middle tier of US presidents, but with Biden near the top of that tier and Obama somewhere in the middle.
Biden is much worse than Clinton and even both Bushes.
His legacy at the moment is leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban, an expanded deficit and higher taxes and higher inflation than he inherited and a nation divided by culture wars and an economy still hit by the lockdowns he pushed over Covid. Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris and Poland supplying weapons to Zelensky than anything Biden did.
His main credit it he is not Trump
"Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris"
It's a crying shame Boris relinquished his US citizenship. If he could swing the residency issue he would have been a shoo-in for POTUS.
Yes, Boris would probably have comfortably beaten Biden, Hillary or Trump in a US general election, his only problem is he was probably too conservative to win the Democratic nomination but too liberal to win the Republican nomination
The Republicans would love the chameleon like Johnson. If illiberal is what they want, illiberal is what Johnson would give them.
I genuinely believe he could have won. Mad as that may appear.
You are right, it is mad! Americans didn't overthrow King George just to install a bumbling upper class Englishman as head of state. And becoming president is proper hard work, there's no way that Johnson would be able to put in the effort, or stand up to the scrutiny. It's insane he became PM in this country, the idea of him becoming leader of a foreign country where every bad guy in a movie sounds like him is for the birds. Americans would have been immune to his charms, their lunacy is of a different sort (hence Trump).
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
Isolationism will continue as a thread in American politics. Its dramatic drop in reliance on Middle East oil due to fracking and its repositioning towards producing goods domestically in preference to importing from abroad will ensure that
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
Despite the one child policy, China's total fertility rate has been about 1.5, comparable to many European nations.
China is going to be a problem for decades to come. More than Russia.
I get a recent TFR for China of 1.28
The rapid decline of China's population will be one of the major themes of the rest of the century.
Only post-Covid, fertility rates have collapsed post-Covid in much of the world. Oddly enough telling young, fertile people they can't go out and get drunk and hook up with other young, fertile people doesn't do much for total fertility.
For the past few decades pre-Covid its been around 1.5
On this, we agree. There is far too much cautious joyless nannying Puritanism. No wonder people aren’t shagging and having kids
Look at this desperately depressing article about the end of the bacchanalian touring band
“Touring with Green Day at 25, when Billy Joe Armstrong had just embraced sobriety, also made her realise that “maybe when you get older, you settle down and you actually take your health seriously”. Now, she says, “I go to a friend’s dinner party, have a glass of wine, then go home and go to sleep. That’s my idea of partying.””
She gave up booze and fun at 25. Now she goes to bed early coz she’s 26. FFS
Perhaps, just perhaps, she's having a more enjoyable life from not getting pi**ed every night?
Comments
I know no electoral system is perfect and I don't want to get int another one of the those debates about fptp and pr, etc, but it is a worry when one can look at the system and say, but under this system party A has a better chance of winning. Would be interesting to know if the Tories changed it because they believed in it or for electoral advantage. I found it worrying that they were able to change the system so easily. We have already seen in Bedford it produced a different result to what would have almost certainly been the result under 2nd preference. Many would argue that is how it should be. Others would disagree.
("I have looked on his eyes...")
The failure to respond seriously to the invasion of Georgia - still a 'frozen conflict', with Russia occupying a lump of their territory - was the start of emboldening Putin.
He was very weak on Russia.
He was very weak on China.
He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan.
He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific.
He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives:
He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
He inherited an awful mess, but I think he's done a lot to turn some problems around.
You just wish he was twenty years younger.
But then, what do I know? Biden's approval ratings are in the low 40s.
It's still fairly unstable AIUI. In ten years it could be a beacon of civilisation and democracy in the Middle East, or it could be a basketcase. What it needs is a lack of interference - from both the west and neighbouring countries.
Clinton used the “lob of few cruise missiles” solution way too much. Leading to the drone warfare stuff we saw in Afghanistan.
1832 to put the Whigs at the head of the Reform bandwagon.
1867 to allow Disraeli to redraw the constituency map as he wished.
1885 ditto (read 'Salisbury' for 'Disraeli')
1918 to give the vote to those women and remaining men likely to support the Lloyd George/Unionist coalition
1928 because CCO counselled that younger women were generally quite Conservative in outlook and Baldwin could in any case not afford to upset men under 25 by disenfranchising them.
1948 because plural voters were generally richer and therefore voted Conservative.
1969 because it was thought teenagers would vote Labour.
2014 because the SNP thought teenagers would vote 'Leave' in SindyRef.
That's one of the tragedies of our system.
In America at least such changes have bipartisan support.*
(The snag being that that's now never forthcoming.)
*TBF the confirmation of the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds was I believe passed without division.
On US roads, specifically - having driven a fair few of them, I’d say they’re bad to terrible. US public infrastructure generally is awful. The 101 from San Francisco to San Jose - the main route through Silicon Valley, the richest place on earth - makes the North Circular look like paradise. It’s 100 miles of potholed, almost permanent, traffic jam.
The other thing that I can’t get my head around is that there’s basically no litter on the verges.
Since pretty much every other facet of US life is a tragedy of the commons, it doesn’t add up.
I honestly can't think of one.
Even William Henry Harrison or James Buchanan.
Possibly Jefferson Davis if you include the Confedaracy, but even then it would be at best marginal.
I’m trying to be incredibly generous.
There is a sense of poverty but the cheese and wine and charcuterie is an astonishing wealth compared with the terrible food offer in Manhattan.
I'm not generous.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
James Buchanan gets too much blame for the Civil War but it was kind of a war that was coming anyway. Andrew Johnson doesn't get enough criticism, for the mess he made post Civil War that took far too long to then clean up.
As for Wilson, decidedly mixed - notably about his segregationist policies - but he was able to bring WW1 to a conclusion, however unsatisfactorily.
Watching from afar, it apppeared that they didn’t have a clue how to approach it, and the broadcast news media in particular were terrible. In particular, the press conference grandstanding by political correspondents, and the airtime given to the activist group that called themselves “Independent SAGE”, stand out as somewhat poor examples of journalism.
However, the UK media was a lot better than the US media, who tried their best to overtly politicise everything. The UK politicians were also a lot better behaved than their American counterparts as well, which definitely helped.
Normandy over Manhattan anyday, for me.
Johnson even opposed the 14th Amendment.
Had Lincoln not been replaced with Johnson then America would have been a far, far better place.
Trump is modern so we know his problems. Johnson is the worst of the worst.
I love these bitter, partisan, and largely pointless historical debates.
1919 vs 1948: Controversy rekindled over Korea's founding year
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=357013
The current guy is far too sensible.
...President Yoon Suk Yeol has not shown support for either view. In his Liberation Day speech in 2022, he honored those who fought for the country's independence, emphasizing their efforts to protect the values of freedom and human rights.
Amid ongoing debates, Yoon is expected to try to put an end to the controversy through his Liberation Day speech which will be delivered on Tuesday...
It's something I still struggle with. Yes, I know about 'left behind' and 'jobs to China' and 'sneery east coast elites' yada yada, I've read a million words on all of that, but still, c'mon, Donald Trump, president of the USA, what the actual fuck?
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/13/ukraine-capitol-hill-steven-moore-00108134
...Moore spent seven years on Capitol Hill working in the House of Representatives mostly as chief of staff for former Rep. Pete Roskam (R-Ill.), the former chief deputy GOP whip. In that role, Moore was one of the most influential staff members on the Republican side of the aisle.
“I’m probably the only person in the world who has delivered humanitarian aid to the Ukrainian front and whipped votes on the floor of the House of Representatives for Kevin McCarthy,”
Moore told me over a cappuccino at one of his favorite cafes in Kyiv a few blocks away from the city’s ancient 1,300-year-old entrance, the Golden Gate. “I think that puts me in a really unique position to be a trusted source of information among Republican policymakers.”..
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
None of which denies that Trump is an egotistical, unscrupulous thug. But his policies are not as crazy as his personality (he's also less bonkers than de Santis and others on abortion, though that's a low bar).
If I wanted to visit a massive metropolis for a tourist visit, it would be Seoul or Tokyo. Otherwise I'd prefer to stay away.
That's not to say all interventions work, but isolation categorically does not.
De Santis is far worse than Trump, I agree on that.
(Back when Labour was still the party mainly of the working classes rather than public sector workers, the unemployed and those in social housing, students, Remainers and most ethnic minorities like it is now)
China is going to be a problem for decades to come. More than Russia.
Unbelievably this is a factor in American politics
But it’s an interest consideration - if the progressive position is that you can’t hold twenty somethings entirely responsible for rape and murder, that opens a philosophical debate.
Since responsibility and rights are directly linked in most philosophical frameworks. If you aren’t responsible for your actions, then can you have full civil rights? Or are you still a child?
I'm not holding my breath that it will.
Or to be fair if it should. I don't have faith in government/enquiries challenging the media, it should be the other way around even if the media isn't good at it.
The knowledge and understanding on this forum, was way above the level of debate almost anywhere else bar specific medical and scientific discussion groups.
His legacy at the moment is leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban, an expanded deficit and higher taxes and higher inflation than he inherited and a nation divided by culture wars and an economy still hit by the lockdowns he pushed over Covid. Even the Ukraine war and preventing Putin capturing Kyiv was more down to Boris and Poland supplying weapons to Zelensky than anything Biden did.
His main credit it he is not Trump
Also - it wasn't just the franchise that destroyed the Liberals. A number of other factors were at play, especially the intra-party warfare that continued to bedevil them until 1951 reduced them to just 6 MPs rendering them more or less irrelevant.
It's a crying shame Boris relinquished his US citizenship. If he could swing the residency issue he would have been a shoo-in for POTUS.
Leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban was an agreement signed by Trump.
The deficit was $3,132,457 in Trump's final year and $1,375,925 last year so I'm curious how you consider that an "expanded deficit".
Inflation at 3.2% is remarkably low compared to the rest of the western world and not high.
Boris, Poland etc absolutely deserve credit over Ukraine but so too does Biden. An immense amount of credit for the weapons given to Ukraine.
Inflation in the US is 3.2%
Post-covid, post-Russia/Ukraine conflict. At a time where the economy is still growing and full employment.
That's pretty damned impressive, not a negative. Sunak would absolutely love to have those figures.
On European NATO spending he was only interested in it because he wanted Europeans to buy more equipment from US defence firms, on the assumption that those defence firms would give him some money as a quid pro quo (or perhaps they already had).
If any increased spending went to German/French/Swedish/Korean defence firms instead then it wouldn't have counted in the Trump calculus. It only looks reasonable as a policy position because by happenstance it lined up with what was desirable.
In 1918 however the Tories got 38% and 379 seats, Labour were second on votes on 20% and 57 seats and the Lloyd George Liberals 13.4% and 127 seats and Asquith Liberals 13% and just 36 seats.
By 1922 Labour were second on both votes and seats. The Conservatives got 38% and 344 seats, Labour 29% and 147 seats, the Asquith Liberals 18% and 62 seats and Lloyd George Liberals 9% and 53 seats.
In December 1923 Labour formed its first ever government led by Ramsay Macdonald as first Labour PM in a hung parliament. Labour got 30.7% and 191 seats to 29.7% and 158 seats for Asquith's reunited Liberal Party
If China is slowing down, I presume their oil demand will fall too.
*Yes, that was one of the things they very publicly disagreed about.
If Xi gets the sense that demography is so far against him that his best chance of a successful military invasion of Taiwan is now, and it will only get more difficult as time passes and China ages, then we are in for an extremely dangerous few years.
Nothing implied about BR ...
The Gulf States, pissed off with Putin at the lack of production cuts, are also now upset with him over the weaponisation of the food supply out of Ukraine, much of which ends up in the wider MENA region.
I’m expecting the next OPEC summit to herald the return of the pandemic-era willy-waving contest between MBS and VVP, which ends up with the taps being turned on full in the Gulf, and putin starved of dollars. Anyone who wants to see Western inflation put back in its box, should be cheering on the Arabs.
China’s rate of growth may be slowing down, but their economy continues to go gangbusters. Expected growth this year is in the 4-5% range.
Oddly, the one civil servant in my field of education who was actually fired for the DfE's crass blunders probably didn't deserve it. Jonathan Slater was made the scapegoat for the exams train crash which was largely the responsibility of Nick Gibb who refused to accept a problem we could all see coming a mile away might be due to his beloved new exams.
And certainly given he was replaced by the truly ghastly Acland-Hood, who makes Cummings look like a model of integrity and administrative efficiency, I really wish Crichel Down had been applied.
I also agree on litter. Beyond the absolute hell of some downtowns, America is notably less litter strewn than the UK
But then you get to the strip malls….
The rapid decline of China's population will be one of the major themes of the rest of the century.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/why-i-m-going-on-hunger-strike-to-fight-sadiq-khan-s-ulez-expansion-and-stand-up-for-the-common-man/ar-AA1fehBX?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=b4aae7bbe0b04c17ab4e3909e9995938&ei=15
For the past few decades pre-Covid its been around 1.5
Look at this desperately depressing article about the end of the bacchanalian touring band
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/aug/14/its-just-not-worth-it-is-this-the-end-of-sex-drugs-and-rocknroll
Final paragraph of bathetic bleakness
“Touring with Green Day at 25, when Billy Joe Armstrong had just embraced sobriety, also made her realise that “maybe when you get older, you settle down and you actually take your health seriously”. Now, she says, “I go to a friend’s dinner party, have a glass of wine, then go home and go to sleep. That’s my idea of partying.””
She gave up booze and fun at 25. Now she goes to bed early coz she’s 26. FFS
I genuinely believe he could have won. Mad as that may appear.