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.
The 2022 birth data is out shortly
Release date: 9 August 2022 Next release: July to August 2023 (provisional)
Here's the covid timeline as it's easy to misremember it.
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.
Indeed. In the Grand Bazaar earlier this year traders were happier to see our finest British Euros rather than Turkish Lira.
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
I think most accidental pregnancies arise from the pill not working (or not being taken properly or at the wrong point so "on the pill" isn't really biologically true at the point its declared).
I think undertaking "the activity" [I'm at work] for enjoyment versus for procreation is now largely disconnected, and quite straightforward to control. C0nd0ms are pretty unpopular though and AFAIK rarely worn from my conversations, despite what is put out there.
Sometimes, couples who get accidentally pregnant just decide to run with it but economics, in my experience, is almost always a strong factor.
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.
All our Turkish contracts are in Euros. Local engineer spend (A tiny fraction of the contract value) for trips is still done in Turkish lira.
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.
I suppose at least on PB there is some pushback when self-appointed “experts” spout bollocks.
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.
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.
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.
I suppose at least on PB there is some pushback when self-appointed “experts” spout bollocks.
Indeed. There is even evidence of {drum roll} learning.
Note that Prof. Peston FRS DipSHit never admitted to learning everything new. He always couched his insights as The Brilliant Professor Asking The Question That No Else Had. And then giving his own answer.
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.
I suppose at least on PB there is some pushback when self-appointed “experts” spout bollocks.
Indeed. This forum is way better than most, at calling out either inadvertent or deliberate untruth. If I start spouting bollocks, someone will quickly tell me I’m spouting bollocks.
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.
The key point is “Chinese made” *not* “Chinese”
It’s been known for a while that *private* Chinese firms are supplying drones to Russia in breach of sanctions. The government is turning a blind eye to it as it provides a fig leaf that allows them to play both sides.
It’s one of a number of items that is on the regular agenda but never quite at the top of the list.
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.
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.
Assuming no seasonality, surely about 25% were conceived in 2020?
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.
I would make it perhaps 11% of births in 2020 occurred with conception after 20th March, then. What % of births are the result of a one night stand? No more than 1% I would guess given availability of contraception and abortion. And so you are looking at a 0.1% effect maximum, assuming no offset from people being stuck at home with nothing else to do. It just doesn't stack up, especially as the data show no change in the trend between 2019 and 2020 (and a recovery in births in 2021).
"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.
The characteristics of the individual are not important, it's the characteristics and size of the group that matters, both in absolute and relative terms. There are now lots of pensioners in terms of absolute numbers, and they outweigh every other group in terms of relative numbers. These things were not true for Daddy and Granddaddy Miklosvar. A polity built of the old will only send a few of (other people's) children to war and will not pay enough tax to buy the tanks and ships and planes they need to get them there to fight. Old people consume, not produce. It's not a population profile that builds an army.
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.
About one-third of births in the UK weren't the result of planned pregnancies. Some of these will be in established relationships, but I think that's probably a higher rate then you assume?
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
What will she be studying ?
Geography 🤷♂️
Thanks for the advice @DavidL - she’s cheered up now
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
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.
Assuming no seasonality, surely about 25% were conceived in 2020?
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).
I think we could have better reporting of scientific issues, including pandemics. I spoke to the press and TV during the pandemic. The biggest challenge I encountered was the media’s desire to reduce everything to a short soundbite.
Another problem that came up was setting up appearances as a debate. I remember one radio interview where I thought I was going to be talking about something but I was ambushed by there being a second interviewee. The radio station thought I’d be pro-restrictions and had invited the owner of G.A.Y., IIRC, who they thought would be anti-restrictions. Said nightclub owner was, in fact, a delight and we agreed on everything, to the presenter’s clear surprise.
However, in the particular case of Sandpit’s comment, I suggest that Sandpit, as well as any general concerns about science reporting, was actually complaining about viewpoints he didn’t agree with getting airtime.
I think most accidental pregnancies arise from the pill not working (or not being taken properly or at the wrong point so "on the pill" isn't really biologically true at the point its declared).
I think undertaking "the activity" [I'm at work] for enjoyment versus for procreation is now largely disconnected, and quite straightforward to control. C0nd0ms are pretty unpopular though and AFAIK rarely worn from my conversations, despite what is put out there.
Sometimes, couples who get accidentally pregnant just decide to run with it but economics, in my experience, is almost always a strong factor.
Oh f***! I've accidentally tuned into Mumsnet again.
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.
I think it depended very much on whether the couple were living together on their own, or whether they were living with children and/or parents. Those living on the own had a lot of fun, those living with others not so much.
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.
About one-third of births in the UK weren't the result of planned pregnancies. Some of these will be in established relationships, but I think that's probably a higher rate then you assume?
Indeed, I am the result of an unplanned pregnancy - parents married for 8 years. We are talking one night stands though, or a casual relationship that started in a pub or nightclub a few weeks prior to conception. I don't see those being >1% of the total.
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.
Within three cycles? But you were recently telling us that we should stop encouraging cycling and support cars more.
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).
I think we could have better reporting of scientific issues, including pandemics. I spoke to the press and TV during the pandemic. The biggest challenge I encountered was the media’s desire to reduce everything to a short soundbite.
Another problem that came up was setting up appearances as a debate. I remember one radio interview where I thought I was going to be talking about something but I was ambushed by there being a second interviewee. The radio station thought I’d be pro-restrictions and had invited the owner of G.A.Y., IIRC, who they thought would be anti-restrictions. Said nightclub owner was, in fact, a delight and we agreed on everything, to the presenter’s clear surprise.
However, in the particular case of Sandpit’s comment, I suggest that Sandpit, as well as any general concerns about science reporting, was actually complaining about viewpoints he didn’t agree with getting airtime.
First two paragraphs, agree entirely.
Third paragraph is bollocks. I’m not complaining about certain viewpoints getting airtime, I’m complaining about the total lack of challenge to many of the viewpoints put forward, the lack of understanding of the subject matter by journalists, and the introduction of people as “experts” who were not experts in the field they were discussing.
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.
Agreed, it's sad because having children is a great source of joy (as long as you can afford to give them a decent life).
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
Haven't you told her to go to Oxbridge? Ok, but if she is determined to go lower, may I recommend York? Very pretty, reasonable cost, and can get to That London in two-and-a-bit hours. That way she can still see her old dad occasionally. St Andrews is miles from anywhere and all the marry-into-royalty options have gone.
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
What will she be studying ?
Geography 🤷♂️
Thanks for the advice @DavidL - she’s cheered up now
One of my nieces went there. Enjoyed it. So far neither of her children have gone there, though. One’s gone to Durham, the other has yet to have to decide.
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
I grew up in St Andrews and can't understand why anyone would voluntarily spend four years of their youth there, but each to their own.
My wife did an undergrad degree there. She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
I grew up in a house with no central heating, so yes.
What’s the best destination for a child’s university in terms of the combination of nice area to visit, sufficiently far flung from the SE, and academically prestigious (in the UK)?
This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama
I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…
Oh dear
He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it
Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.
Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.
Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.
We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.
There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.
There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.
I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.
One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile
When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin
Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.
Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.
Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.
He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
I think it’s fair to say that, on foreign policy at least, the last few Presidents have all made plenty of good calls and plenty of bad calls.
I'm struggling to think of the plenty of good calls on foreign policy that Trump made.
He was very weak on Russia. He was very weak on China. He signed the agreement with the Taliban to pull out of Afghanistan. He pulled out of TPP which was designed to stand up to China and strengthen American influence in the Pacific. He prevaricated over and undermined NATO.
On the positives: He was right that other NATO countries needed to step up defence spending.
The two that spring to mind were the decision to leave Afghanistan, and the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Gulf states.
I think both Trump and Biden have been good on China, and that Trump’s warning to Europe about defence spending was correct. The focus of US defence policy is definitely going to move away fro NATO and towards China in the future, no matter who is the next President.
Obama began the pivot in foreign policy towards confronting China. Trump rolled that back by abandoning TPP (which was specifically designed with China in mind) and a policy of isolationism that weakened American influence in the Pacific and emboldened China.
Trump was the polar opposite of talk softly and carry a big stick, he was more talk loudly while putting the stick down and walking away.
Isolationism will continue as a thread in American politics. Its dramatic drop in reliance on Middle East oil due to fracking and its repositioning towards producing goods domestically in preference to importing from abroad will ensure that
As for China, its demography problem (everybody is old) will result in it not being a problem about a decade's time as its population heads downwards.
Despite the one child policy, China's total fertility rate has been about 1.5, comparable to many European nations.
China is going to be a problem for decades to come. More than Russia.
I get a recent TFR for China of 1.28
The rapid decline of China's population will be one of the major themes of the rest of the century.
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.
Assuming no seasonality, surely about 25% were conceived in 2020?
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
What will she be studying ?
Geography 🤷♂️
Thanks for the advice @DavidL - she’s cheered up now
One of my nieces went there. Enjoyed it. So far neither of her children have gone there, though. One’s gone to Durham, the other has yet to have to decide.
Durham - another place where rent will swallow more than the maximum student loan and there are no local jobs because most locals don't like Students (for there are now way too many of them)..
It's also incredibly rah-y. That may not be a problem for many people but a lot of working class students hate the place within weeks...
The reference to British isles implies one of those 3 places that isn’t actually Britain but gets free military protection and benefits from multinational tax avoidance.
Given nobody in their right mind would go to the IoM in August, and Jersey would be too obvious, I’m saying Guernsey.
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.
My parents just sold their house to a terribly posh woman from London who bought it for her daughter to live in while she is at Uni in St Andrews. Students have taken over much of the accommodation in the town. I shouldn't be too negative about St Andrews, as others have noted it is rated highly for student satisfaction and is a beautiful town with a unique character. I was sad to see my folks move out.
The reference to British isles implies one of those 3 places that isn’t actually Britain but gets free military protection and benefits from multinational tax avoidance.
Given nobody in their right mind would go to the IoM in August, and Jersey would be too obvious, I’m saying Guernsey.
The reference to British isles implies one of those 3 places that isn’t actually Britain but gets free military protection and benefits from multinational tax avoidance.
Given nobody in their right mind would go to the IoM in August, and Jersey would be too obvious, I’m saying Guernsey.
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.
I haven’t gone through the full list of Independent SAGE members, but off hand I can’t think of any who weren’t experts in relevant subjects. I think that’s a baseless accusation.
I didn’t agree with much Indie SAGE said, but I can’t think of anything that was “bordering on conspiracy theory”. Not when I compare it to the actual conspiracy theories, some of which get posted here rather too often, that COVID was no worse than flu, that the vaccines don’t work, that mask wearing is part of a New World Order, etc. For example, we’ve had claims here that there is a “conspiracy of silence” over COVID!
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
I grew up in St Andrews and can't understand why anyone would voluntarily spend four years of their youth there, but each to their own.
My wife did an undergrad degree there. She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
I grew up in a house with no central heating, so yes.
What’s the best destination for a child’s university in terms of the combination of nice area to visit, sufficiently far flung from the SE, and academically prestigious (in the UK)?
Exeter? Durham? Edinburgh?
York. Or Leeds or Manchester if s/he likes the big city buzz. All on fast train routes to London.
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
I grew up in St Andrews and can't understand why anyone would voluntarily spend four years of their youth there, but each to their own.
My wife did an undergrad degree there. She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
I grew up in a house with no central heating, so yes.
What’s the best destination for a child’s university in terms of the combination of nice area to visit, sufficiently far flung from the SE, and academically prestigious (in the UK)?
Exeter? Durham? Edinburgh?
Edinburgh, Glasgow both have finance problems due to how the Scottish Government are funding them...
I wouldn't go for Durham for the reasons I've outlined below. So Lancaster, York, Newcastle?
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.
About one-third of births in the UK weren't the result of planned pregnancies. Some of these will be in established relationships, but I think that's probably a higher rate then you assume?
Indeed, I am the result of an unplanned pregnancy - parents married for 8 years. We are talking one night stands though, or a casual relationship that started in a pub or nightclub a few weeks prior to conception. I don't see those being >1% of the total.
I do. I see it being much, much more than that.
Can't find any data but a third to 40% of births being unplanned seems to be the estimate. Of which I'd think maybe half of those would be what we are talking about. So 1/6 to 1/5 of all 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
I grew up in St Andrews and can't understand why anyone would voluntarily spend four years of their youth there, but each to their own.
My wife did an undergrad degree there. She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
I grew up in a house with no central heating, so yes.
What’s the best destination for a child’s university in terms of the combination of nice area to visit, sufficiently far flung from the SE, and academically prestigious (in the UK)?
Exeter? Durham? Edinburgh?
York. Or Leeds or Manchester if s/he likes the big city buzz. All on fast train routes to London.
Wouldn't be rushing to Leeds - it's remarkable how many Leeds Uni courses are what Leeds Beckett were offering 2 years ago - and at least Beckett and Trinity have full time lecturers...
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
What will she be studying ?
Geography 🤷♂️
Thanks for the advice @DavidL - she’s cheered up now
One of my nieces went there. Enjoyed it. So far neither of her children have gone there, though. One’s gone to Durham, the other has yet to have to decide.
Durham - another place where rent will swallow more than the maximum student loan and there are no local jobs because most locals don't like Students (for there are now way too many of them)..
It's also incredibly rah-y. That may not be a problem for many people but a lot of working class students hate the place within weeks...
Great Uncle Cole’s views did not contribute to the discussion, but he suspects your last sentence may have contributed to the decision.
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.
My parents just sold their house to a terribly posh woman from London who bought it for her daughter to live in while she is at Uni in St Andrews. Students have taken over much of the accommodation in the town. I shouldn't be too negative about St Andrews, as others have noted it is rated highly for student satisfaction and is a beautiful town with a unique character. I was sad to see my folks move out.
One of my good friends has a family flat there, now occupied by his daughter and 2 friends providing her with both accommodation and a source of income. Its very nice if you have a bit of capital to set it up.
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
I grew up in St Andrews and can't understand why anyone would voluntarily spend four years of their youth there, but each to their own.
My wife did an undergrad degree there. She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
I grew up in a house with no central heating, so yes.
What’s the best destination for a child’s university in terms of the combination of nice area to visit, sufficiently far flung from the SE, and academically prestigious (in the UK)?
Exeter? Durham? Edinburgh?
... Leeds...if s/he likes the big city buzz.
I'm sorry, but I did laugh. Leeds has many advantages but "big city buzz" is not 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.
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.
About one-third of births in the UK weren't the result of planned pregnancies. Some of these will be in established relationships, but I think that's probably a higher rate then you assume?
Indeed, I am the result of an unplanned pregnancy - parents married for 8 years. We are talking one night stands though, or a casual relationship that started in a pub or nightclub a few weeks prior to conception. I don't see those being >1% of the total.
I do. I see it being much, much more than that.
Can't find any data but a third to 40% of births being unplanned seems to be the estimate. Of which I'd think maybe half of those would be what we are talking about. So 1/6 to 1/5 of all births.
You’d think it was higher if you frequented genealogy websites!
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.
My parents just sold their house to a terribly posh woman from London who bought it for her daughter to live in while she is at Uni in St Andrews. Students have taken over much of the accommodation in the town. I shouldn't be too negative about St Andrews, as others have noted it is rated highly for student satisfaction and is a beautiful town with a unique character. I was sad to see my folks move out.
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
What will she be studying ?
Geography 🤷♂️
Thanks for the advice @DavidL - she’s cheered up now
Or, as the late, great Pratchett called it, "physics with a few trees stuck in it.".
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.
Well that's a slam dunk then...
Come on - was it in the Gruaniad? I don't think its any of our business how many kids he has. I have no idea how many Starmer, Drakeford, Sawar etc have.
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
I grew up in St Andrews and can't understand why anyone would voluntarily spend four years of their youth there, but each to their own.
My wife did an undergrad degree there. She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
I grew up in a house with no central heating, so yes.
What’s the best destination for a child’s university in terms of the combination of nice area to visit, sufficiently far flung from the SE, and academically prestigious (in the UK)?
Exeter? Durham? Edinburgh?
York. Or Leeds or Manchester if s/he likes the big city buzz. All on fast train routes to London.
York and Leeds are - Manchester not so much given the mess Aventa have made of the WCML...
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.
My parents just sold their house to a terribly posh woman from London who bought it for her daughter to live in while she is at Uni in St Andrews. Students have taken over much of the accommodation in the town. I shouldn't be too negative about St Andrews, as others have noted it is rated highly for student satisfaction and is a beautiful town with a unique character. I was sad to see my folks move out.
One of my good friends has a family flat there, now occupied by his daughter and 2 friends providing her with both accommodation and a source of income. Its very nice if you have a bit of capital to set it up.
Exactly what a friend of mine has done. His son graduated over 10 years ago but he's still got it let out to students.
Must be Lundy, if it's reasonably warm. Everything else has been taken, and I don't think Skomer and Skokholm have nearly enough people to even have a graveyard.
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
I grew up in St Andrews and can't understand why anyone would voluntarily spend four years of their youth there, but each to their own.
My wife did an undergrad degree there. She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
I grew up in a house with no central heating, so yes.
What’s the best destination for a child’s university in terms of the combination of nice area to visit, sufficiently far flung from the SE, and academically prestigious (in the UK)?
Exeter? Durham? Edinburgh?
... Leeds...if s/he likes the big city buzz.
I'm sorry, but I did laugh. Leeds has many advantages but "big city buzz" is not one of them.
Not a massively fashionable suggestion, but I'd propose the choice I made 30 years ago: Sheffield. Off the top of my head, it's the only Russell group university where you can live walking distance both from your university and from a national park. Sheffield students in my day tended to be dressed more than average in walking boots and fleeces.
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.
My parents just sold their house to a terribly posh woman from London who bought it for her daughter to live in while she is at Uni in St Andrews. Students have taken over much of the accommodation in the town. I shouldn't be too negative about St Andrews, as others have noted it is rated highly for student satisfaction and is a beautiful town with a unique character. I was sad to see my folks move out.
One of my good friends has a family flat there, now occupied by his daughter and 2 friends providing her with both accommodation and a source of income. Its very nice if you have a bit of capital to set it up.
Exactly what a friend of mine has done. His son graduated over 10 years ago but he's still got it let out to students.
Strangely, a chap I know, who was a student there about 20 years back, noted recently that the house he’d stayed in as a student had just sold for silly money. Not a millions miles from London prices.
Shame about the plastic glass, but an idyllic day. Harbour wall from about 1500.
Clovelly?
Indeed. From memory there are a couple of other old stone-built harbours nearby.
Apparently rail and road connections to this part of north devon were so poor that the main freight route to that part of the world was boats from south Wales up until the end of the 19th century.
Sorry, I arrived too late. I would have got it from either of the picture or the clue but probably fair that I missed it as I spent 30 years visiting grandparents in Guernsey and went over to Herm whenever the weather was good enough so know it well
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
I grew up in St Andrews and can't understand why anyone would voluntarily spend four years of their youth there, but each to their own.
My wife did an undergrad degree there. She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
I grew up in a house with no central heating, so yes.
What’s the best destination for a child’s university in terms of the combination of nice area to visit, sufficiently far flung from the SE, and academically prestigious (in the UK)?
Exeter? Durham? Edinburgh?
York. Or Leeds or Manchester if s/he likes the big city buzz. All on fast train routes to London.
York and Leeds are - Manchester not so much given the mess Aventa have made of the WCML...
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.
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
I grew up in St Andrews and can't understand why anyone would voluntarily spend four years of their youth there, but each to their own.
My wife did an undergrad degree there. She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
I grew up in a house with no central heating, so yes.
What’s the best destination for a child’s university in terms of the combination of nice area to visit, sufficiently far flung from the SE, and academically prestigious (in the UK)?
Exeter? Durham? Edinburgh?
... Leeds...if s/he likes the big city buzz.
I'm sorry, but I did laugh. Leeds has many advantages but "big city buzz" is not one of them.
Not a massively fashionable suggestion, but I'd propose the choice I made 30 years ago: Sheffield. Off the top of my head, it's the only Russell group university where you can live walking distance both from your university and from a national park. Sheffield students in my day tended to be dressed more than average in walking boots and fleeces.
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
I grew up in St Andrews and can't understand why anyone would voluntarily spend four years of their youth there, but each to their own.
My wife did an undergrad degree there. She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
I grew up in a house with no central heating, so yes.
What’s the best destination for a child’s university in terms of the combination of nice area to visit, sufficiently far flung from the SE, and academically prestigious (in the UK)?
Exeter? Durham? Edinburgh?
... Leeds...if s/he likes the big city buzz.
I'm sorry, but I did laugh. Leeds has many advantages but "big city buzz" is not one of them.
Not a massively fashionable suggestion, but I'd propose the choice I made 30 years ago: Sheffield. Off the top of my head, it's the only Russell group university where you can live walking distance both from your university and from a national park. Sheffield students in my day tended to be dressed more than average in walking boots and fleeces.
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
I grew up in St Andrews and can't understand why anyone would voluntarily spend four years of their youth there, but each to their own.
My wife did an undergrad degree there. She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
I grew up in a house with no central heating, so yes.
What’s the best destination for a child’s university in terms of the combination of nice area to visit, sufficiently far flung from the SE, and academically prestigious (in the UK)?
Exeter? Durham? Edinburgh?
... Leeds...if s/he likes the big city buzz.
I'm sorry, but I did laugh. Leeds has many advantages but "big city buzz" is not one of them.
Not a massively fashionable suggestion, but I'd propose the choice I made 30 years ago: Sheffield. Off the top of my head, it's the only Russell group university where you can live walking distance both from your university and from a national park. Sheffield students in my day tended to be dressed more than average in walking boots and fleeces.
Eldest Granddaughter has just got a doctorate from there. Lot of online, of course. She lives in Leeds; has decided that, like her Granny, she’s a Northerner.
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
I grew up in St Andrews and can't understand why anyone would voluntarily spend four years of their youth there, but each to their own.
My wife did an undergrad degree there. She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
I grew up in a house with no central heating, so yes.
What’s the best destination for a child’s university in terms of the combination of nice area to visit, sufficiently far flung from the SE, and academically prestigious (in the UK)?
Exeter? Durham? Edinburgh?
... Leeds...if s/he likes the big city buzz.
I'm sorry, but I did laugh. Leeds has many advantages but "big city buzz" is not one of them.
Not a massively fashionable suggestion, but I'd propose the choice I made 30 years ago: Sheffield. Off the top of my head, it's the only Russell group university where you can live walking distance both from your university and from a national park. Sheffield students in my day tended to be dressed more than average in walking boots and fleeces.
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
I grew up in St Andrews and can't understand why anyone would voluntarily spend four years of their youth there, but each to their own.
My wife did an undergrad degree there. She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
I grew up in a house with no central heating, so yes.
What’s the best destination for a child’s university in terms of the combination of nice area to visit, sufficiently far flung from the SE, and academically prestigious (in the UK)?
Exeter? Durham? Edinburgh?
... Leeds...if s/he likes the big city buzz.
I'm sorry, but I did laugh. Leeds has many advantages but "big city buzz" is not one of them.
Not a massively fashionable suggestion, but I'd propose the choice I made 30 years ago: Sheffield. Off the top of my head, it's the only Russell group university where you can live walking distance both from your university and from a national park. Sheffield students in my day tended to be dressed more than average in walking boots and fleeces.
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
I grew up in St Andrews and can't understand why anyone would voluntarily spend four years of their youth there, but each to their own.
My wife did an undergrad degree there. She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
I grew up in a house with no central heating, so yes.
What’s the best destination for a child’s university in terms of the combination of nice area to visit, sufficiently far flung from the SE, and academically prestigious (in the UK)?
Exeter? Durham? Edinburgh?
... Leeds...if s/he likes the big city buzz.
I'm sorry, but I did laugh. Leeds has many advantages but "big city buzz" is not one of them.
Not a massively fashionable suggestion, but I'd propose the choice I made 30 years ago: Sheffield. Off the top of my head, it's the only Russell group university where you can live walking distance both from your university and from a national park. Sheffield students in my day tended to be dressed more than average in walking boots and fleeces.
Eldest Granddaughter has just got a doctorate from there. Lot of online, of course. She lives in Leeds; has decided that, like her Granny, she’s a Northerner.
It really is a very pleasant place indeed to live. Even more so nowadays. Coming from Manchester, Sheffield felt very manageable: you could walk from your home suburb to the city centre, and there was never a wariness you were about to get knocked on the head in the way that you did in Manchester in the 90s. Handsome stone built terraces, views from everywhere, the Peak District on your doorstep. Not the biggest city in the world, but big enough. And the best nightclub in the country for my tastes (the Leadmill, whose days, sadly, appear to be numbered.)
Sadly not exactly awash with jobs on graduation, so not many people stayed.
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.
My parents just sold their house to a terribly posh woman from London who bought it for her daughter to live in while she is at Uni in St Andrews. Students have taken over much of the accommodation in the town. I shouldn't be too negative about St Andrews, as others have noted it is rated highly for student satisfaction and is a beautiful town with a unique character. I was sad to see my folks move out.
Even when I was a kid St Andrews was stuffed full of yahs. I used to work in a restaurant when I was at school and it's given me a life-long aversion to the privately educated.
@Leon and others - just had a circular noting that the National Student Survey came out on 10 August. Published in THES, I believe. Might be useful indicator of the student POV.
Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, with its sizeable subsidies for 'green' manufacturing, has actually started the US down the road in addressing the issue (and incentivised the EU to do likewise).
God knows where we'd be under a second term Trump.
Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, with its sizeable subsidies for 'green' manufacturing, has actually started the US down the road in addressing the issue (and incentivised the EU to do likewise).
God knows where we'd be under a second term Trump.
So an America First industrial policy is good as long as it's not Trump doing it?
The Home Office busy throwing junior officials under the bus.
Operation save the stain on humanity is now at code red
I hold no brief whatsoever for civil servants.
But if we're going to abandon the doctrine of ministerial responsibility and fire the clerks, maybe we should consider whether we actually need the ministers.
The Home Office busy throwing junior officials under the bus.
Operation save the stain on humanity is now at code red
@lizziedearden Former home secretary Priti Patel has accused the government of being “secretive about its intentions” to house asylum seekers at RAF Wethersfield
Ministers applied for a 12-month "emergency" development but a leaked memo shows it will be used for 5 years
The Home Office busy throwing junior officials under the bus.
Operation save the stain on humanity is now at code red
I hold no brief whatsoever for civil servants.
But if we're going to abandon the doctrine of ministerial responsibility and fire the clerks, maybe we should consider whether we actually need the ministers.
Remember the two guarantees of life; death and Simon Case surviving each successive scandal.
Nobody does witless like me! In fact, I invented witless, just so I could drain the swamp and lock up all those evil Woke who STOLE MY ELECTION WIN, THE GREATEST EVER, and I will WIN AND TAKE WITLESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DESTROY ALL MY ENEMIES and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Comments
Release date:
9 August 2022
Next release:
July to August 2023 (provisional)
Here's the covid timeline as it's easy to misremember it.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-12/timeline-coronavirus-lockdown-december-2021.pdf
I think undertaking "the activity" [I'm at work] for enjoyment versus for procreation is now largely disconnected, and quite straightforward to control. C0nd0ms are pretty unpopular though and AFAIK rarely worn from my conversations, despite what is put out there.
Sometimes, couples who get accidentally pregnant just decide to run with it but economics, in my experience, is almost always a strong factor.
She says it's the coldest she's ever been in her life.
Note that Prof. Peston FRS DipSHit never admitted to learning everything new. He always couched his insights as The Brilliant Professor Asking The Question That No Else Had. And then giving his own answer.
Murder Tuesday and all that.
It’s been known for a while that *private* Chinese firms are supplying drones to Russia in breach of sanctions. The government is turning a blind eye to it as it provides a fig leaf that allows them to play both sides.
It’s one of a number of items that is on the regular agenda but never quite at the top of the list.
Thanks for the advice @DavidL - she’s cheered up now
Can any PB naval experts identity this weird looking boat? My daughter wants to know
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Lyme_Bay
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/royal-fleet-auxiliary/landing-ships/rfa-lyme-bay
Another problem that came up was setting up appearances as a debate. I remember one radio interview where I thought I was going to be talking about something but I was ambushed by there being a second interviewee. The radio station thought I’d be pro-restrictions and had invited the owner of G.A.Y., IIRC, who they thought would be anti-restrictions. Said nightclub owner was, in fact, a delight and we agreed on everything, to the presenter’s clear surprise.
However, in the particular case of Sandpit’s comment, I suggest that Sandpit, as well as any general concerns about science reporting, was actually complaining about viewpoints he didn’t agree with getting airtime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Lyme_Bay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Fleet_Auxiliary
Third paragraph is bollocks. I’m not complaining about certain viewpoints getting airtime, I’m complaining about the total lack of challenge to many of the viewpoints put forward, the lack of understanding of the subject matter by journalists, and the introduction of people as “experts” who were not experts in the field they were discussing.
So far neither of her children have gone there, though. One’s gone to Durham, the other has yet to have to decide.
Exeter? Durham? Edinburgh?
It's also incredibly rah-y. That may not be a problem for many people but a lot of working class students hate the place within weeks...
Given nobody in their right mind would go to the IoM in August, and Jersey would be too obvious, I’m saying Guernsey.
I shouldn't be too negative about St Andrews, as others have noted it is rated highly for student satisfaction and is a beautiful town with a unique character. I was sad to see my folks move out.
By odd coincidence, my mother went to school at St Leonards, nearby.
I didn’t agree with much Indie SAGE said, but I can’t think of anything that was “bordering on conspiracy theory”. Not when I compare it to the actual conspiracy theories, some of which get posted here rather too often, that COVID was no worse than flu, that the vaccines don’t work, that mask wearing is part of a New World Order, etc. For example, we’ve had claims here that there is a “conspiracy of silence” over COVID!
I wouldn't go for Durham for the reasons I've outlined below. So Lancaster, York, Newcastle?
Can't find any data but a third to 40% of births being unplanned seems to be the estimate. Of which I'd think maybe half of those would be what we are talking about. So 1/6 to 1/5 of all births.
https://thetab.com/uk/2022/09/16/these-are-the-universities-with-the-most-private-school-students-2022-273947
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/royal-fleet-auxiliary/landing-ships/rfa-lyme-bay
Come on - was it in the Gruaniad? I don't think its any of our business how many kids he has. I have no idea how many Starmer, Drakeford, Sawar etc have.
Shame about the plastic glass, but an idyllic day. Harbour wall from about 1500.
It's certainly small.
I wonder why….
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/climate-change-carbon-emissions-plants-photosynthesis
Up to year 2000 more CO2 means more growth. Since then altered rainfall patterns are counteracting the increase.
Trees, as Hawaii and lots of other places now know, are a mixed blessing.
So "It's a town"...
Apparently rail and road connections to this part of north devon were so poor that the main freight route to that part of the world was boats from south Wales up until the end of the 19th century.
She was raped. The nearest abortion was nine hours away. Now, she's a mom. Soon, she'll start seventh grade.
https://twitter.com/CharlotteAlter/status/1691031003437867008
Sadly not exactly awash with jobs on graduation, so not many people stayed.
https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1691074321584701440
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1691088581513678848
China’s Grip On Tesla’s Battery Supply Chain Highlighted In New Report
https://insideevs.com/news/681303/tesla-reliance-china-battery-supply-chain/
Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, with its sizeable subsidies for 'green' manufacturing, has actually started the US down the road in addressing the issue (and incentivised the EU to do likewise).
God knows where we'd be under a second term Trump.
Operation save the stain on humanity is now at code red
But if we're going to abandon the doctrine of ministerial responsibility and fire the clerks, maybe we should consider whether we actually need the ministers.
Former home secretary Priti Patel has accused the government of being “secretive about its intentions” to house asylum seekers at RAF Wethersfield
Ministers applied for a 12-month "emergency" development but a leaked memo shows it will be used for 5 years
https://twitter.com/lizziedearden/status/1691093679870717953?s=20
Cruella is what happens when you feed Priti Patel after midnight...
No apologies offered to Donald Trump.