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
She could have 75 years of sober, boring tedium, unless dementia gets her first.
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
Though TFR is defined based on fertility for women, not based on population, so I doubt the gender imbalance will reach that figure.
And even if it doesn't, its going to take two decades before these lower figures start to reflect in missing adults. So it might be more of an issue for 2040s China.
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
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...
The point I was making was that people Ned to think about what they are arguing.
Lawyers I’ve talked to seem to think that helping their client is the only goal. If that causes societal fallout, not their problem. I’d argue that while you owe a duty to your client first, dealing with the fallout of novel ruling is required.
You can draw a straight line through all the dots from the Hook Hand comedy to the Home Sec cancelling nationality at the stroke of the pen, for example.
Declare that twenty somethings can use their age to diminish legal responsibility - that will have some fun reactions down the line.
The question is not just the rate (TFR = total fertility rate = number of children per woman), it's the number. If there aren't enough pre-menopausal women to have babies, then the TFR isn't the issue. A one-child policy that prioritised men has led to its obvious conclusion.
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
But then you get to the strip malls….
US roads are generally pretty good, but they have a lot of Interstate and Route bridges built immediately post-war, which were designed with short lifespans and are in desparate need of replacement.
There’s a specific problem in California with the R101 and I5, which are massive car parks for most of the day, as the population has expanded by several times since the roads were built, and there’s almost no alternative to the car except for the woefully inadequate BART around San Fran. Imagine if London had the Manchester Tram of about 150k capacity per day, and no Underground.
They’ve been trying for years to build a high-speed railway from LA to SF, 400 miles or so, but it’s been a total failure mostly of politics. If you thought HS2 was running late, over budget, and short of the original scope…
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
Though TFR is defined based on fertility for women, not based on population, so I doubt the gender imbalance will reach that figure.
And even if it doesn't, its going to take two decades before these lower figures start to reflect in missing adults. So it might be more of an issue for 2040s China.
2040s, yes. And then afterwards. The rest of the century.
Britain's population might be a small fraction of China's population, but it's a slightly larger fraction this year than it was last year. That trend is going to accelerate. It will take a while for people to get their heads around that and its implications.
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
OTOH there's a real worry about what's slipped into the dope some random gives you in a night out in MIlton Keynes or Swindon.
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?
There's that rock musician who spends much of his evenings in the hotel working on buildings for his model railway layout, ISTR. If I were his spouse, I'd be very happy with that.
The question is not just the rate (TFR = total fertility rate = number of children per woman), it's the number. If there aren't enough pre-menopausal women to have babies, then the TFR isn't the issue. A one-child policy that prioritised men has led to its obvious conclusion.
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.
Maybe, maybe not. However even so the fact remains universal suffrage of all adult males and women over 30 saw Labour triple its voteshare in 1918, even the combined Liberals however were down 18% on their Dec 1910 voteshare and the Tories down 8%
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
Though TFR is defined based on fertility for women, not based on population, so I doubt the gender imbalance will reach that figure.
And even if it doesn't, its going to take two decades before these lower figures start to reflect in missing adults. So it might be more of an issue for 2040s China.
2040s, yes. And then afterwards. The rest of the century.
Britain's population might be a small fraction of China's population, but it's a slightly larger fraction this year than it was last year. That trend is going to accelerate. It will take a while for people to get their heads around that and its implications.
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
OTOH there's a real worry about what's slipped into the dope some random gives you in a night out in MIlton Keynes or Swindon.
At some point in your life, you move to quality than quantity in the various pleasures.
Touring with a top tier band sounds like a good way to speed (ha) run through the “quantity” phase of your life.
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).
No, we fell for Johnson and they fell for Trump.
Americans love an American with an English accent, and don't forget he is catnip to American women (re: Jennifer Arcuri).
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
I would add - the Puritans did loads of shagging and had a lot of kids!
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
Or in the world of Boris where having loads of babies (maintenance payments aside) was no impediment to his lifestyle.
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).
No, we fell for Johnson and they fell for Trump.
Americans love an American with an English accent, and don't forget he is catnip to American women (re: Jennifer Arcuri).
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
But then you get to the strip malls….
US roads are generally pretty good, but they have a lot of Interstate and Route bridges built immediately post-war, which were designed with short lifespans and are in desparate need of replacement.
There’s a specific problem in California with the R101 and I5, which are massive car parks for most of the day, as the population has expanded by several times since the roads were built, and there’s almost no alternative to the car except for the woefully inadequate BART around San Fran. Imagine if London had the Manchester Tram of about 150k capacity per day, and no Underground.
They’ve been trying for years to build a high-speed railway from LA to SF, 400 miles or so, but it’s been a total failure mostly of politics. If you thought HS2 was running late, over budget, and short of the original scope…
It's crazy that the US/Australia don't have high speed rail. Perfectly suited for it.
I think it's to do with the "transport as a business" model, rather than a public service. No subsidies.
Then you have anti-monopolistic legislation, which means that even if public transport can be made profitable, it's easily broken up into incoherent local networks.
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
OTOH there's a real worry about what's slipped into the dope some random gives you in a night out in MIlton Keynes or Swindon.
At some point in your life, you move to quality than quantity in the various pleasures.
Touring with a top tier band sounds like a good way to speed (ha) run through the “quantity” phase of your life.
I have a friend who had always wanted to be a sound engineer. He is also quite a big drinker - or at least thought he was. After paying his dues for a bit, he managed to get a job touring with Therapy?. He lasted five weeks - the lifestyle was excessive, and the examples offered by those who had done this for a year or more were far from encouraging. He now works in a call centre for a breakdown firm and never regrets his decision.
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
Though TFR is defined based on fertility for women, not based on population, so I doubt the gender imbalance will reach that figure.
And even if it doesn't, its going to take two decades before these lower figures start to reflect in missing adults. So it might be more of an issue for 2040s China.
2040s, yes. And then afterwards. The rest of the century.
Britain's population might be a small fraction of China's population, but it's a slightly larger fraction this year than it was last year. That trend is going to accelerate. It will take a while for people to get their heads around that and its implications.
You mean we can take back Hong Kong?
No. Pensionerism will be the dominant theme in the UK for the next 15-20 years. Pensionerism has multiple aspects. The one I keep banging on about is i) infantilisation of adults, but it has others like ii) outdated views, and iii) appeasement of enemies. The UK has a strong popular support of Ukraine provided we don't get involved, but the minute we talk about UK boots on the ground they recoil. Old people are too scared to fight and will only support performative violence provided it doesn't affect them. We're not going to take back Hong Kong.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
Or in the world of Boris where having loads of babies (maintenance payments aside) was no impediment to his lifestyle.
Because Boris Johnson is a father only in a biological sense.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
The time from meeting someone, to them being pregnant, can be measured in hours. Or days, or weeks. That was covered by lockdown.
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
When even the rock stars, no longer want to behave like rock stars…
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
I would add - the Puritans did loads of shagging and had a lot of kids!
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
The time from meeting someone, to them being pregnant, can be measured in hours. Or days, or weeks. That was covered by lockdown.
It's been falling for over a decade, no? I think the full impact of covid on fertility won't be felt for a few years yet.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
I would add - the Puritans did loads of shagging and had a lot of kids!
And did they all call the sixth born, Sixtus?
More likely, If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
I would add - the Puritans did loads of shagging and had a lot of kids!
And did they all call the sixth born, Sixtus?
More likely, If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
I am highly sceptical that most children are born to people who have met less than two years before the baby's birth (because we are talking about 2022 data at the latest here). Of course I may be reflecting my own experience to an extent (I had been with my wife for 12 years and married for 4 years before the birth of our first child) and I don't have hard data on this. But still, most kids are not the result of a one night stand in a night club toilet. If there has been a fertility impact it will show up later, and the collapse post Covid is more likely related to economic uncertainty and the cost of living crisis.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
The time from meeting someone, to them being pregnant, can be measured in hours. Or days, or weeks. That was covered by lockdown.
Or, in the case of Squadron Commander the Lord Flasheart, twenty seconds.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
I would add - the Puritans did loads of shagging and had a lot of kids!
And did they all call the sixth born, Sixtus?
More likely, If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned.
Or "Bob" for short.
That was a MP, of course: the Rt Hon Nicholas If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barebon: apparently his chums called him Damned for short ...
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
The time from meeting someone, to them being pregnant, can be measured in hours. Or days, or weeks. That was covered by lockdown.
It's been falling for over a decade, no? I think the full impact of covid on fertility won't be felt for a few years yet.
It fell significantly during Covid, as people weren't hooking up with others during Covid which is a pre-requisite for pregnancy for those who aren't already in a committed relationship.
From 1974 to 2019 the TFR was in the range of above 1.6 to less than 2.0
John Sweeney claims he was told by a Ukrainian front line troop that they found 27 boxes of Chinese made drones in Russian trenches. If this is true the pressure better be applied to Beijing.
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
Though TFR is defined based on fertility for women, not based on population, so I doubt the gender imbalance will reach that figure.
And even if it doesn't, its going to take two decades before these lower figures start to reflect in missing adults. So it might be more of an issue for 2040s China.
2040s, yes. And then afterwards. The rest of the century.
Britain's population might be a small fraction of China's population, but it's a slightly larger fraction this year than it was last year. That trend is going to accelerate. It will take a while for people to get their heads around that and its implications.
You mean we can take back Hong Kong?
No. Pensionerism will be the dominant theme in the UK for the next 15-20 years. Pensionerism has multiple aspects. The one I keep banging on about is i) infantilisation of adults, but it has others like ii) outdated views, and iii) appeasement of enemies. The UK has a strong popular support of Ukraine provided we don't get involved, but the minute we talk about UK boots on the ground they recoil. Old people are too scared to fight and will only support performative violence provided it doesn't affect them. We're not going to take back Hong Kong.
What is meant to change in 15 or 20 years?
Your support for UK boots on the ground looks pretty civilianist to me unless you are in fact in HM forces. Why do you think pensioners are scared of fighting given it won't involve them anyway? And have you even signed up to the TA to prepare for the summons aux armes?
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
The time from meeting someone, to them being pregnant, can be measured in hours. Or days, or weeks. That was covered by lockdown.
It's been falling for over a decade, no? I think the full impact of covid on fertility won't be felt for a few years yet.
It fell significantly during Covid, as people weren't hooking up with others during Covid which is a pre-requisite for pregnancy for those who aren't already in a committed relationship.
From 1974 to 2019 the TFR was in the range of above 1.6 to less than 2.0
2020 was the first time ever TFR fell below 1.6
Virtually every child born in 2020 was conceived before Covid.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
I am highly sceptical that most children are born to people who have met less than two years before the baby's birth (because we are talking about 2022 data at the latest here). Of course I may be reflecting my own experience to an extent (I had been with my wife for 12 years and married for 4 years before the birth of our first child) and I don't have hard data on this. But still, most kids are not the result of a one night stand in a night club toilet. If there has been a fertility impact it will show up later, and the collapse post Covid is more likely related to economic uncertainty and the cost of living crisis.
Most kids may not be, but if any kids are and clubs are closed, then that's going to show in the figures.
And it doesn't have to be in the toilet, it can be from going home with someone after a night out. Or even going home with someone and starting a relationship resulting in pregnancy a few weeks later.
Most babies nowadays are born to unmarried couples and many married couples got married while already pregnant.
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 do talk some utter rubbish on accession. The is one of them.
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
And, he publicly insults his closest ally.
Not many people (and the PM isns't among them) are as thin skinned as you.
"What is meant to change in 15 or 20 years?". - The change has already taken place: the ascendancy of pensioners to the dominant force in the British electorate. This will last until the Boomers start dying off in great numbers around 2035/45
"Why do you think pensioners are scared of fighting given it won't involve them anyway?" - Pensioners are scared of everything: querulousness and caution is a characteristic of the old. They will lend great verbal support and may even support minor military commitment - hence "performative violence" - but the minute it gets serious and endangers their pensions they will recoil.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
The time from meeting someone, to them being pregnant, can be measured in hours. Or days, or weeks. That was covered by lockdown.
It's been falling for over a decade, no? I think the full impact of covid on fertility won't be felt for a few years yet.
It fell significantly during Covid, as people weren't hooking up with others during Covid which is a pre-requisite for pregnancy for those who aren't already in a committed relationship.
From 1974 to 2019 the TFR was in the range of above 1.6 to less than 2.0
2020 was the first time ever TFR fell below 1.6
Virtually every child born in 2020 was conceived before Covid.
People started voluntarily locking down and going out less from February. Pubs were closed from 20 March (full lockdown came after it) that would show up in births in November and December 2020.
9 months is from last period, not sex, and many babies don't go to term.
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.
I take “poor examples of journalism” means “stuff I disagree with”.
My brother and his wife are obviously the exceptions, they’d been married for two years but both running busy and stressful jobs with lots of travel. They managed to conceive a baby born in February 2021, so obviously the first couple of months of working from home saw them spend much more time with each other!
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
I am highly sceptical that most children are born to people who have met less than two years before the baby's birth (because we are talking about 2022 data at the latest here). Of course I may be reflecting my own experience to an extent (I had been with my wife for 12 years and married for 4 years before the birth of our first child) and I don't have hard data on this. But still, most kids are not the result of a one night stand in a night club toilet. If there has been a fertility impact it will show up later, and the collapse post Covid is more likely related to economic uncertainty and the cost of living crisis.
Most kids may not be, but if any kids are and clubs are closed, then that's going to show in the figures.
And it doesn't have to be in the toilet, it can be from going home with someone after a night out. Or even going home with someone and starting a relationship resulting in pregnancy a few weeks later.
Most babies nowadays are born to unmarried couples and many married couples got married while already pregnant.
Being unmarried doesn't mean it's a random hookup. My wife and I were together for 8 years before we got married! I am not saying that Covid hasn't reduced socialising and hooking up or that it won't show up in fertility data, I am simply saying that that channel is unlikely to be a significant factor in data published up to now. Eg you mentioned 2020 data, whereas Covid cannot have had any material impact on births during 2020. It may well be a factor in later data, we will have to wait for someone to do the research.
John Sweeney claims he was told by a Ukrainian front line troop that they found 27 boxes of Chinese made drones in Russian trenches. If this is true the pressure better be applied to Beijing.
70% of all the world's drones are made by DJI of Shenzhen. Chinese provenance doesn't rule out that they were bought off eBay.
My brother and his wife are obviously the exceptions, they’d been married for two years but both running busy and stressful jobs with lots of travel. They managed to conceive a baby born in February 2021, so obviously the first couple of months of working from home saw them spend much more time with each other.
Good for them.
Yes that is the exception not the norm. 2021 had the lowest TFR ever, even lower than 2020. For fairly obvious reasons.
Telling married couples they can't leave the house may mean more pregnancies for married couples.
But telling unmarried people they can't leave the house means fewer engagements, marriages and fewer pregnancies for unmarried people.
And most pregnancies go to unmarried, not married, people.
No. Pensionerism will be the dominant theme in the UK for the next 15-20 years. Pensionerism has multiple aspects. The one I keep banging on about is i) infantilisation of adults, but it has others like ii) outdated views, and iii) appeasement of enemies. The UK has a strong popular support of Ukraine provided we don't get involved, but the minute we talk about UK boots on the ground they recoil. Old people are too scared to fight and will only support performative violence provided it doesn't affect them. We're not going to take back Hong Kong.
Western public opinion and more specifically UK public opinion has been dubious about the idea of Western/UK boots on the ground for decades. People have for a long time been in favour more of techo-war and other forms of "other people do the dying" wars than the kind where even small numbers of their fellow citizens come back in coffins. And the war in Ukraine is pretty clearly of the "lots of casualties" kind. I think you'd have found a lot of people recoiling from the idea of direct involvement in the 1970s or 1990s too.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
I am highly sceptical that most children are born to people who have met less than two years before the baby's birth (because we are talking about 2022 data at the latest here). Of course I may be reflecting my own experience to an extent (I had been with my wife for 12 years and married for 4 years before the birth of our first child) and I don't have hard data on this. But still, most kids are not the result of a one night stand in a night club toilet. If there has been a fertility impact it will show up later, and the collapse post Covid is more likely related to economic uncertainty and the cost of living crisis.
Most kids may not be, but if any kids are and clubs are closed, then that's going to show in the figures.
And it doesn't have to be in the toilet, it can be from going home with someone after a night out. Or even going home with someone and starting a relationship resulting in pregnancy a few weeks later.
Most babies nowadays are born to unmarried couples and many married couples got married while already pregnant.
Being unmarried doesn't mean it's a random hookup. My wife and I were together for 8 years before we got married! I am not saying that Covid hasn't reduced socialising and hooking up or that it won't show up in fertility data, I am simply saying that that channel is unlikely to be a significant factor in data published up to now. Eg you mentioned 2020 data, whereas Covid cannot have had any material impact on births during 2020. It may well be a factor in later data, we will have to wait for someone to do the research.
1/6th of 2020 could be affect by Covid.
2021 would be more affected I completely agree, and it was. And its shown up in the data already with a new record low TFR.
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.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
I am highly sceptical that most children are born to people who have met less than two years before the baby's birth (because we are talking about 2022 data at the latest here). Of course I may be reflecting my own experience to an extent (I had been with my wife for 12 years and married for 4 years before the birth of our first child) and I don't have hard data on this. But still, most kids are not the result of a one night stand in a night club toilet. If there has been a fertility impact it will show up later, and the collapse post Covid is more likely related to economic uncertainty and the cost of living crisis.
Most kids may not be, but if any kids are and clubs are closed, then that's going to show in the figures.
And it doesn't have to be in the toilet, it can be from going home with someone after a night out. Or even going home with someone and starting a relationship resulting in pregnancy a few weeks later.
Most babies nowadays are born to unmarried couples and many married couples got married while already pregnant.
Being unmarried doesn't mean it's a random hookup. My wife and I were together for 8 years before we got married! I am not saying that Covid hasn't reduced socialising and hooking up or that it won't show up in fertility data, I am simply saying that that channel is unlikely to be a significant factor in data published up to now. Eg you mentioned 2020 data, whereas Covid cannot have had any material impact on births during 2020. It may well be a factor in later data, we will have to wait for someone to do the research.
1/6th of 2020 could be affect by Covid.
2021 would be more affected I completely agree, and it was. And its shown up in the data already with a new record low TFR.
According to the ONS 2021 simply reflected the long term trend of declining births.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
I am highly sceptical that most children are born to people who have met less than two years before the baby's birth (because we are talking about 2022 data at the latest here). Of course I may be reflecting my own experience to an extent (I had been with my wife for 12 years and married for 4 years before the birth of our first child) and I don't have hard data on this. But still, most kids are not the result of a one night stand in a night club toilet. If there has been a fertility impact it will show up later, and the collapse post Covid is more likely related to economic uncertainty and the cost of living crisis.
Most kids may not be, but if any kids are and clubs are closed, then that's going to show in the figures.
And it doesn't have to be in the toilet, it can be from going home with someone after a night out. Or even going home with someone and starting a relationship resulting in pregnancy a few weeks later.
Most babies nowadays are born to unmarried couples and many married couples got married while already pregnant.
The point is that COVIDtide didn't really affect birth rates.
The fall you cited was a steady line from 1.9ish in 2010 to 1.6ish in 2019. If anything, there was an increase in 2021, which is where you would see the lockdown effects;
No. Pensionerism will be the dominant theme in the UK for the next 15-20 years. Pensionerism has multiple aspects. The one I keep banging on about is i) infantilisation of adults, but it has others like ii) outdated views, and iii) appeasement of enemies. The UK has a strong popular support of Ukraine provided we don't get involved, but the minute we talk about UK boots on the ground they recoil. Old people are too scared to fight and will only support performative violence provided it doesn't affect them. We're not going to take back Hong Kong.
Western public opinion and more specifically UK public opinion has been dubious about the idea of Western/UK boots on the ground for decades. People have for a long time been in favour more of techo-war and other forms of "other people do the dying" wars than the kind where even small numbers of their fellow citizens come back in coffins. And the war in Ukraine is pretty clearly of the "lots of casualties" kind. I think you'd have found a lot of people recoiling from the idea of direct involvement in the 1970s or 1990s too.
Even post-Empire we were still capable of operating a large army and navy in the 1970s and 80s and did. I don't see 2020's UK matching the level of committment that we did in Gulf War I and 2
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.
I take “poor examples of journalism” means “stuff I disagree with”.
Not at all. To take the two examples I gave:
1. The political journalists at the daily press conferences, were asking inane questions to either try and catch out the minister, to try and find loopholes in his or her statement, but mostly to get the soundbite for their own programme by asking when the minister stopped beating his wife. The major news organisations should have swapped out political hacks for people who actually understood the subject matter at hand.
2. “Independent SAGE”, let’s start with the name, which caused immense confusion between those actually advising the government and those freelancing their own agenda, then move on to the relatively extreme (on all sides), or at least contrary, viewpoints of most of these figures, which mostly went unchallenged by the journalists who had little knowledge of the subject themselves. So you had the SAGE advisor on the platform with the minister saying we should do X, and the “SAGE advisor” on the news immediately afterwards, saying the opposite.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
I am highly sceptical that most children are born to people who have met less than two years before the baby's birth (because we are talking about 2022 data at the latest here). Of course I may be reflecting my own experience to an extent (I had been with my wife for 12 years and married for 4 years before the birth of our first child) and I don't have hard data on this. But still, most kids are not the result of a one night stand in a night club toilet. If there has been a fertility impact it will show up later, and the collapse post Covid is more likely related to economic uncertainty and the cost of living crisis.
Most kids may not be, but if any kids are and clubs are closed, then that's going to show in the figures.
And it doesn't have to be in the toilet, it can be from going home with someone after a night out. Or even going home with someone and starting a relationship resulting in pregnancy a few weeks later.
Most babies nowadays are born to unmarried couples and many married couples got married while already pregnant.
Being unmarried doesn't mean it's a random hookup. My wife and I were together for 8 years before we got married! I am not saying that Covid hasn't reduced socialising and hooking up or that it won't show up in fertility data, I am simply saying that that channel is unlikely to be a significant factor in data published up to now. Eg you mentioned 2020 data, whereas Covid cannot have had any material impact on births during 2020. It may well be a factor in later data, we will have to wait for someone to do the research.
1/6th of 2020 could be affect by Covid.
2021 would be more affected I completely agree, and it was. And its shown up in the data already with a new record low TFR.
People have children when they’re confident about their own future. Hence baby booms after wars and low TFRs during recessions. I think the uncertainty of Covid unsurprisingly put them off.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
I am highly sceptical that most children are born to people who have met less than two years before the baby's birth (because we are talking about 2022 data at the latest here). Of course I may be reflecting my own experience to an extent (I had been with my wife for 12 years and married for 4 years before the birth of our first child) and I don't have hard data on this. But still, most kids are not the result of a one night stand in a night club toilet. If there has been a fertility impact it will show up later, and the collapse post Covid is more likely related to economic uncertainty and the cost of living crisis.
Most kids may not be, but if any kids are and clubs are closed, then that's going to show in the figures.
And it doesn't have to be in the toilet, it can be from going home with someone after a night out. Or even going home with someone and starting a relationship resulting in pregnancy a few weeks later.
Most babies nowadays are born to unmarried couples and many married couples got married while already pregnant.
Being unmarried doesn't mean it's a random hookup. My wife and I were together for 8 years before we got married! I am not saying that Covid hasn't reduced socialising and hooking up or that it won't show up in fertility data, I am simply saying that that channel is unlikely to be a significant factor in data published up to now. Eg you mentioned 2020 data, whereas Covid cannot have had any material impact on births during 2020. It may well be a factor in later data, we will have to wait for someone to do the research.
1/6th of 2020 could be affect by Covid.
2021 would be more affected I completely agree, and it was. And its shown up in the data already with a new record low TFR.
According to the ONS 2021 simply reflected the long term trend of declining births.
Could abortions have increased in 2020?
I don't know why they would have.
But its not just about preventing hookups; for people putting off pregnancy until after marriage (we deliberately did), then Covid lockdowns also put off a lot of marriages, as I know many people postponed their wedding until post-Covid.
Delaying marriages, means delaying pregnancy for many but not all people.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
The time from meeting someone, to them being pregnant, can be measured in hours. Or days, or weeks. That was covered by lockdown.
It's been falling for over a decade, no? I think the full impact of covid on fertility won't be felt for a few years yet.
It fell significantly during Covid, as people weren't hooking up with others during Covid which is a pre-requisite for pregnancy for those who aren't already in a committed relationship.
From 1974 to 2019 the TFR was in the range of above 1.6 to less than 2.0
2020 was the first time ever TFR fell below 1.6
Virtually every child born in 2020 was conceived before Covid.
People started voluntarily locking down and going out less from February. Pubs were closed from 20 March (full lockdown came after it) that would show up in births in November and December 2020.
9 months is from last period, not sex, and many babies don't go to term.
Like I said, virtually every child born in 2020 was conceived before Covid. An even higher proportion were conceived by parents who first met before Covid. The latest data we have are for 2021. The ONS says "There were 624,828 live births in England and Wales in 2021, an increase of 1.8% from 613,936 in 2020, but still below the 2019 figure (640,370); 2021 remains in line with the long-term trend of decreasing live births seen before the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic." So births went up by almost 2% in the year that should have been most affected by Covid.
"What is meant to change in 15 or 20 years?". - The change has already taken place: the ascendancy of pensioners to the dominant force in the British electorate. This will last until the Boomers start dying off in great numbers around 2035/45
"Why do you think pensioners are scared of fighting given it won't involve them anyway?" - Pensioners are scared of everything: querulousness and caution is a characteristic of the old. They will lend great verbal support and may even support minor military commitment - hence "performative violence" - but the minute it gets serious and endangers their pensions they will recoil.
I don't think the boomer generation is particularly distinctive, my grandparents and parents had much the same qualities, so I don't think there's much reason to hope for a sea change when Gen X gets to the front of the pension queue. I also think your cautious elderly meme is out of date. I'm in my 60s and ride downhill mountain bikes among other life threatening pursuits. My father would probably have thought himself past any pursuit beyond dog walking at this age, now it's entirely commonplace
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
But then you get to the strip malls….
US roads are generally pretty good, but they have a lot of Interstate and Route bridges built immediately post-war, which were designed with short lifespans and are in desparate need of replacement.
There’s a specific problem in California with the R101 and I5, which are massive car parks for most of the day, as the population has expanded by several times since the roads were built, and there’s almost no alternative to the car except for the woefully inadequate BART around San Fran. Imagine if London had the Manchester Tram of about 150k capacity per day, and no Underground.
They’ve been trying for years to build a high-speed railway from LA to SF, 400 miles or so, but it’s been a total failure mostly of politics. If you thought HS2 was running late, over budget, and short of the original scope…
It's crazy that the US/Australia don't have high speed rail. Perfectly suited for it.
I think it's to do with the "transport as a business" model, rather than a public service. No subsidies.
Then you have anti-monopolistic legislation, which means that even if public transport can be made profitable, it's easily broken up into incoherent local networks.
Which is exactly the moronic model Major inflicted on the UK with rail privatisation. We are in no position to sneer at other 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.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
I am highly sceptical that most children are born to people who have met less than two years before the baby's birth (because we are talking about 2022 data at the latest here). Of course I may be reflecting my own experience to an extent (I had been with my wife for 12 years and married for 4 years before the birth of our first child) and I don't have hard data on this. But still, most kids are not the result of a one night stand in a night club toilet. If there has been a fertility impact it will show up later, and the collapse post Covid is more likely related to economic uncertainty and the cost of living crisis.
Most kids may not be, but if any kids are and clubs are closed, then that's going to show in the figures.
And it doesn't have to be in the toilet, it can be from going home with someone after a night out. Or even going home with someone and starting a relationship resulting in pregnancy a few weeks later.
Most babies nowadays are born to unmarried couples and many married couples got married while already pregnant.
Being unmarried doesn't mean it's a random hookup. My wife and I were together for 8 years before we got married! I am not saying that Covid hasn't reduced socialising and hooking up or that it won't show up in fertility data, I am simply saying that that channel is unlikely to be a significant factor in data published up to now. Eg you mentioned 2020 data, whereas Covid cannot have had any material impact on births during 2020. It may well be a factor in later data, we will have to wait for someone to do the research.
1/6th of 2020 could be affect by Covid.
2021 would be more affected I completely agree, and it was. And its shown up in the data already with a new record low TFR.
TFR went up in 2021, though. I'm sorry, how could 1/6 of births in 2020 have been affected by Covid when lockdown started at the end of March? Please show your working!
Hunter Biden’s attorney expects ‘no new evidence’ to be found by special counsel https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/13/hunter-biden-attorney-special-counsel-00110990 ..“I’m confident that if this prosecutor has done what has been done for the last five years, then the only conclusion can be what the conclusion was on July 26th,” Lowell said. “There’s no new evidence to be found.”
“People should keep in mind,” Lowell said, “that while Mr. Weiss’ title changed last week, he’s the same person he’s been for the last five years. He’s a Republican U.S. attorney appointed by a Republican president and attorney general who had career prosecutors working this case for five years looking at every transaction that Hunter was involved in. … if anything changes from his conclusion, which was two tax misdemeanors and a diverted gun charge, the question should be asked, what infected the process that was not the facts in the law?”..
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
Or in the world of Boris where having loads of babies (maintenance payments aside) was no impediment to his lifestyle.
Because Boris Johnson is a father only in a biological sense.
I know people don't like/hate/detest Johnson, but we have no way of knowing how good or bad a parent he is of his kids, and I think it unfair to post such comments.
"What is meant to change in 15 or 20 years?". - The change has already taken place: the ascendancy of pensioners to the dominant force in the British electorate. This will last until the Boomers start dying off in great numbers around 2035/45
"Why do you think pensioners are scared of fighting given it won't involve them anyway?" - Pensioners are scared of everything: querulousness and caution is a characteristic of the old. They will lend great verbal support and may even support minor military commitment - hence "performative violence" - but the minute it gets serious and endangers their pensions they will recoil.
I don't think the boomer generation is particularly distinctive, my grandparents and parents had much the same qualities, so I don't think there's much reason to hope for a sea change when Gen X gets to the front of the pension queue. I also think your cautious elderly meme is out of date. I'm in my 60s and ride downhill mountain bikes among other life threatening pursuits. My father would probably have thought himself past any pursuit beyond dog walking at this age, now it's entirely commonplace
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
I am highly sceptical that most children are born to people who have met less than two years before the baby's birth (because we are talking about 2022 data at the latest here). Of course I may be reflecting my own experience to an extent (I had been with my wife for 12 years and married for 4 years before the birth of our first child) and I don't have hard data on this. But still, most kids are not the result of a one night stand in a night club toilet. If there has been a fertility impact it will show up later, and the collapse post Covid is more likely related to economic uncertainty and the cost of living crisis.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
I am highly sceptical that most children are born to people who have met less than two years before the baby's birth (because we are talking about 2022 data at the latest here). Of course I may be reflecting my own experience to an extent (I had been with my wife for 12 years and married for 4 years before the birth of our first child) and I don't have hard data on this. But still, most kids are not the result of a one night stand in a night club toilet. If there has been a fertility impact it will show up later, and the collapse post Covid is more likely related to economic uncertainty and the cost of living crisis.
Most kids may not be, but if any kids are and clubs are closed, then that's going to show in the figures.
And it doesn't have to be in the toilet, it can be from going home with someone after a night out. Or even going home with someone and starting a relationship resulting in pregnancy a few weeks later.
Most babies nowadays are born to unmarried couples and many married couples got married while already pregnant.
Being unmarried doesn't mean it's a random hookup. My wife and I were together for 8 years before we got married! I am not saying that Covid hasn't reduced socialising and hooking up or that it won't show up in fertility data, I am simply saying that that channel is unlikely to be a significant factor in data published up to now. Eg you mentioned 2020 data, whereas Covid cannot have had any material impact on births during 2020. It may well be a factor in later data, we will have to wait for someone to do the research.
1/6th of 2020 could be affect by Covid.
2021 would be more affected I completely agree, and it was. And its shown up in the data already with a new record low TFR.
According to the ONS 2021 simply reflected the long term trend of declining births.
Could abortions have increased in 2020?
I don't know why they would have.
But its not just about preventing hookups; for people putting off pregnancy until after marriage (we deliberately did), then Covid lockdowns also put off a lot of marriages, as I know many people postponed their wedding until post-Covid.
Delaying marriages, means delaying pregnancy for many but not all people.
The crossover between births to married and unmarried women was in 2021. I wonder how much of that was due to the record low number of weddings and high number of postponements in 2020. Many people weren’t indenting to have children before the wedding - but they were stuck at home with nothing much to do, and their big event had been postponed.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
The time from meeting someone, to them being pregnant, can be measured in hours. Or days, or weeks. That was covered by lockdown.
It's been falling for over a decade, no? I think the full impact of covid on fertility won't be felt for a few years yet.
It fell significantly during Covid, as people weren't hooking up with others during Covid which is a pre-requisite for pregnancy for those who aren't already in a committed relationship.
From 1974 to 2019 the TFR was in the range of above 1.6 to less than 2.0
2020 was the first time ever TFR fell below 1.6
Do the data show whether the fall in 2020 was bigger in certain age groups? Was it, for example, a bigger fall among young mothers, who are more likely to be having children early into a relationship?
That TFR fell doesn’t prove that lockdown was responsible given alternate possible explanations. Maybe people in established couples were, concerned about the future, deliberately not or postponing getting pregnant.
Anecdotally, I know several couples for whom lockdown accelerated their relationships. Rather than just “dating”, they moved in together and found that worked. One friend is now pregnant. Without that push to the relationship, I suspect she wouldn’t be. Then again, I also know of at least one divorce brought on by lockdown! Complex social phenomena are complex.
Anyway, the bigger point is that the blip of the pandemic’s effect on fertility will, I suggest, be small compared to those big, long-term trends. Anyone who is worried about the UK’s fertility levels should be focusing on housing costs before anything else (as I know you are, Bart).
I seem to remember that covidian lockdowns actually REDUCED the amount of sex couples were having as they were sick of the sight of each other slobbing around in their pyjamas day after tedious day. Absence, it seems, really does make the loins grow fonder.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
The time from meeting someone, to them being pregnant, can be measured in hours. Or days, or weeks. That was covered by lockdown.
It's been falling for over a decade, no? I think the full impact of covid on fertility won't be felt for a few years yet.
It fell significantly during Covid, as people weren't hooking up with others during Covid which is a pre-requisite for pregnancy for those who aren't already in a committed relationship.
From 1974 to 2019 the TFR was in the range of above 1.6 to less than 2.0
2020 was the first time ever TFR fell below 1.6
Virtually every child born in 2020 was conceived before Covid.
People started voluntarily locking down and going out less from February. Pubs were closed from 20 March (full lockdown came after it) that would show up in births in November and December 2020.
9 months is from last period, not sex, and many babies don't go to term.
BIB I don't think is true. People started to modify behaviour only very close to the actual lockdowns - our Uni I think sent us to work from home a few days before.
Javier Milei, who wants to abolish the central bank and adopt the U.S. dollar as Argentina’s currency, is now the front-runner in the fall general election.
As is traditional. The sun is finally coming out in Falmouth
…. But my older daughter is still determined to go to St Andrews or York. Ah well
Get her to look really really seriously at the reality of accommodation in both places. St A may be lovely but the undergraduates are all commuting from Dundee
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
Or in the world of Boris where having loads of babies (maintenance payments aside) was no impediment to his lifestyle.
Because Boris Johnson is a father only in a biological sense.
I know people don't like/hate/detest Johnson, but we have no way of knowing how good or bad a parent he is of his kids, and I think it unfair to post such comments.
I read an article a couple of years ago saying his kids weren't speaking to him, and he won't even confirm how many children he has, those are my only source of information but seem fairly conclusive.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
I would add - the Puritans did loads of shagging and had a lot of kids!
And did they all call the sixth born, Sixtus?
More likely, If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned.
Or "Bob" for short.
So, now you’re saying that Saturday’s troll was a puritan, not a Russian?
Javier Milei, who wants to abolish the central bank and adopt the U.S. dollar as Argentina’s currency, is now the front-runner in the fall general election.
Not big on moderation, the argentines.
With inflation running over 100%, formal dollarisation isn’t the stupidest idea suggested. It’s probably happening informally anyway, as it does in places like Turkey.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
I am highly sceptical that most children are born to people who have met less than two years before the baby's birth (because we are talking about 2022 data at the latest here). Of course I may be reflecting my own experience to an extent (I had been with my wife for 12 years and married for 4 years before the birth of our first child) and I don't have hard data on this. But still, most kids are not the result of a one night stand in a night club toilet. If there has been a fertility impact it will show up later, and the collapse post Covid is more likely related to economic uncertainty and the cost of living crisis.
Most kids may not be, but if any kids are and clubs are closed, then that's going to show in the figures.
And it doesn't have to be in the toilet, it can be from going home with someone after a night out. Or even going home with someone and starting a relationship resulting in pregnancy a few weeks later.
Most babies nowadays are born to unmarried couples and many married couples got married while already pregnant.
Being unmarried doesn't mean it's a random hookup. My wife and I were together for 8 years before we got married! I am not saying that Covid hasn't reduced socialising and hooking up or that it won't show up in fertility data, I am simply saying that that channel is unlikely to be a significant factor in data published up to now. Eg you mentioned 2020 data, whereas Covid cannot have had any material impact on births during 2020. It may well be a factor in later data, we will have to wait for someone to do the research.
1/6th of 2020 could be affect by Covid.
2021 would be more affected I completely agree, and it was. And its shown up in the data already with a new record low TFR.
TFR went up in 2021, though. I'm sorry, how could 1/6 of births in 2020 have been affected by Covid when lockdown started at the end of March? Please show your working!
1/3 of all births occur between the 34th and 38th week of pregnancy. Which is between 32 weeks and 36 weeks after sex since first 2 weeks of pregnancy is before sex (pregnancy is measured from date of last period, not date of conception).
That period from 20 March 2020 would show up in mid October to mid November 2020. Lets just round to just November and December.
Though your link does say that there was a rise in pregnancy in older groups, and a fall in younger groups, which would match a lockdown effect of already committed people having more babies, and fewer for not already committed people.
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.
I take “poor examples of journalism” means “stuff I disagree with”.
I don't think that's fair. In a more mature media environment we would have had far fewer grandstanding questions (designed, one assumes, to get on the 6 pm news), far fewer pathetic attempts to find loopholes ('but minister, what about a blind triathlete needing to train three times a day, with different guides for each event, while needing to visit the dentist - could they eat a sausage role as a "hot meal" in the pub while sitting on a part bench over 5 miles from home?')
Instead we had nitpicking over minutia rather than sensible, balanced reporting, in the main from political journalists, rather than the science or health journalists. (Not that I have much faith in the later - few of them seem to have serious science qualifications).
My brother and his wife are obviously the exceptions, they’d been married for two years but both running busy and stressful jobs with lots of travel. They managed to conceive a baby born in February 2021, so obviously the first couple of months of working from home saw them spend much more time with each other.
Good for them.
Yes that is the exception not the norm. 2021 had the lowest TFR ever, even lower than 2020. For fairly obvious reasons.
Telling married couples they can't leave the house may mean more pregnancies for married couples.
But telling unmarried people they can't leave the house means fewer engagements, marriages and fewer pregnancies for unmarried people.
And most pregnancies go to unmarried, not married, people.
Are you sure ?
Marriages & engagements, sure - they generally require booking a venue, upfront costs... conception - does err not.
Also -
Age distribution of usual residents living in a couple As cohabitation increased, the proportion of people living in couples who were married or in a civil partnership fell among all age groups aged under 85 years, when comparing 2011 with 2021.
The greatest change in the proportion of people living in a couple who were cohabiting was seen in those aged 20 to 34 years, most notably for those aged 25 to 29 years for whom the proportion increased from 56.5% in 2011 to 71.6% in 2021. (Source Gov)
Greatest type rise is unmarried cohabiting in the I guess "peak fertility" years. So I think your priors are a bit shaky.
Edit: And it generally takes longer than a month/cycle to successfully try for a baby so I'd assume 2020 births affected by Covid would be minimal.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
I am highly sceptical that most children are born to people who have met less than two years before the baby's birth (because we are talking about 2022 data at the latest here). Of course I may be reflecting my own experience to an extent (I had been with my wife for 12 years and married for 4 years before the birth of our first child) and I don't have hard data on this. But still, most kids are not the result of a one night stand in a night club toilet. If there has been a fertility impact it will show up later, and the collapse post Covid is more likely related to economic uncertainty and the cost of living crisis.
Most kids may not be, but if any kids are and clubs are closed, then that's going to show in the figures.
And it doesn't have to be in the toilet, it can be from going home with someone after a night out. Or even going home with someone and starting a relationship resulting in pregnancy a few weeks later.
Most babies nowadays are born to unmarried couples and many married couples got married while already pregnant.
Being unmarried doesn't mean it's a random hookup. My wife and I were together for 8 years before we got married! I am not saying that Covid hasn't reduced socialising and hooking up or that it won't show up in fertility data, I am simply saying that that channel is unlikely to be a significant factor in data published up to now. Eg you mentioned 2020 data, whereas Covid cannot have had any material impact on births during 2020. It may well be a factor in later data, we will have to wait for someone to do the research.
1/6th of 2020 could be affect by Covid.
2021 would be more affected I completely agree, and it was. And its shown up in the data already with a new record low TFR.
TFR went up in 2021, though. I'm sorry, how could 1/6 of births in 2020 have been affected by Covid when lockdown started at the end of March? Please show your working!
1/3 of all births occur between the 34th and 38th week of pregnancy. Which is between 32 weeks and 36 weeks after sex since first 2 weeks of pregnancy is before sex (pregnancy is measured from date of last period, not date of conception).
That period from 20 March 2020 would show up in mid October to mid November 2020. Lets just round to just November and December.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It is a ridiculously naïve view that only people with solid partners produce babies.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
I am highly sceptical that most children are born to people who have met less than two years before the baby's birth (because we are talking about 2022 data at the latest here). Of course I may be reflecting my own experience to an extent (I had been with my wife for 12 years and married for 4 years before the birth of our first child) and I don't have hard data on this. But still, most kids are not the result of a one night stand in a night club toilet. If there has been a fertility impact it will show up later, and the collapse post Covid is more likely related to economic uncertainty and the cost of living crisis.
Most kids may not be, but if any kids are and clubs are closed, then that's going to show in the figures.
And it doesn't have to be in the toilet, it can be from going home with someone after a night out. Or even going home with someone and starting a relationship resulting in pregnancy a few weeks later.
Most babies nowadays are born to unmarried couples and many married couples got married while already pregnant.
Being unmarried doesn't mean it's a random hookup. My wife and I were together for 8 years before we got married! I am not saying that Covid hasn't reduced socialising and hooking up or that it won't show up in fertility data, I am simply saying that that channel is unlikely to be a significant factor in data published up to now. Eg you mentioned 2020 data, whereas Covid cannot have had any material impact on births during 2020. It may well be a factor in later data, we will have to wait for someone to do the research.
1/6th of 2020 could be affect by Covid.
2021 would be more affected I completely agree, and it was. And its shown up in the data already with a new record low TFR.
According to the ONS 2021 simply reflected the long term trend of declining births.
As is traditional. The sun is finally coming out in Falmouth
…. But my older daughter is still determined to go to St Andrews or York. Ah well
St Andrews is a superb University and also a very pleasant place to stay. Bit windy at times but very pleasant. Usually scores well on student satisfaction.
As is traditional. The sun is finally coming out in Falmouth
…. But my older daughter is still determined to go to St Andrews or York. Ah well
Get her to look really really seriously at the reality of accommodation in both places. St A may be lovely but the undergraduates are all commuting from Dundee
As is traditional. The sun is finally coming out in Falmouth
…. But my older daughter is still determined to go to St Andrews or York. Ah well
Get her to look really really seriously at the reality of accommodation in both places. St A may be lovely but the undergraduates are all commuting from Dundee
Also no train station at St A (for quite a while anyway). It's easy enough to hop onto the bus to Leuchars for the train to Dundee or Edinburgh, but one wouldn't want to do such an interchange daily.
There is also a potential issue with the Wills and Kate factor - St A was colonised by socialites from all over the UK. I'm not sure how true that is now, but some years back (well before covid) a friend's daughter was very upset by the noise from the party animals in the halls of residence and the lack of discipline. I hope that was just bad luck.
"What is meant to change in 15 or 20 years?". - The change has already taken place: the ascendancy of pensioners to the dominant force in the British electorate. This will last until the Boomers start dying off in great numbers around 2035/45
"Why do you think pensioners are scared of fighting given it won't involve them anyway?" - Pensioners are scared of everything: querulousness and caution is a characteristic of the old. They will lend great verbal support and may even support minor military commitment - hence "performative violence" - but the minute it gets serious and endangers their pensions they will recoil.
I don't think the boomer generation is particularly distinctive, my grandparents and parents had much the same qualities, so I don't think there's much reason to hope for a sea change when Gen X gets to the front of the pension queue. I also think your cautious elderly meme is out of date. I'm in my 60s and ride downhill mountain bikes among other life threatening pursuits. My father would probably have thought himself past any pursuit beyond dog walking at this age, now it's entirely commonplace
suggests you have this back to front anyway, the under 34s are more likely to be lukewarm about Ukraine than elderly Tories.
Who is more likely to be conscripted or (on current Tory policy) to pay the tax cost?
Chances of conscription exactly the same in each case, viz zero, which is why this you oldies will run at the first whiff of cordite bullshit is bullshit (even if @viewcode is not as close to any likely upper age limit as I suspect he is). Tax wise everyone would suffer and that's anyway a second order consideration Vs nuclear war.
Anyone who is worried about the UK’s fertility levels should be focusing on housing costs before anything else (as I know you are, Bart).
100% absolutely agreed!
Lockdown is history now anyway, so would be winding out of the effects now already.
Though there will be some [small] lagging effects still.
I attended a wedding a few weeks ago that was years in the planning, it was delayed as a knock on effect from Covid - the wedding venues were booked for longer than normal from those delaying due to Covid, so they waited longer too for their wedding. Now that they're married, the bride was not making any secret of the fact that they'd like children soon, but they weren't going to try until married. Still that's going to be a very edge case.
Housing now is mammothly more of an issue, by an order of magnitude, than lockdown which is history 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.
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.
I take “poor examples of journalism” means “stuff I disagree with”.
Not at all. To take the two examples I gave:
1. The political journalists at the daily press conferences, were asking inane questions to either try and catch out the minister, to try and find loopholes in his or her statement, but mostly to get the soundbite for their own programme by asking when the minister stopped beating his wife. The major news organisations should have swapped out political hacks for people who actually understood the subject matter at hand.
2. “Independent SAGE”, let’s start with the name, which caused immense confusion between those actually advising the government and those freelancing their own agenda, then move on to the relatively extreme (on all sides), or at least contrary, viewpoints of most of these figures, which mostly went unchallenged by the journalists who had little knowledge of the subject themselves. So you had the SAGE advisor on the platform with the minister saying we should do X, and the “SAGE advisor” on the news immediately afterwards, saying the opposite.
I concur that the “Independent SAGE” name was perhaps poorly chosen, but that doesn’t mean the journalism covering what they were saying was poor.
In (1), you want more from “people who actually understood the subject matter at hand”. Well, Independent SAGE were a group of “people who actually understood the subject matter at hand”. I don’t see how we satisfy what you want in (1) without that same risk of confusion that you complain about under (2), that is different experts saying opposite things.
Edit: And it generally takes longer than a month/cycle to successfully try for a baby so I'd assume 2020 births affected by Covid would be minimal.
That attitude results in a lot of accidental pregnancies. The "it only happened once", it only takes once. It only takes one cycle to accidentally get a baby.
Most couples without fertility issues will get pregnant within three cycles.
Javier Milei, who wants to abolish the central bank and adopt the U.S. dollar as Argentina’s currency, is now the front-runner in the fall general election.
Not big on moderation, the argentines.
There’s a thread of Dollarisation in Latin America as a way to get out of the endless rounds of depreciation of currency as governments try and spend themselves rich.
Kinda related to the enthusiasm is some countries for the Euro, precisely because people didn’t trust their own country with the currency - subcontracting currency management to the Germans instead.
It ebbs and flows.
At the moment, it will be popular in Argentina because of the disastrous recent behaviour of the financial system there.
Of course, bolting your economy to another countries currency (and economy)!has some pretty big downsides.
At least Argentina has done its Greek Crisis first - and they won’t be able to borrow much again for a long time.
Javier Milei, who wants to abolish the central bank and adopt the U.S. dollar as Argentina’s currency, is now the front-runner in the fall general election.
Not big on moderation, the argentines.
There’s a thread of Dollarisation in Latin America as a way to get out of the endless rounds of depreciation of currency as governments try and spend themselves rich.
Kinda related to the enthusiasm is some countries for the Euro, precisely because people didn’t trust their own country with the currency - subcontracting currency management to the Germans instead.
It ebbs and flows.
At the moment, it will be popular in Argentina because of the disastrous recent behaviour of the financial system there.
Of course, bolting your economy to another countries currency (and economy)!has some pretty big downsides.
At least Argentina has done its Greek Crisis first - and they won’t be able to borrow much again for a long time.
Today I learned what Rocky's (the boxer) surname is.
As is traditional. The sun is finally coming out in Falmouth
…. But my older daughter is still determined to go to St Andrews or York. Ah well
Get her to look really really seriously at the reality of accommodation in both places. St A may be lovely but the undergraduates are all commuting from Dundee
Just told her. Now she’s grumpy
They have built a lot more undergraduate accommodation on the edge of St Andrews in the last 3 or 4 years. It is modern block but it is handy for the campus. I don't think many commute from Dundee now. Indeed one of my pal's sons in the village stayed in student accommodation throughout his degree even although he had a car.
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
I think it's highly implausible that restrictions on mobility during Covid account for a reduced birth rate, since the time between going out and meeting somebody and having a child is, for most people, rather longer than the time that has elapsed since March 2020. If anything, since having sex with your partner was one of the few fun activities that one could indulge in during lockdown, you'd think it might have produced a baby boom. More generally, surely having kids is something people choose to do when they are ready to get boring and stop partying. Anyone who thinks they are going to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle with a baby to look after is living in a dream world.
It requires a level of self-sacrifice and duty as well.
Narcissism is quite well-established in Western culture now, and arguably it's got worse over the last 15 years, and plenty of people just don't see anything in it for them but downsides.
As we are posting photos of booze by the beach, here is mine from last year. Can you guess where it is? Clue: it's a short walk from what is claimed to be the smallest graveyard in the British Isles.
As we are posting photos of booze by the beach, here is mine from last year. Can you guess where it is? Clue: it's a short walk from what is claimed to be the smallest graveyard in the British Isles.
A note on the SPD''s "proposal" to ban the AfD that was flagged in the Telegraph piece that HYUFD posted last night. I read the piece and looked into it a bit, because something didn't quite sound right, and it turns out that only the Constitutional Court can ban a party. The Government would have to apply, as they did last year to allow surveillance of the 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 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.
I take “poor examples of journalism” means “stuff I disagree with”.
Not at all. To take the two examples I gave:
1. The political journalists at the daily press conferences, were asking inane questions to either try and catch out the minister, to try and find loopholes in his or her statement, but mostly to get the soundbite for their own programme by asking when the minister stopped beating his wife. The major news organisations should have swapped out political hacks for people who actually understood the subject matter at hand.
2. “Independent SAGE”, let’s start with the name, which caused immense confusion between those actually advising the government and those freelancing their own agenda, then move on to the relatively extreme (on all sides), or at least contrary, viewpoints of most of these figures, which mostly went unchallenged by the journalists who had little knowledge of the subject themselves. So you had the SAGE advisor on the platform with the minister saying we should do X, and the “SAGE advisor” on the news immediately afterwards, saying the opposite.
I concur that the “Independent SAGE” name was perhaps poorly chosen, but that doesn’t mean the journalism covering what they were saying was poor.
In (1), you want more from “people who actually understood the subject matter at hand”. Well, Independent SAGE were a group of “people who actually understood the subject matter at hand”. I don’t see how we satisfy what you want in (1) without that same risk of confusion that you complain about under (2), that is different experts saying opposite things.
Many of “Independent SAGE” were self-appointed “experts”, introduced as “Dr x or Prof Y”, but with qualifications totally unrelated to epidemiology or anything similar, allowed to spout bollocks bordering on conspiracy theory with no pushback from the interviewer, because the interviewers themselves had no idea about the subject and seemingly little interest in educating themselves.
It’s a bit like when there’s a plane crash, and there’s immediately a bunch of talking heads on the TV who clearly have barely any knowledge of aviation, but can do a passable impression, to the uninformed, of someone who does. But every day, for a year and a half.
Comments
And even if it doesn't, its going to take two decades before these lower figures start to reflect in missing adults. So it might be more of an issue for 2040s China.
Lawyers I’ve talked to seem to think that helping their client is the only goal. If that causes societal fallout, not their problem. I’d argue that while you owe a duty to your client first, dealing with the fallout of novel ruling is required.
You can draw a straight line through all the dots from the Hook Hand comedy to the Home Sec cancelling nationality at the stroke of the pen, for example.
Declare that twenty somethings can use their age to diminish legal responsibility - that will have some fun reactions down the line.
The question is not just the rate (TFR = total fertility rate = number of children per woman), it's the number. If there aren't enough pre-menopausal women to have babies, then the TFR isn't the issue. A one-child policy that prioritised men has led to its obvious conclusion.
If Zeihan is right, the numbers are... dramatic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MSV2bh48MA
There’s a specific problem in California with the R101 and I5, which are massive car parks for most of the day, as the population has expanded by several times since the roads were built, and there’s almost no alternative to the car except for the woefully inadequate BART around San Fran. Imagine if London had the Manchester Tram of about 150k capacity per day, and no Underground.
They’ve been trying for years to build a high-speed railway from LA to SF, 400 miles or so, but it’s been a total failure mostly of politics. If you thought HS2 was running late, over budget, and short of the original scope…
Britain's population might be a small fraction of China's population, but it's a slightly larger fraction this year than it was last year. That trend is going to accelerate. It will take a while for people to get their heads around that and its implications.
Touring with a top tier band sounds like a good way to speed (ha) run through the “quantity” phase of your life.
Americans love an American with an English accent, and don't forget he is catnip to American women (re: Jennifer Arcuri).
It would have been a done deal.
I think it's to do with the "transport as a business" model, rather than a public service. No subsidies.
Then you have anti-monopolistic legislation, which means that even if public transport can be made profitable, it's easily broken up into incoherent local networks.
Indeed even many babies born into married couples are born a few months after a wedding which was planned very rapidly (ie post-conception).
Which is why fertility collapsed during lockdown, it didn't boom.
The time from meeting someone, to them being pregnant, can be measured in hours. Or days, or weeks. That was covered by lockdown.
From 1974 to 2019 the TFR was in the range of above 1.6 to less than 2.0
2020 was the first time ever TFR fell below 1.6
Your support for UK boots on the ground looks pretty civilianist to me unless you are in fact in HM forces. Why do you think pensioners are scared of fighting given it won't involve them anyway? And have you even signed up to the TA to prepare for the summons aux armes?
And it doesn't have to be in the toilet, it can be from going home with someone after a night out. Or even going home with someone and starting a relationship resulting in pregnancy a few weeks later.
Most babies nowadays are born to unmarried couples and many married couples got married while already pregnant.
The is one of them.
"Why do you think pensioners are scared of fighting given it won't involve them anyway?" - Pensioners are scared of everything: querulousness and caution is a characteristic of the old. They will lend great verbal support and may even support minor military commitment - hence "performative violence" - but the minute it gets serious and endangers their pensions they will recoil.
9 months is from last period, not sex, and many babies don't go to term.
I am not saying that Covid hasn't reduced socialising and hooking up or that it won't show up in fertility data, I am simply saying that that channel is unlikely to be a significant factor in data published up to now. Eg you mentioned 2020 data, whereas Covid cannot have had any material impact on births during 2020. It may well be a factor in later data, we will have to wait for someone to do the research.
Yes that is the exception not the norm. 2021 had the lowest TFR ever, even lower than 2020. For fairly obvious reasons.
Telling married couples they can't leave the house may mean more pregnancies for married couples.
But telling unmarried people they can't leave the house means fewer engagements, marriages and fewer pregnancies for unmarried people.
And most pregnancies go to unmarried, not married, people.
2021 would be more affected I completely agree, and it was. And its shown up in the data already with a new record low TFR.
https://media.istockphoto.com/id/956214628/photo/manhattan-kansas.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=7kaoQWnbDjFYcM3CtInKX0mNjYAkkRJ8TBh20E--44w=
Could abortions have increased in 2020?
The fall you cited was a steady line from 1.9ish in 2010 to 1.6ish in 2019. If anything, there was an increase in 2021, which is where you would see the lockdown effects;
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2021
Much more likely to be young people feeling too broke to take on the responsibility for kids.
1. The political journalists at the daily press conferences, were asking inane questions to either try and catch out the minister, to try and find loopholes in his or her statement, but mostly to get the soundbite for their own programme by asking when the minister stopped beating his wife. The major news organisations should have swapped out political hacks for people who actually understood the subject matter at hand.
2. “Independent SAGE”, let’s start with the name, which caused immense confusion between those actually advising the government and those freelancing their own agenda, then move on to the relatively extreme (on all sides), or at least contrary, viewpoints of most of these figures, which mostly went unchallenged by the journalists who had little knowledge of the subject themselves. So you had the SAGE advisor on the platform with the minister saying we should do X, and the “SAGE advisor” on the news immediately afterwards, saying the opposite.
But its not just about preventing hookups; for people putting off pregnancy until after marriage (we deliberately did), then Covid lockdowns also put off a lot of marriages, as I know many people postponed their wedding until post-Covid.
Delaying marriages, means delaying pregnancy for many but not all people.
The latest data we have are for 2021. The ONS says "There were 624,828 live births in England and Wales in 2021, an increase of 1.8% from 613,936 in 2020, but still below the 2019 figure (640,370); 2021 remains in line with the long-term trend of decreasing live births seen before the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic."
So births went up by almost 2% in the year that should have been most affected by Covid.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1679436/shocker-poll-UK-ukraine-young-brits-ont
suggests you have this back to front anyway, the under 34s are more likely to be lukewarm about Ukraine than elderly Tories.
…. But my older daughter is still determined to go to St Andrews or York. Ah well
I'm sorry, how could 1/6 of births in 2020 have been affected by Covid when lockdown started at the end of March? Please show your working!
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/13/hunter-biden-attorney-special-counsel-00110990
..“I’m confident that if this prosecutor has done what has been done for the last five years, then the only conclusion can be what the conclusion was on July 26th,” Lowell said. “There’s no new evidence to be found.”
“People should keep in mind,” Lowell said, “that while Mr. Weiss’ title changed last week, he’s the same person he’s been for the last five years. He’s a Republican U.S. attorney appointed by a Republican president and attorney general who had career prosecutors working this case for five years looking at every transaction that Hunter was involved in. … if anything changes from his conclusion, which was two tax misdemeanors and a diverted gun charge, the question should be asked, what infected the process that was not the facts in the law?”..
That TFR fell doesn’t prove that lockdown was responsible given alternate possible explanations. Maybe people in established couples were, concerned about the future, deliberately not or postponing getting pregnant.
Anecdotally, I know several couples for whom lockdown accelerated their relationships. Rather than just “dating”, they moved in together and found that worked. One friend is now pregnant. Without that push to the relationship, I suspect she wouldn’t be. Then again, I also know of at least one divorce brought on by lockdown! Complex social phenomena are complex.
Anyway, the bigger point is that the blip of the pandemic’s effect on fertility will, I suggest, be small compared to those big, long-term trends. Anyone who is worried about the UK’s fertility levels should be focusing on housing costs before anything else (as I know you are, Bart).
https://archive.is/MtlwO
Javier Milei, who wants to abolish the central bank and adopt the U.S. dollar as Argentina’s currency, is now the front-runner in the fall general election.
Not big on moderation, the argentines.
That period from 20 March 2020 would show up in mid October to mid November 2020. Lets just round to just November and December.
As for TFR going up in 2021, that's weird though, and maybe I was wrong then. I was looking at Wikipedia data which shows TFR going down in 2021, not up - with this source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/datasets/birthcharacteristicsinenglandandwales
Though your link does say that there was a rise in pregnancy in older groups, and a fall in younger groups, which would match a lockdown effect of already committed people having more babies, and fewer for not already committed people.
Instead we had nitpicking over minutia rather than sensible, balanced reporting, in the main from political journalists, rather than the science or health journalists. (Not that I have much faith in the later - few of them seem to have serious science qualifications).
Marriages & engagements, sure - they generally require booking a venue, upfront costs... conception - does err not.
Also -
Age distribution of usual residents living in a couple
As cohabitation increased, the proportion of people living in couples who were married or in a civil partnership fell among all age groups aged under 85 years, when comparing 2011 with 2021.
The greatest change in the proportion of people living in a couple who were cohabiting was seen in those aged 20 to 34 years, most notably for those aged 25 to 29 years for whom the proportion increased from 56.5% in 2011 to 71.6% in 2021. (Source Gov)
Greatest type rise is unmarried cohabiting in the I guess "peak fertility" years. So I think your priors are a bit shaky.
Edit: And it generally takes longer than a month/cycle to successfully try for a baby so I'd assume 2020 births affected by Covid would be minimal.
1.03 pm
There is also a potential issue with the Wills and Kate factor - St A was colonised by socialites from all over the UK. I'm not sure how true that is now, but some years back (well before covid) a friend's daughter was very upset by the noise from the party animals in the halls of residence and the lack of discipline. I hope that was just bad luck.
Lockdown is history now anyway, so would be winding out of the effects now already.
Though there will be some [small] lagging effects still.
I attended a wedding a few weeks ago that was years in the planning, it was delayed as a knock on effect from Covid - the wedding venues were booked for longer than normal from those delaying due to Covid, so they waited longer too for their wedding. Now that they're married, the bride was not making any secret of the fact that they'd like children soon, but they weren't going to try until married. Still that's going to be a very edge case.
Housing now is mammothly more of an issue, by an order of magnitude, than lockdown which is history now.
In (1), you want more from “people who actually understood the subject matter at hand”. Well, Independent SAGE were a group of “people who actually understood the subject matter at hand”. I don’t see how we satisfy what you want in (1) without that same risk of confusion that you complain about under (2), that is different experts saying opposite things.
Most couples without fertility issues will get pregnant within three cycles.
Kinda related to the enthusiasm is some countries for the Euro, precisely because people didn’t trust their own country with the currency - subcontracting currency management to the Germans instead.
It ebbs and flows.
At the moment, it will be popular in Argentina because of the disastrous recent behaviour of the financial system there.
Of course, bolting your economy to another countries currency (and economy)!has some pretty big downsides.
At least Argentina has done its Greek Crisis first - and they won’t be able to borrow much again for a long time.
Narcissism is quite well-established in Western culture now, and arguably it's got worse over the last 15 years, and plenty of people just don't see anything in it for them but downsides.
Can you guess where it is? Clue: it's a short walk from what is claimed to be the smallest graveyard in the British Isles.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/08/german-court-rules-far-right-afd-party-a-suspected-threat-to-democracy
The Tele piece was really reporting on "what if" scenarios being debated in Germany, almost as theoretical as us rejoining the EU.
It’s a bit like when there’s a plane crash, and there’s immediately a bunch of talking heads on the TV who clearly have barely any knowledge of aviation, but can do a passable impression, to the uninformed, of someone who does. But every day, for a year and a half.