What's the betting... five, six "rebels"? The Conservative party hasn't show itself lately to have much backbone.This morning's potential rebellion is this afternoon's damp squib.
Well, and this is one reason why I think Laura K would be wrong for Today as her forte is analysis and back channel knowledge, she said that there were not enough rebels for the bill not to pass but that there was a hope that it would receive a bumpier ride in the Lords.
By pushing it through today there isn't enough time for MPs to see the issue it will cause up North - because it basically says - we will protect children down South who will inherit 70-90% of their parents assets, up North you may get 50% if you are lucky.
Alternatively, you know that tax increase we put through on your income ? We'll use it to protect the homes of the wealthy but not you because you aren't important enough Levelling up...
1. If he ran against Harris, he'd be crucified by the progressive wing. Yes, he is gay but, given he is a white male, running against a black woman can only go one way in today's Democrat party, especially as Harris is the sitting VP and shows no signs of stepping down (nor does her career suggest she would anyway, especially when she is so close to the Presidency);
People say this sort of thing a lot, and yet we have the recent example of the nomination race in 2020, and several white males lasted longer in that nomination contest than Harris, the black woman. It just isn't true.
Now it might be different when she's the VP running for nomination, but that would be because she's the VP, not because she's a black woman.
I think the VP part and the black woman part go together; It'll be much harder for a white man to dislodge a black woman who looks like the next in line.
This is why I think if Biden stands down in good time, keep an eye out for another black woman who could take on Kamala - particularly Stacey Abrams who could easily be the only Dem success story in 2022 if the Georgia Trumpists decide to punish their GOP incumbent for being insufficiently helpful with the attempted coup.
That would be Stacey Abrams who still doesn't believe she lost the Georgia Governor's race in 2018?
She says she woz robbed by voter role purges etc, yes. Do you think that's going to be a problem for her with the Democratic primary electorate?
It would be the Stacey Abrams who said the governor ought not to be able to choose his own electorate. Which seems a not unreasonable position.
Interesting to see Amol Rajan described as “ambitious” in the Mail’s article about the Palace documentary.
Someone doesn’t want him to get Laura K’s gig
Is "ambitious" an insult now? Is it one of those words that upper middle class white people use to describe non upper middle class white people who don't know their place?
Blimey race gets everywhere. Perhaps it should, I don't know.
The only discussions I can remember here about Rajan have been how one might say that his is more a Radio 5 Live voice than a R4 voice and then also, having listened to him on the Today Prog, how he is excellent in that role.
Edit: although that last could just be me.
It's just interesting that a word like "ambitious" should get applied to him, don't you think, since I am guessing everyone in a senior position in the world of political and news journalism is ambitious. If feels like one of those words that's a subtle rebuke used by those who can afford to keep their ambition masked - because they have networks or patronage to support them or simply because they know that when the time comes they won't be overlooked.
I genuinely don't see it like that which is not to say that wasn't the Mail's intention.
Ambitious maybe, as in we are hearing a lot more about him than previously. I wouldn't have recognised the voice at all until he appeared on Today. And I was surprised to see that he did the Palace documentary so he is def more visible (audible?) than hitherto so that could qualify as ambitious. Next he'll be co-presenting Bake Off.
"Ms Price, headmistress of the prestigious, independent Benenden School in Kent, will tell her organisation's annual conference: "Adults comment that they feel today's teenagers are speaking a different language; that they can't say anything without being corrected or 'called out' by these PC children."
She says she is "weary of hearing the older generation say, 'you can't say anything any more'."
And she adds: "The fact is that times have changed, and we simply need to keep up with them."
So - the head of the head teachers association apparently no longer actually believes in free speech or indeed free enquiry any more, or indeed that childrens views should not actually even be challenged, according to this article by the BBC, which, appropriately enough, merely reports her views and does not even interrogate them.
It sounds more like the adults don’t like to be challenged
Isn’t the point of education to teach you how to think, rather than what to think?
There is an important difference between what you think and using casual racism and bigotry to express it, all too often because people use words and phrases that were once commonplace without thought even although they are offensive to others. I will confess that I find some modern parlance, especially the pronouns, quite difficult but I have no desire to cause unnecessary offence and do my best. Its really a question of manners.
But this is not about using the right pronouns. It is convenient to think of it that way, but there is abundant evidence that it goes much further than that. Things like transgender rights and critical race theory need to be challenged, not just accepted uncritically as correct, as suggested by this headteacher. This is an attack on the whole idea of free enquiry. The alarming thing is that people in positions of power and authority go along with it. If you place any value on freedom of thought, these ideas must be fought and stopped, not pandered to or even humoured.
"If you place any value on freedom of thought, these ideas must be fought and stopped"
You, ummm, don't seem to be following your own advice.
Surely they should be challenged and tested.
While I have been extremely critical of CRT on this board, I suspect there may well be elements of it that are not without merit.
When you come out and throw the whole of trangender and CRT in a single bucket, and say it must be 'fought and stopped' then aren't you behaving just as rashly?
I haven't ever come out 'against' transgender rights or CRT. These are things that need to be discussed and it is only possible to do this where there is an atmosphere of free enquiry, which this type of statement works directly against; because the headteacher is effectively saying that teenagers views on these contentious issues should not be challenged.
You don't know she says that at all.
Have you read the transcript of the speech? Or just the edited highlights from a 22 year old BBC reporter who just grabbed the tastiest lines to wrap a story around
Sounds much more like she is saying that children's views oughtn't to be dismissed and that guess what yes times do change.
2x nieces at Benenden I can confirm that if typical, they are all very balanced and thoughtful about any particular current affairs debate. Have not engaged them on trans rights, that said, but I would welcome their opinion.
I know one young lady* who very recently graduated from Benenden (to Bristol, sadly). She seems to be an intelligent and thoughtful person. Like you, I have no idea about her views on CRT or transrights. But I would bet they are better thought out and more nuanced than the vast bulk of her peers.
* And from Benenden, they are very definitely all 'young ladies'
Well she's elevated her school (which I'd never heard of) in the news cycle so job done. The kids are all right. My daughter and the other young women* in her friendship group (and young men) are a lovely thoughtful bunch, intelligent, kind and extremely hard working. * at their South London Comp, definitely young women not young ladies, thank God.
Mr. Boy, I'm not a baby boomer, but I certainly don't subscribe to the nonsense of woke and 'critical thinking', or the race-baiting Marxism of BLM.
You're against critical thinking?
Ah, the good old one
- "I'm against Multiculturalism*" - "So you're a racist who is against other cultures?"
*The belief system that multiple cultures should live together, without merging or compromise (apart from the host culture), with as much "separate development"** as possible. Think rejoicing in the ability for people not to need to speak English in the UK. **Yes. Indeed.
Mr. Boy, I'm not a baby boomer, but I certainly don't subscribe to the nonsense of woke and 'critical thinking', or the race-baiting Marxism of BLM.
Describing “woke” as “nonsense” is hilarious. It’s a completely meaningless statement considering “woke” just means “all the things I disagree with” to each beholder.
I note there was next to no boos to the Toon players taking the knee at the weekend. Nobody cares.
As I pointed out some while back, if you substitute "political correctness gone mad" for "woke" you get a very good idea of the context both of the user and the relevance of the phrase.
Interesting to see Amol Rajan described as “ambitious” in the Mail’s article about the Palace documentary.
Someone doesn’t want him to get Laura K’s gig
Is "ambitious" an insult now? Is it one of those words that upper middle class white people use to describe non upper middle class white people who don't know their place?
Blimey race gets everywhere. Perhaps it should, I don't know.
The only discussions I can remember here about Rajan have been how one might say that his is more a Radio 5 Live voice than a R4 voice and then also, having listened to him on the Today Prog, how he is excellent in that role.
Edit: although that last could just be me.
It's just interesting that a word like "ambitious" should get applied to him, don't you think, since I am guessing everyone in a senior position in the world of political and news journalism is ambitious. If feels like one of those words that's a subtle rebuke used by those who can afford to keep their ambition masked - because they have networks or patronage to support them or simply because they know that when the time comes they won't be overlooked.
I genuinely don't see it like that which is not to say that wasn't the Mail's intention.
Ambitious maybe, as in we are hearing a lot more about him than previously. I wouldn't have recognised the voice at all until he appeared on Today. And I was surprised to see that he did the Palace documentary so he is def more visible (audible?) than hitherto so that could qualify as ambitious. Next he'll be co-presenting Bake Off.
I am sure it was the Mail’s intention. Policing the borders of the English establishment is one of the functions it has awarded itself.
Interesting to see Amol Rajan described as “ambitious” in the Mail’s article about the Palace documentary.
Someone doesn’t want him to get Laura K’s gig
Is "ambitious" an insult now? Is it one of those words that upper middle class white people use to describe non upper middle class white people who don't know their place?
Blimey race gets everywhere. Perhaps it should, I don't know.
The only discussions I can remember here about Rajan have been how one might say that his is more a Radio 5 Live voice than a R4 voice and then also, having listened to him on the Today Prog, how he is excellent in that role.
Edit: although that last could just be me.
It's just interesting that a word like "ambitious" should get applied to him, don't you think, since I am guessing everyone in a senior position in the world of political and news journalism is ambitious. If feels like one of those words that's a subtle rebuke used by those who can afford to keep their ambition masked - because they have networks or patronage to support them or simply because they know that when the time comes they won't be overlooked.
I genuinely don't see it like that which is not to say that wasn't the Mail's intention.
Ambitious maybe, as in we are hearing a lot more about him than previously. I wouldn't have recognised the voice at all until he appeared on Today. And I was surprised to see that he did the Palace documentary so he is def more visible (audible?) than hitherto so that could qualify as ambitious. Next he'll be co-presenting Bake Off.
I am sure it was the Mail’s intention. Policing the borders of the English establishment is one of the functions it has awarded itself.
Maybe. I don't read it or look at it (not even the Sidebar of Shame) so I only have hearsay.
I know it's outdated to point out their campaigning on Stephen Lawrence but I would also say they like a juicy story whatever the flavour.
Again I don't read it but the front pages suggest that the Express is more as you describe.
1. If he ran against Harris, he'd be crucified by the progressive wing. Yes, he is gay but, given he is a white male, running against a black woman can only go one way in today's Democrat party, especially as Harris is the sitting VP and shows no signs of stepping down (nor does her career suggest she would anyway, especially when she is so close to the Presidency);
People say this sort of thing a lot, and yet we have the recent example of the nomination race in 2020, and several white males lasted longer in that nomination contest than Harris, the black woman. It just isn't true.
Now it might be different when she's the VP running for nomination, but that would be because she's the VP, not because she's a black woman.
I think the VP part and the black woman part go together; It'll be much harder for a white man to dislodge a black woman who looks like the next in line.
This is why I think if Biden stands down in good time, keep an eye out for another black woman who could take on Kamala - particularly Stacey Abrams who could easily be the only Dem success story in 2022 if the Georgia Trumpists decide to punish their GOP incumbent for being insufficiently helpful with the attempted coup.
That would be Stacey Abrams who still doesn't believe she lost the Georgia Governor's race in 2018?
It would be useful if BF even had her on the list.
"Ms Price, headmistress of the prestigious, independent Benenden School in Kent, will tell her organisation's annual conference: "Adults comment that they feel today's teenagers are speaking a different language; that they can't say anything without being corrected or 'called out' by these PC children."
She says she is "weary of hearing the older generation say, 'you can't say anything any more'."
And she adds: "The fact is that times have changed, and we simply need to keep up with them."
So - the head of the head teachers association apparently no longer actually believes in free speech or indeed free enquiry any more, or indeed that childrens views should not actually even be challenged, according to this article by the BBC, which, appropriately enough, merely reports her views and does not even interrogate them.
It sounds more like the adults don’t like to be challenged
Isn’t the point of education to teach you how to think, rather than what to think?
Yes. It’s rather a good thing that the girls at Beneden are willing to challenge adults politely and respectfully
She assumes that all change is for the better. It isn't.
"Think before you speak. Read before you think. This will give you something to think about that you didn't make up yourself - a wise move at any age, but most especially at seventeen, when you are in the greatest danger of coming to annoying conclusions."
Fran Lebowitz
It may not be for "the better" (who gets to judge) but it is change and that is the thing. Plenty of oldies dismiss or rail against change whereas it is the youngsters who often drive it. Thanks goodness. And "bad" or "annoying" choices (I believe you have misread Lebowitz) are ones they will live with, handle and then change or not.
I'm with Mike on the Buttigieg tip (though at 50/1 rather than 66/1) but disagree on both Biden and Harris. I think he will want to stand again if he can. Possibly health or political concerns could put paid to that ambition but he's giving plenty of indications that that ambition is there. Mind you, even if it wasn't there, there are sound political reasons to give the impression of it.
As for Harris, I don't think she'd get a clear run even if she was already president - though that would depend very much on her approval ratings, which would no doubt get a honeymoon boost. To that extent, *when* Biden stood down (or vacated the office in some other, less controlled, way) is critical. If next year or early 2023, Harris has a horrible time with a Republican congress; if mid-2023, her honeymoon period will be fading come the primaries but would likely have been strong enough to put some off running when they would normally have been establishing campaigns; if late-2023, she probably walks it; if into 2024, then all hell breaks loose as the primaries are thrown into chaos - particularly if Biden has a major (maybe controlling) share of delegates built up.
But the last time a VP got promoted mid-term, in 1976, Ford very nearly lost the nomination to Reagan. If Harris is called on to do likewise in the next 18 months, I could well see a challenge to her running strongly.
What's the betting... five, six "rebels"? The Conservative party hasn't show itself lately to have much backbone.This morning's potential rebellion is this afternoon's damp squib.
Well, and this is one reason why I think Laura K would be wrong for Today as her forte is analysis and back channel knowledge, she said that there were not enough rebels for the bill not to pass but that there was a hope that it would receive a bumpier ride in the Lords.
By pushing it through today there isn't enough time for MPs to see the issue it will cause up North - because it basically says - we will protect children down South who will inherit 70-90% of their parents assets, up North you may get 50% if you are lucky.
Alternatively, you know that tax increase we put through on your income ? We'll use it to protect the homes of the wealthy. Levelling up...
Well put.
I note Roz Altmann last night said the effective cost is not £86k but about £150k for most people when you add in costs not covered. A point I keep making to @HYUFD when he states the not so well off will still inherit.
So thanks Boris, as a retired well off pensioner it's a big win for me and my children. I would just like to thank the not so well off for their contributions.
Interesting to see Amol Rajan described as “ambitious” in the Mail’s article about the Palace documentary.
Someone doesn’t want him to get Laura K’s gig
Is "ambitious" an insult now? Is it one of those words that upper middle class white people use to describe non upper middle class white people who don't know their place?
Blimey race gets everywhere. Perhaps it should, I don't know.
The only discussions I can remember here about Rajan have been how one might say that his is more a Radio 5 Live voice than a R4 voice and then also, having listened to him on the Today Prog, how he is excellent in that role.
Edit: although that last could just be me.
It's just interesting that a word like "ambitious" should get applied to him, don't you think, since I am guessing everyone in a senior position in the world of political and news journalism is ambitious. If feels like one of those words that's a subtle rebuke used by those who can afford to keep their ambition masked - because they have networks or patronage to support them or simply because they know that when the time comes they won't be overlooked.
I genuinely don't see it like that which is not to say that wasn't the Mail's intention.
Ambitious maybe, as in we are hearing a lot more about him than previously. I wouldn't have recognised the voice at all until he appeared on Today. And I was surprised to see that he did the Palace documentary so he is def more visible (audible?) than hitherto so that could qualify as ambitious. Next he'll be co-presenting Bake Off.
I am sure it was the Mail’s intention. Policing the borders of the English establishment is one of the functions it has awarded itself.
Maybe. I don't read it or look at it (not even the Sidebar of Shame) so I only have hearsay.
I know it's outdated to point out their campaigning on Stephen Lawrence but I would also say they like a juicy story whatever the flavour.
Again I don't read it but the front pages suggest that the Express is more as you describe.
The Mail is an extremely competent news operation, love it or hate it there is much there to admire. The Express is barely a newspaper these days.
Mr. Boy, I'm not a baby boomer, but I certainly don't subscribe to the nonsense of woke and 'critical thinking', or the race-baiting Marxism of BLM.
Describing “woke” as “nonsense” is hilarious. It’s a completely meaningless statement considering “woke” just means “all the things I disagree with” to each beholder.
I note there was next to no boos to the Toon players taking the knee at the weekend. Nobody cares.
Yet another meaning floated yesterday for woke. Humourless. It expands all the time.
Mr. Farooq, CRT (critical race theory) is a brand of identity politics that judges people based on the colour of their skin, and removes Asians (in the American parlance, so Koreans/Japanese/Chinese) from the category of ethnic minorities because their academic and occupational attainment levels rather undermine the case of evil white oppression.
It's rampantly racist while pretending to be virtuous by opposing the 'inherent white supremacy' of the system. It's the sort of muddled nonsense that saw people claim Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, when everyone he shot at was, er, white.
Plenty of stuff on Twitter about it, including overtly racist takes on hiring practices:
"Ms Price, headmistress of the prestigious, independent Benenden School in Kent, will tell her organisation's annual conference: "Adults comment that they feel today's teenagers are speaking a different language; that they can't say anything without being corrected or 'called out' by these PC children."
She says she is "weary of hearing the older generation say, 'you can't say anything any more'."
And she adds: "The fact is that times have changed, and we simply need to keep up with them."
So - the head of the head teachers association apparently no longer actually believes in free speech or indeed free enquiry any more, or indeed that childrens views should not actually even be challenged, according to this article by the BBC, which, appropriately enough, merely reports her views and does not even interrogate them.
It sounds more like the adults don’t like to be challenged
Isn’t the point of education to teach you how to think, rather than what to think?
There is an important difference between what you think and using casual racism and bigotry to express it, all too often because people use words and phrases that were once commonplace without thought even although they are offensive to others. I will confess that I find some modern parlance, especially the pronouns, quite difficult but I have no desire to cause unnecessary offence and do my best. Its really a question of manners.
But this is not about using the right pronouns. It is convenient to think of it that way, but there is abundant evidence that it goes much further than that. Things like transgender rights and critical race theory need to be challenged, not just accepted uncritically as correct, as suggested by this headteacher. This is an attack on the whole idea of free enquiry. The alarming thing is that people in positions of power and authority go along with it. If you place any value on freedom of thought, these ideas must be fought and stopped, not pandered to or even humoured.
"If you place any value on freedom of thought, these ideas must be fought and stopped"
You, ummm, don't seem to be following your own advice.
Surely they should be challenged and tested.
While I have been extremely critical of CRT on this board, I suspect there may well be elements of it that are not without merit.
When you come out and throw the whole of trangender and CRT in a single bucket, and say it must be 'fought and stopped' then aren't you behaving just as rashly?
I haven't ever come out 'against' transgender rights or CRT. These are things that need to be discussed and it is only possible to do this where there is an atmosphere of free enquiry, which this type of statement works directly against; because the headteacher is effectively saying that teenagers views on these contentious issues should not be challenged.
You don't know she says that at all.
Have you read the transcript of the speech? Or just the edited highlights from a 22 year old BBC reporter who just grabbed the tastiest lines to wrap a story around
Sounds much more like she is saying that children's views oughtn't to be dismissed and that guess what yes times do change.
2x nieces at Benenden I can confirm that if typical, they are all very balanced and thoughtful about any particular current affairs debate. Have not engaged them on trans rights, that said, but I would welcome their opinion.
I know one young lady* who very recently graduated from Benenden (to Bristol, sadly). She seems to be an intelligent and thoughtful person. Like you, I have no idea about her views on CRT or transrights. But I would bet they are better thought out and more nuanced than the vast bulk of her peers.
* And from Benenden, they are very definitely all 'young ladies'
Well she's elevated her school (which I'd never heard of) in the news cycle so job done. The kids are all right. My daughter and the other young women* in her friendship group (and young men) are a lovely thoughtful bunch, intelligent, kind and extremely hard working. * at their South London Comp, definitely young women not young ladies, thank God.
The children (I really dislike the usage 'kids') are indeed all right. My teenage plus grandchildren are thoughtful and challenging. They have their moments, but don't we all!
Biden if he does not run again because of age will probably leave it until the last moment, ie mid to late 2023, to make such an announcement. If he makes that announcement too early he risks becoming a lame duck.
Harris generally polls even worse than Biden so I doubt would get the nomination even if she ran. AOC will likely run as the candidate of the Democratic woke and populist left, Sanders is too old to run again too, however if she got it the GOP would likely win a landslide victory outside of the inner cities and university towns.
So the Democrats best bet is a younger more centrist candidate like Buttigieg, the Transport Secretary, who did well in 2020 when he won the Iowa caucus. We also went to a talk in Oxford last week by Joseph Kennedy III who is similar to Buttigieg ideologically and could be an outside bet if he runs for and wins the Massachusetts governorship in 2022. Same goes for Beto O'Rourke in the unlikely event he manages to win the governorship in conservative Texas next year he has announced he is running for.
All would seek to be Macron if Biden did a Hollande and did not run for re election after one term having narrowly beaten the incumbent conservative President to get the Presidency
Interesting to see Amol Rajan described as “ambitious” in the Mail’s article about the Palace documentary.
Someone doesn’t want him to get Laura K’s gig
Is "ambitious" an insult now? Is it one of those words that upper middle class white people use to describe non upper middle class white people who don't know their place?
Blimey race gets everywhere. Perhaps it should, I don't know.
The only discussions I can remember here about Rajan have been how one might say that his is more a Radio 5 Live voice than a R4 voice and then also, having listened to him on the Today Prog, how he is excellent in that role.
Edit: although that last could just be me.
It's just interesting that a word like "ambitious" should get applied to him, don't you think, since I am guessing everyone in a senior position in the world of political and news journalism is ambitious. If feels like one of those words that's a subtle rebuke used by those who can afford to keep their ambition masked - because they have networks or patronage to support them or simply because they know that when the time comes they won't be overlooked.
I genuinely don't see it like that which is not to say that wasn't the Mail's intention.
Ambitious maybe, as in we are hearing a lot more about him than previously. I wouldn't have recognised the voice at all until he appeared on Today. And I was surprised to see that he did the Palace documentary so he is def more visible (audible?) than hitherto so that could qualify as ambitious. Next he'll be co-presenting Bake Off.
I am sure it was the Mail’s intention. Policing the borders of the English establishment is one of the functions it has awarded itself.
Maybe. I don't read it or look at it (not even the Sidebar of Shame) so I only have hearsay.
I know it's outdated to point out their campaigning on Stephen Lawrence but I would also say they like a juicy story whatever the flavour.
Again I don't read it but the front pages suggest that the Express is more as you describe.
You do know why the Mail took up the Lawrence case, don't you?
Yup, I'd vote for any party that charged full NI on pensioner salaries, as would my father, who currently benefits from not paying any NI on his income.
Interesting to see Amol Rajan described as “ambitious” in the Mail’s article about the Palace documentary.
Someone doesn’t want him to get Laura K’s gig
Is "ambitious" an insult now? Is it one of those words that upper middle class white people use to describe non upper middle class white people who don't know their place?
Blimey race gets everywhere. Perhaps it should, I don't know.
The only discussions I can remember here about Rajan have been how one might say that his is more a Radio 5 Live voice than a R4 voice and then also, having listened to him on the Today Prog, how he is excellent in that role.
Edit: although that last could just be me.
He talks a bit too fast occasionally. But I think he can be quite effective.
Biden if he does not run again because of age will probably leave it until the last moment, ie mid to late 2023, to make such an announcement. If he makes that announcement too early he risks becoming a lame duck.
Harris generally polls even worse than Biden so I doubt would get the nomination even if she ran. AOC will likely run as the candidate of the Democratic woke and populist left, Sanders is too old to run again too, however if she got it the GOP would likely win a landslide victory outside of the inner cities and university towns.
So the Democrats best bet is a younger more centrist candidate like Buttigieg, the Transport Secretary, who did well in 2020 when he won the Iowa caucus. We also went to a talk in Oxford last week by Joseph Kennedy III who is similar to Buttigieg ideologically and could be an outside bet if he runs for and wins the Massachusetts governorship next year. Same goes for Beto O'Rourke in the unlikely event he manages to win the governorship in conservative Texas next year he has announced he is running for.
Surely any Governor newly-elected in 2023 is unlikely to start campaigning for the presidency in the same year?
But sloppy too. Stoke does not have a "Labour town hall", the council is run by the Tories, which you'd have thought would be pretty vital context for an article like this. It doesn't even mention that the Tories flipped all four formerly Labour seats in the Potteries in 2019 which is quiet extraordinary if you have any understanding of what Stoke is like and its political history.
However he does get one thing right. Bet365 does indeed employ "thousands", actually over 4,000. (I looked it up as I couldn't believe it). Am I alone in finding this pretty depressing?
Interesting to see Amol Rajan described as “ambitious” in the Mail’s article about the Palace documentary.
Someone doesn’t want him to get Laura K’s gig
Is "ambitious" an insult now? Is it one of those words that upper middle class white people use to describe non upper middle class white people who don't know their place?
Blimey race gets everywhere. Perhaps it should, I don't know.
The only discussions I can remember here about Rajan have been how one might say that his is more a Radio 5 Live voice than a R4 voice and then also, having listened to him on the Today Prog, how he is excellent in that role.
Edit: although that last could just be me.
It's just interesting that a word like "ambitious" should get applied to him, don't you think, since I am guessing everyone in a senior position in the world of political and news journalism is ambitious. If feels like one of those words that's a subtle rebuke used by those who can afford to keep their ambition masked - because they have networks or patronage to support them or simply because they know that when the time comes they won't be overlooked.
I genuinely don't see it like that which is not to say that wasn't the Mail's intention.
Ambitious maybe, as in we are hearing a lot more about him than previously. I wouldn't have recognised the voice at all until he appeared on Today. And I was surprised to see that he did the Palace documentary so he is def more visible (audible?) than hitherto so that could qualify as ambitious. Next he'll be co-presenting Bake Off.
I am sure it was the Mail’s intention. Policing the borders of the English establishment is one of the functions it has awarded itself.
Maybe. I don't read it or look at it (not even the Sidebar of Shame) so I only have hearsay.
I know it's outdated to point out their campaigning on Stephen Lawrence but I would also say they like a juicy story whatever the flavour.
Again I don't read it but the front pages suggest that the Express is more as you describe.
You do know why the Mail took up the Lawrence case, don't you?
Mr. Farooq, CRT (critical race theory) is a brand of identity politics that judges people based on the colour of their skin, and removes Asians (in the American parlance, so Koreans/Japanese/Chinese) from the category of ethnic minorities because their academic and occupational attainment levels rather undermine the case of evil white oppression.
It's rampantly racist while pretending to be virtuous by opposing the 'inherent white supremacy' of the system. It's the sort of muddled nonsense that saw people claim Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, when everyone he shot at was, er, white.
Plenty of stuff on Twitter about it, including overtly racist takes on hiring practices:
I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand CRT at all. I'm not here to defend it, but it really isn't what you say.
Your lack of understanding is compounded by attaching a thread from a "Christian, Faith and Flag Conservative" commentator (John Gage), who I don't think can be expected to give any objective assessment of CRT.
The Lib Dems are disgusting. After trying to nefariously overturn a Democratic vote on Brexit, the most NIMBY party in existence now backs entrenched generational inequality in the tax system as well as giving grist to the antivaxxers mill. I'd probably vote Labour in the North Shropshire by-election.
Interesting to see Amol Rajan described as “ambitious” in the Mail’s article about the Palace documentary.
Someone doesn’t want him to get Laura K’s gig
Is "ambitious" an insult now? Is it one of those words that upper middle class white people use to describe non upper middle class white people who don't know their place?
Blimey race gets everywhere. Perhaps it should, I don't know.
The only discussions I can remember here about Rajan have been how one might say that his is more a Radio 5 Live voice than a R4 voice and then also, having listened to him on the Today Prog, how he is excellent in that role.
Edit: although that last could just be me.
He talks a bit too fast occasionally. But I think he can be quite effective.
He was excellent interviewing Raab the other day. "The PM confirmed Eastern HS2 earlier this year; today he says there will be a feasibility study. Which is it?"
Yup, I'd vote for any party that charged full NI on pensioner salaries, as would my father, who currently benefits from not paying any NI on his income.
As an OAP who worked part-time for a while after 'retiring', but who doesn't now, I agree. Mind, it would have pushed me into full-time retirement sooner. By the time I'd paid registration fees, professional insurance and income tax on my income I calculated I was working from January until about May until I started working for me!
What's the betting... five, six "rebels"? The Conservative party hasn't show itself lately to have much backbone.This morning's potential rebellion is this afternoon's damp squib.
Well, and this is one reason why I think Laura K would be wrong for Today as her forte is analysis and back channel knowledge, she said that there were not enough rebels for the bill not to pass but that there was a hope that it would receive a bumpier ride in the Lords.
By pushing it through today there isn't enough time for MPs to see the issue it will cause up North - because it basically says - we will protect children down South who will inherit 70-90% of their parents assets, up North you may get 50% if you are lucky.
Alternatively, you know that tax increase we put through on your income ? We'll use it to protect the homes of the wealthy. Levelling up...
Well put.
I note Roz Altmann last night said the effective cost is not £86k but about £150k for most people when you add in costs not covered. A point I keep making to @HYUFD when he states the not so well off will still inherit.
So thanks Boris, as a retired well off pensioner it's a big win for me and my children. I would just like to thank the not so well off for their contributions.
The median house price in seats the Conservatives held in 2019 is £270,000. It would be political suicide for the Tories to go back to May's dementia tax plans and just have £100,000 of estate exempt from care costs with no cap as those seats could potentially lose £170,000 on average and more in the wealthier areas, leading to large scale switching to ReformUK and handing seats in the South to the LDs in particular. The £86.000 cap is far better for them. Those voters are the Tory base. Costs not covered only relate to residential care which only a minority will have, not care at home. Even then £150k is still lower than £170k.
In the RedWall the £86,000 cap is still better for those who face residential care costs and domestic care costs levied on their estate excluding the family home than the current situation where there is no limit on care costs with only £23,250 protected from liability
Yup, I'd vote for any party that charged full NI on pensioner salaries, as would my father, who currently benefits from not paying any NI on his income.
The issue isn't so much pensioner earnings from employment - which are small, in the bigger scheme of things (and their exclusion will be breached by the new NHS/care levy from next year anyway) - but pensioner earnings from pensions and investments - which are currently taxed at 20% whereas people working are effectively paying 32%.
Mr. Farooq, CRT (critical race theory) is a brand of identity politics that judges people based on the colour of their skin, and removes Asians (in the American parlance, so Koreans/Japanese/Chinese) from the category of ethnic minorities because their academic and occupational attainment levels rather undermine the case of evil white oppression.
It's rampantly racist while pretending to be virtuous by opposing the 'inherent white supremacy' of the system. It's the sort of muddled nonsense that saw people claim Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, when everyone he shot at was, er, white.
Plenty of stuff on Twitter about it, including overtly racist takes on hiring practices:
"Ms Price, headmistress of the prestigious, independent Benenden School in Kent, will tell her organisation's annual conference: "Adults comment that they feel today's teenagers are speaking a different language; that they can't say anything without being corrected or 'called out' by these PC children."
She says she is "weary of hearing the older generation say, 'you can't say anything any more'."
And she adds: "The fact is that times have changed, and we simply need to keep up with them."
So - the head of the head teachers association apparently no longer actually believes in free speech or indeed free enquiry any more, or indeed that childrens views should not actually even be challenged, according to this article by the BBC, which, appropriately enough, merely reports her views and does not even interrogate them.
It sounds more like the adults don’t like to be challenged
Isn’t the point of education to teach you how to think, rather than what to think?
Yes. It’s rather a good thing that the girls at Beneden are willing to challenge adults politely and respectfully
She assumes that all change is for the better. It isn't.
"Think before you speak. Read before you think. This will give you something to think about that you didn't make up yourself - a wise move at any age, but most especially at seventeen, when you are in the greatest danger of coming to annoying conclusions."
Fran Lebowitz
It may not be for "the better" (who gets to judge) but it is change and that is the thing. Plenty of oldies dismiss or rail against change whereas it is the youngsters who often drive it. Thanks goodness. And "bad" or "annoying" choices (I believe you have misread Lebowitz) are ones they will live with, handle and then change or not.
The quote is an accurate one.
The point is not that change happens - which is trite - but that pretty much all changes have good and bad (or less good) consequences. Or perhaps unintended consequences is a better way of putting it. It is silly to divide things into only good or only bad. An inquiring mind would understand this. Too many people assume - without thinking and without challenging the "change is good" mantra - that because something is new it is, ipso facto, better. It may be but it is not a given.
Some change seems to me to be reverting to older ways of doing things and old tropes which some do not see because they either refuse to be told or do not have the experience or historical knowledge to recognise old wine in new bottles.
The Lib Dems are disgusting. After trying to nefariously overturn a Democratic vote on Brexit, the most NIMBY party in existence now backs entrenched generational inequality in the tax system as well as giving grist to the antivaxxers mill. I'd probably vote Labour in the North Shropshire by-election.
What's context on the last two? Does the first relate to the social care bill (not seen the LD position). Also intrigued on the antivax stuff - what's that about?
Interesting to see Amol Rajan described as “ambitious” in the Mail’s article about the Palace documentary.
Someone doesn’t want him to get Laura K’s gig
Is "ambitious" an insult now? Is it one of those words that upper middle class white people use to describe non upper middle class white people who don't know their place?
Blimey race gets everywhere. Perhaps it should, I don't know.
The only discussions I can remember here about Rajan have been how one might say that his is more a Radio 5 Live voice than a R4 voice and then also, having listened to him on the Today Prog, how he is excellent in that role.
Edit: although that last could just be me.
It's just interesting that a word like "ambitious" should get applied to him, don't you think, since I am guessing everyone in a senior position in the world of political and news journalism is ambitious. If feels like one of those words that's a subtle rebuke used by those who can afford to keep their ambition masked - because they have networks or patronage to support them or simply because they know that when the time comes they won't be overlooked.
I genuinely don't see it like that which is not to say that wasn't the Mail's intention.
Ambitious maybe, as in we are hearing a lot more about him than previously. I wouldn't have recognised the voice at all until he appeared on Today. And I was surprised to see that he did the Palace documentary so he is def more visible (audible?) than hitherto so that could qualify as ambitious. Next he'll be co-presenting Bake Off.
I am sure it was the Mail’s intention. Policing the borders of the English establishment is one of the functions it has awarded itself.
Maybe. I don't read it or look at it (not even the Sidebar of Shame) so I only have hearsay.
I know it's outdated to point out their campaigning on Stephen Lawrence but I would also say they like a juicy story whatever the flavour.
Again I don't read it but the front pages suggest that the Express is more as you describe.
You do know why the Mail took up the Lawrence case, don't you?
I have no idea.
The Mail was initially hostile to the parents campaign, but then Dacre realised that the pleasant, efficient tradesman working on his home was the victim's father. Asked a few questions and the result we know.
I believe Colin Graves was reported as saying much the same thing about the vacated YCCC chairmanship. Doesn't mean that either man was reading the room.
The Lib Dems are disgusting. After trying to nefariously overturn a Democratic vote on Brexit, the most NIMBY party in existence now backs entrenched generational inequality in the tax system as well as giving grist to the antivaxxers mill. I'd probably vote Labour in the North Shropshire by-election.
It's the same opportunistic politics as the Tories turning on Labour's "death tax" care proposals or Labour doing the same to Mrs May during the 2017 GE.
But sloppy too. Stoke does not have a "Labour town hall", the council is run by the Tories, which you'd have thought would be pretty vital context for an article like this. It doesn't even mention that the Tories flipped all four formerly Labour seats in the Potteries in 2019 which is quiet extraordinary if you have any understanding of what Stoke is like and its political history.
However he does get one thing right. Bet365 does indeed employ "thousands", actually over 4,000. (I looked it up as I couldn't believe it). Am I alone in finding this pretty depressing?
This is a betting site, at least in name, and in this very thread's header, so we are unlikely to be distressed by the existence of bookmakers, even if we do object to some of their practices. Though tbh I too would have found it surprising that Bet365 in particular employs so many, given it does not have a large chain of shops.
The Lib Dems are disgusting. After trying to nefariously overturn a Democratic vote on Brexit, the most NIMBY party in existence now backs entrenched generational inequality in the tax system as well as giving grist to the antivaxxers mill. I'd probably vote Labour in the North Shropshire by-election.
When was the Democratic vote on Brexit? I thought Obama was against it.
Biden if he does not run again because of age will probably leave it until the last moment, ie mid to late 2023, to make such an announcement. If he makes that announcement too early he risks becoming a lame duck.
Harris generally polls even worse than Biden so I doubt would get the nomination even if she ran. AOC will likely run as the candidate of the Democratic woke and populist left, Sanders is too old to run again too, however if she got it the GOP would likely win a landslide victory outside of the inner cities and university towns.
So the Democrats best bet is a younger more centrist candidate like Buttigieg, the Transport Secretary, who did well in 2020 when he won the Iowa caucus. We also went to a talk in Oxford last week by Joseph Kennedy III who is similar to Buttigieg ideologically and could be an outside bet if he runs for and wins the Massachusetts governorship next year. Same goes for Beto O'Rourke in the unlikely event he manages to win the governorship in conservative Texas next year he has announced he is running for.
Surely any Governor newly-elected in 2023 is unlikely to start campaigning for the presidency in the same year?
That was the old way of thinking but Obama pushed at the boundaries of "ffs you only just got a meaningful job" quite a bit, and the primary voters will want a winner. So I think they'd run if they thought they could win, albeit with a grassroots local "run, our beloved governor" campaign and some feigned reluctance.
Mr. Farooq, CRT (critical race theory) is a brand of identity politics that judges people based on the colour of their skin, and removes Asians (in the American parlance, so Koreans/Japanese/Chinese) from the category of ethnic minorities because their academic and occupational attainment levels rather undermine the case of evil white oppression.
It's rampantly racist while pretending to be virtuous by opposing the 'inherent white supremacy' of the system. It's the sort of muddled nonsense that saw people claim Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, when everyone he shot at was, er, white.
Plenty of stuff on Twitter about it, including overtly racist takes on hiring practices:
That is the Republican definition, which they invented in order to argue against. As the Atlantic article I linked to above sets out.
Actually, I think you overstate things.
Have you read "Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race"?
It's British, rather than American, but it's very title gets your (or at least my) back up. Would it be acceptable for me to write a book called "Why I'm no longer talking to black people about business"? Of course not.
What's worse is that I'm sure there is stuff in there that is probably going to be eye opening. I am certain that there remains institutional racism out there that needs to be confronted. But I was unable to finish reading the first chapter of the book, so much did it get my back up.
If you're antagonizing me, and causing me to act all prickly, then you're probably losing the argument.
What's the betting... five, six "rebels"? The Conservative party hasn't show itself lately to have much backbone.This morning's potential rebellion is this afternoon's damp squib.
Well, and this is one reason why I think Laura K would be wrong for Today as her forte is analysis and back channel knowledge, she said that there were not enough rebels for the bill not to pass but that there was a hope that it would receive a bumpier ride in the Lords.
By pushing it through today there isn't enough time for MPs to see the issue it will cause up North - because it basically says - we will protect children down South who will inherit 70-90% of their parents assets, up North you may get 50% if you are lucky.
Alternatively, you know that tax increase we put through on your income ? We'll use it to protect the homes of the wealthy. Levelling up...
Well put.
I note Roz Altmann last night said the effective cost is not £86k but about £150k for most people when you add in costs not covered. A point I keep making to @HYUFD when he states the not so well off will still inherit.
So thanks Boris, as a retired well off pensioner it's a big win for me and my children. I would just like to thank the not so well off for their contributions.
The median house price in seats the Conservatives held in 2019 is £270,000. It would be political suicide for the Tories to go back to May's dementia tax plans and just have £100,000 of estate exempt from care costs with no cap as those seats could potentially lose £170,000 on average and more in the wealthier areas, leading to large scale switching to ReformUK and handing seats in the South to the LDs in particular. The £86.000 cap is far better for them. Those voters are the Tory base. Costs not covered only relate to residential care which only a minority will have, not care at home. Even then £150k is still lower than £170k.
In the RedWall the £86,000 cap is still better for those who face residential care costs and domestic care costs levied on their estate excluding the family home than the current situation where there is no limit on care costs with only £23,250 protected from liability
You can keep repeating this HYUFD, but it doesn't get away from the fact that poorer people are subsidizing the well off. There are lots of people who will inherit nothing who are paying extra NI so I can pass on more to my children. I don't pay any extra NI and I don't need that subsidy.
The Lib Dems are disgusting. After trying to nefariously overturn a Democratic vote on Brexit, the most NIMBY party in existence now backs entrenched generational inequality in the tax system as well as giving grist to the antivaxxers mill. I'd probably vote Labour in the North Shropshire by-election.
What's context on the last two? Does the first relate to the social care bill (not seen the LD position). Also intrigued on the antivax stuff - what's that about?
No vaxports of any kind and the Bath 5G nonsense. NI being an age defined tax.
But sloppy too. Stoke does not have a "Labour town hall", the council is run by the Tories, which you'd have thought would be pretty vital context for an article like this. It doesn't even mention that the Tories flipped all four formerly Labour seats in the Potteries in 2019 which is quiet extraordinary if you have any understanding of what Stoke is like and its political history.
However he does get one thing right. Bet365 does indeed employ "thousands", actually over 4,000. (I looked it up as I couldn't believe it). Am I alone in finding this pretty depressing?
This is a betting site, at least in name, and in this very thread's header, so we are unlikely to be distressed by the existence of bookmakers, even if we do object to some of their practices. Though tbh I too would have found it surprising that Bet365 in particular employs so many, given it does not have a large chain of shops.
Software can consume workers like no-one business and it's complex because they need to handle things in real time.
The Lib Dems are disgusting. After trying to nefariously overturn a Democratic vote on Brexit, the most NIMBY party in existence now backs entrenched generational inequality in the tax system as well as giving grist to the antivaxxers mill. I'd probably vote Labour in the North Shropshire by-election.
When was the Democratic vote on Brexit? I thought Obama was against it.
The Lib Dems are disgusting. After trying to nefariously overturn a Democratic vote on Brexit, the most NIMBY party in existence now backs entrenched generational inequality in the tax system as well as giving grist to the antivaxxers mill. I'd probably vote Labour in the North Shropshire by-election.
It's the same opportunistic politics as the Tories turning on Labour's "death tax" care proposals or Labour doing the same to Mrs May during the 2017 GE.
Parties can campaign on what they like, I can form a view on that.
The Lib Dems are disgusting. After trying to nefariously overturn a Democratic vote on Brexit, the most NIMBY party in existence now backs entrenched generational inequality in the tax system as well as giving grist to the antivaxxers mill. I'd probably vote Labour in the North Shropshire by-election.
When was the Democratic vote on Brexit? I thought Obama was against it.
The Lib Dems are disgusting. After trying to nefariously overturn a Democratic vote on Brexit, the most NIMBY party in existence now backs entrenched generational inequality in the tax system as well as giving grist to the antivaxxers mill. I'd probably vote Labour in the North Shropshire by-election.
It's the same opportunistic politics as the Tories turning on Labour's "death tax" care proposals or Labour doing the same to Mrs May during the 2017 GE.
Parties can campaign on what they like, I can form a view on that.
Of course you can. And I agree it's not great for the political system. I was simply observing that in similar situations all the parties have done the same.
Mr. Farooq, CRT (critical race theory) is a brand of identity politics that judges people based on the colour of their skin, and removes Asians (in the American parlance, so Koreans/Japanese/Chinese) from the category of ethnic minorities because their academic and occupational attainment levels rather undermine the case of evil white oppression.
It's rampantly racist while pretending to be virtuous by opposing the 'inherent white supremacy' of the system. It's the sort of muddled nonsense that saw people claim Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, when everyone he shot at was, er, white.
Plenty of stuff on Twitter about it, including overtly racist takes on hiring practices:
Things are surely a bit more straightforward than you make out? Our (and I do mean our) history of interaction with the American black is a couple of hundred years enslaving, buying, and breeding into slavery of their ancestors and after liberation, ruthless discrimination, KKK lynchings, Jim Crow laws, and calling them n*****s. If that isn't evil white oppression, wtf is?
Is trying to slant things a tiny, tiny bit in their favour really the worst thing that could ever happen?
Biden if he does not run again because of age will probably leave it until the last moment, ie mid to late 2023, to make such an announcement. If he makes that announcement too early he risks becoming a lame duck.
Harris generally polls even worse than Biden so I doubt would get the nomination even if she ran. AOC will likely run as the candidate of the Democratic woke and populist left, Sanders is too old to run again too, however if she got it the GOP would likely win a landslide victory outside of the inner cities and university towns.
So the Democrats best bet is a younger more centrist candidate like Buttigieg, the Transport Secretary, who did well in 2020 when he won the Iowa caucus. We also went to a talk in Oxford last week by Joseph Kennedy III who is similar to Buttigieg ideologically and could be an outside bet if he runs for and wins the Massachusetts governorship next year. Same goes for Beto O'Rourke in the unlikely event he manages to win the governorship in conservative Texas next year he has announced he is running for.
Surely any Governor newly-elected in 2023 is unlikely to start campaigning for the presidency in the same year?
Don't think that would stop them! O'Rourke would have huge momentum if he'd just flipped Texas.
"Ms Price, headmistress of the prestigious, independent Benenden School in Kent, will tell her organisation's annual conference: "Adults comment that they feel today's teenagers are speaking a different language; that they can't say anything without being corrected or 'called out' by these PC children."
She says she is "weary of hearing the older generation say, 'you can't say anything any more'."
And she adds: "The fact is that times have changed, and we simply need to keep up with them."
So - the head of the head teachers association apparently no longer actually believes in free speech or indeed free enquiry any more, or indeed that childrens views should not actually even be challenged, according to this article by the BBC, which, appropriately enough, merely reports her views and does not even interrogate them.
It sounds more like the adults don’t like to be challenged
Isn’t the point of education to teach you how to think, rather than what to think?
Yes. It’s rather a good thing that the girls at Beneden are willing to challenge adults politely and respectfully
She assumes that all change is for the better. It isn't.
"Think before you speak. Read before you think. This will give you something to think about that you didn't make up yourself - a wise move at any age, but most especially at seventeen, when you are in the greatest danger of coming to annoying conclusions."
Fran Lebowitz
It may not be for "the better" (who gets to judge) but it is change and that is the thing. Plenty of oldies dismiss or rail against change whereas it is the youngsters who often drive it. Thanks goodness. And "bad" or "annoying" choices (I believe you have misread Lebowitz) are ones they will live with, handle and then change or not.
The quote is an accurate one.
The point is not that change happens - which is trite - but that pretty much all changes have good and bad (or less good) consequences. Or perhaps unintended consequences is a better way of putting it. It is silly to divide things into only good or only bad. An inquiring mind would understand this. Too many people assume - without thinking and without challenging the "change is good" mantra - that because something is new it is, ipso facto, better. It may be but it is not a given.
Some change seems to me to be reverting to older ways of doing things and old tropes which some do not see because they either refuse to be told or do not have the experience or historical knowledge to recognise old wine in new bottles.
Nothing you say I disagree with there. No one is dividing change into good or bad, although arguably (arguably) the process of change can be said to be largely a productive one.
I haven't read Ms Price's full transcript but the snippet reproduced here suggests she wants people to understand that society, social norms and mores, aren't set in aspic. And that the older generation shouldn't automatically dismiss the views of the younger one (as Lebowitz satirises in the quote).
I'm sure there is some rhetoric in there also and if so it seems to have worked as we are all talking about it now.
What's the betting... five, six "rebels"? The Conservative party hasn't show itself lately to have much backbone.This morning's potential rebellion is this afternoon's damp squib.
Well, and this is one reason why I think Laura K would be wrong for Today as her forte is analysis and back channel knowledge, she said that there were not enough rebels for the bill not to pass but that there was a hope that it would receive a bumpier ride in the Lords.
By pushing it through today there isn't enough time for MPs to see the issue it will cause up North - because it basically says - we will protect children down South who will inherit 70-90% of their parents assets, up North you may get 50% if you are lucky.
Alternatively, you know that tax increase we put through on your income ? We'll use it to protect the homes of the wealthy. Levelling up...
Well put.
I note Roz Altmann last night said the effective cost is not £86k but about £150k for most people when you add in costs not covered. A point I keep making to @HYUFD when he states the not so well off will still inherit.
So thanks Boris, as a retired well off pensioner it's a big win for me and my children. I would just like to thank the not so well off for their contributions.
I'm not sure I understand this. "Fixing social care" always meant the state (the taxpayer) taking on more cost of care rather than people losing all or part of their wealth inc that in property value.
Is this a case of people not being careful what they wish for?
But sloppy too. Stoke does not have a "Labour town hall", the council is run by the Tories, which you'd have thought would be pretty vital context for an article like this. It doesn't even mention that the Tories flipped all four formerly Labour seats in the Potteries in 2019 which is quiet extraordinary if you have any understanding of what Stoke is like and its political history.
However he does get one thing right. Bet365 does indeed employ "thousands", actually over 4,000. (I looked it up as I couldn't believe it). Am I alone in finding this pretty depressing?
This is a betting site, at least in name, and in this very thread's header, so we are unlikely to be distressed by the existence of bookmakers, even if we do object to some of their practices. Though tbh I too would have found it surprising that Bet365 in particular employs so many, given it does not have a large chain of shops.
Software can consume workers like no-one business and it's complex because they need to handle things in real time.
You also have customer service, marketing....
Indeed - the belief that you "buy some software" and setup a business is pernicious and distorts the reality of what running an online business is really about..
Th online bit just means that the front end is online. The rest of the business still has to exist.
A close relative who setup a small delivery business was somewhat interested to find that a combined web portal/warehouse system is quite definitely not available off the shelf. He ended up paying a fair bit to integrate various systems.
What's the betting... five, six "rebels"? The Conservative party hasn't show itself lately to have much backbone.This morning's potential rebellion is this afternoon's damp squib.
Well, and this is one reason why I think Laura K would be wrong for Today as her forte is analysis and back channel knowledge, she said that there were not enough rebels for the bill not to pass but that there was a hope that it would receive a bumpier ride in the Lords.
By pushing it through today there isn't enough time for MPs to see the issue it will cause up North - because it basically says - we will protect children down South who will inherit 70-90% of their parents assets, up North you may get 50% if you are lucky.
Alternatively, you know that tax increase we put through on your income ? We'll use it to protect the homes of the wealthy. Levelling up...
Well put.
I note Roz Altmann last night said the effective cost is not £86k but about £150k for most people when you add in costs not covered. A point I keep making to @HYUFD when he states the not so well off will still inherit.
So thanks Boris, as a retired well off pensioner it's a big win for me and my children. I would just like to thank the not so well off for their contributions.
The median house price in seats the Conservatives held in 2019 is £270,000. It would be political suicide for the Tories to go back to May's dementia tax plans and just have £100,000 of estate exempt from care costs with no cap as those seats could potentially lose £170,000 on average and more in the wealthier areas, leading to large scale switching to ReformUK and handing seats in the South to the LDs in particular. The £86.000 cap is far better for them. Those voters are the Tory base. Costs not covered only relate to residential care which only a minority will have, not care at home. Even then £150k is still lower than £170k.
In the RedWall the £86,000 cap is still better for those who face residential care costs and domestic care costs levied on their estate excluding the family home than the current situation where there is no limit on care costs with only £23,250 protected from liability
You can keep repeating this HYUFD, but it doesn't get away from the fact that poorer people are subsidizing the well off. There are lots of people who will inherit nothing who are paying extra NI so I can pass on more to my children. I don't pay any extra NI and I don't need that subsidy.
Mr. Farooq, CRT (critical race theory) is a brand of identity politics that judges people based on the colour of their skin, and removes Asians (in the American parlance, so Koreans/Japanese/Chinese) from the category of ethnic minorities because their academic and occupational attainment levels rather undermine the case of evil white oppression.
It's rampantly racist while pretending to be virtuous by opposing the 'inherent white supremacy' of the system. It's the sort of muddled nonsense that saw people claim Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, when everyone he shot at was, er, white.
Plenty of stuff on Twitter about it, including overtly racist takes on hiring practices:
Things are surely a bit more straightforward than you make out? Our (and I do mean our) history of interaction with the American black is a couple of hundred years enslaving, buying, and breeding into slavery of their ancestors and after liberation, ruthless discrimination, KKK lynchings, Jim Crow laws, and calling them n*****s. If that isn't evil white oppression, wtf is?
Is trying to slant things a tiny, tiny bit in their favour really the worst thing that could ever happen?
The Lancashire millworkers wouldn't work with 'slave produced' cotton during the Civil War. Admittedly that was a bit late, given the way the mills developed earlier in the 19th C.
What's the betting... five, six "rebels"? The Conservative party hasn't show itself lately to have much backbone.This morning's potential rebellion is this afternoon's damp squib.
Well, and this is one reason why I think Laura K would be wrong for Today as her forte is analysis and back channel knowledge, she said that there were not enough rebels for the bill not to pass but that there was a hope that it would receive a bumpier ride in the Lords.
By pushing it through today there isn't enough time for MPs to see the issue it will cause up North - because it basically says - we will protect children down South who will inherit 70-90% of their parents assets, up North you may get 50% if you are lucky.
Alternatively, you know that tax increase we put through on your income ? We'll use it to protect the homes of the wealthy. Levelling up...
Well put.
I note Roz Altmann last night said the effective cost is not £86k but about £150k for most people when you add in costs not covered. A point I keep making to @HYUFD when he states the not so well off will still inherit.
So thanks Boris, as a retired well off pensioner it's a big win for me and my children. I would just like to thank the not so well off for their contributions.
The median house price in seats the Conservatives held in 2019 is £270,000. It would be political suicide for the Tories to go back to May's dementia tax plans and just have £100,000 of estate exempt from care costs with no cap as those seats could potentially lose £170,000 on average and more in the wealthier areas, leading to large scale switching to ReformUK and handing seats in the South to the LDs in particular. The £86.000 cap is far better for them. Those voters are the Tory base. Costs not covered only relate to residential care which only a minority will have, not care at home. Even then £150k is still lower than £170k.
In the RedWall the £86,000 cap is still better for those who face residential care costs and domestic care costs levied on their estate excluding the family home than the current situation where there is no limit on care costs with only £23,250 protected from liability
You can keep repeating this HYUFD, but it doesn't get away from the fact that poorer people are subsidizing the well off. There are lots of people who will inherit nothing who are paying extra NI so I can pass on more to my children. I don't pay any extra NI and I don't need that subsidy.
The Tory base is still home owners and especially wealthier home owners not the poor. Even in 2019 most of those in social housing voted Labour. In any case the genuinely poor will not be hit by this proposal as the state already pays for their care costs anyway and they have few if any assets and are not home owners. The vast majority of home owners though ie those with properties worth £150,000 or more will be better off under these plans and able to protect more of their estate than they are now even if the proposals may be fractionally worse for those with a £100,000 estate only. However even the latter are still likely to be home owners not in social housing or reliant on housing benefits and not genuinely poor.
However the Tory party will support its base first, always. That is what it is elected for. If you disagree then you will have to elect a Labour government backed by the LDs and SNP to see any change.
Ironically the Tories are likely to get far more damage in North Shropshire where your party has cleverly attacked the Tory candidate for backing NI for pensioners amongst its core vote than from the Boris social care plans
The Lib Dems are disgusting. After trying to nefariously overturn a Democratic vote on Brexit, the most NIMBY party in existence now backs entrenched generational inequality in the tax system as well as giving grist to the antivaxxers mill. I'd probably vote Labour in the North Shropshire by-election.
When was the Democratic vote on Brexit? I thought Obama was against it.
23rd June, 2016
About this bridge. One careful owner.......
The fundamental tenet of democracy is that you abide by decisions you don't like. Now we dodged a bullet by implementing the Brexit vote, even though it was a piss poor decision by the British public; it'll be gone completely in the USA with the actions of the GOP shortly.
Mr. Farooq, CRT (critical race theory) is a brand of identity politics that judges people based on the colour of their skin, and removes Asians (in the American parlance, so Koreans/Japanese/Chinese) from the category of ethnic minorities because their academic and occupational attainment levels rather undermine the case of evil white oppression.
It's rampantly racist while pretending to be virtuous by opposing the 'inherent white supremacy' of the system. It's the sort of muddled nonsense that saw people claim Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, when everyone he shot at was, er, white.
Plenty of stuff on Twitter about it, including overtly racist takes on hiring practices:
That is the Republican definition, which they invented in order to argue against. As the Atlantic article I linked to above sets out.
Actually, I think you overstate things.
Have you read "Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race"?
It's British, rather than American, but it's very title gets your (or at least my) back up. Would it be acceptable for me to write a book called "Why I'm no longer talking to black people about business"? Of course not.
What's worse is that I'm sure there is stuff in there that is probably going to be eye opening. I am certain that there remains institutional racism out there that needs to be confronted. But I was unable to finish reading the first chapter of the book, so much did it get my back up.
If you're antagonizing me, and causing me to act all prickly, then you're probably losing the argument.
Interesting. I read it and enjoyed it although I don't think there was anything especially earth-shattering in in for anyone who'd spent any time thinking about these things. There's actually a term for white people who can't read books about racism because they get so defensive (white fragility). But you probably don't want to know that! 😉
Mr. Farooq, CRT (critical race theory) is a brand of identity politics that judges people based on the colour of their skin, and removes Asians (in the American parlance, so Koreans/Japanese/Chinese) from the category of ethnic minorities because their academic and occupational attainment levels rather undermine the case of evil white oppression.
It's rampantly racist while pretending to be virtuous by opposing the 'inherent white supremacy' of the system. It's the sort of muddled nonsense that saw people claim Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, when everyone he shot at was, er, white.
Plenty of stuff on Twitter about it, including overtly racist takes on hiring practices:
That is the Republican definition, which they invented in order to argue against. As the Atlantic article I linked to above sets out.
Actually, I think you overstate things.
Have you read "Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race"?
It's British, rather than American, but it's very title gets your (or at least my) back up. Would it be acceptable for me to write a book called "Why I'm no longer talking to black people about business"? Of course not.
What's worse is that I'm sure there is stuff in there that is probably going to be eye opening. I am certain that there remains institutional racism out there that needs to be confronted. But I was unable to finish reading the first chapter of the book, so much did it get my back up.
If you're antagonizing me, and causing me to act all prickly, then you're probably losing the argument.
The idea that academic success is "acting white" gets a few sharp comments. From people in various ethnic communities, among others.
The Lib Dems are disgusting. After trying to nefariously overturn a Democratic vote on Brexit, the most NIMBY party in existence now backs entrenched generational inequality in the tax system as well as giving grist to the antivaxxers mill. I'd probably vote Labour in the North Shropshire by-election.
To call Joe Biden "sleepy Joe" is succumbing to Trump's perverse talent for "epitheting". Let him who has never fallen asleep during a lengthy and dull conference cast the first stone.
To harp on Biden's age may well bear on betting possibilities, for this is indeed a site for bettors.
But Biden is very busy trying to unravel some of Trump's many perverse acts and lacunae. And actually some of us think he is sometimes bringing it off.
Biden if he does not run again because of age will probably leave it until the last moment, ie mid to late 2023, to make such an announcement. If he makes that announcement too early he risks becoming a lame duck.
Harris generally polls even worse than Biden so I doubt would get the nomination even if she ran. AOC will likely run as the candidate of the Democratic woke and populist left, Sanders is too old to run again too, however if she got it the GOP would likely win a landslide victory outside of the inner cities and university towns.
So the Democrats best bet is a younger more centrist candidate like Buttigieg, the Transport Secretary, who did well in 2020 when he won the Iowa caucus. We also went to a talk in Oxford last week by Joseph Kennedy III who is similar to Buttigieg ideologically and could be an outside bet if he runs for and wins the Massachusetts governorship next year. Same goes for Beto O'Rourke in the unlikely event he manages to win the governorship in conservative Texas next year he has announced he is running for.
Surely any Governor newly-elected in 2023 is unlikely to start campaigning for the presidency in the same year?
Don't think that would stop them! O'Rourke would have huge momentum if he'd just flipped Texas.
Sure. But (1) the Democrats are likely to get a hammering in 2022 and Texas's demographics aren't changing that quickly to overcome that, and (2) if he had just flipped Texas against its history, he really ought to be embedding himself there rather than galivanting off campaigning for the presidency with the significant risk that he'd fall flat in the next campaign for both offices. If he does have a design on the White House, he ought to look to 2028.
The Lib Dems are disgusting. After trying to nefariously overturn a Democratic vote on Brexit, the most NIMBY party in existence now backs entrenched generational inequality in the tax system as well as giving grist to the antivaxxers mill. I'd probably vote Labour in the North Shropshire by-election.
When was the Democratic vote on Brexit? I thought Obama was against it.
23rd June, 2016
About this bridge. One careful owner.......
The fundamental tenet of democracy is that you abide by decisions you don't like. Now we dodged a bullet by implementing the Brexit vote, even though it was a piss poor decision by the British public; it'll be gone completely in the USA with the actions of the GOP shortly.
Point noted. However, the LD decision to try and reverse the vote was perfectly reasonable.
Mr. Farooq, CRT (critical race theory) is a brand of identity politics that judges people based on the colour of their skin, and removes Asians (in the American parlance, so Koreans/Japanese/Chinese) from the category of ethnic minorities because their academic and occupational attainment levels rather undermine the case of evil white oppression.
It's rampantly racist while pretending to be virtuous by opposing the 'inherent white supremacy' of the system. It's the sort of muddled nonsense that saw people claim Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, when everyone he shot at was, er, white.
Plenty of stuff on Twitter about it, including overtly racist takes on hiring practices:
That is the Republican definition, which they invented in order to argue against. As the Atlantic article I linked to above sets out.
Actually, I think you overstate things.
Have you read "Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race"?
It's British, rather than American, but it's very title gets your (or at least my) back up. Would it be acceptable for me to write a book called "Why I'm no longer talking to black people about business"? Of course not.
What's worse is that I'm sure there is stuff in there that is probably going to be eye opening. I am certain that there remains institutional racism out there that needs to be confronted. But I was unable to finish reading the first chapter of the book, so much did it get my back up.
If you're antagonizing me, and causing me to act all prickly, then you're probably losing the argument.
Critical race theory surfaced in the early 80s. Eddo-Lodge was born in 1989, so I'm not sure what your point is ?
Biden if he does not run again because of age will probably leave it until the last moment, ie mid to late 2023, to make such an announcement. If he makes that announcement too early he risks becoming a lame duck.
Harris generally polls even worse than Biden so I doubt would get the nomination even if she ran. AOC will likely run as the candidate of the Democratic woke and populist left, Sanders is too old to run again too, however if she got it the GOP would likely win a landslide victory outside of the inner cities and university towns.
So the Democrats best bet is a younger more centrist candidate like Buttigieg, the Transport Secretary, who did well in 2020 when he won the Iowa caucus. We also went to a talk in Oxford last week by Joseph Kennedy III who is similar to Buttigieg ideologically and could be an outside bet if he runs for and wins the Massachusetts governorship next year. Same goes for Beto O'Rourke in the unlikely event he manages to win the governorship in conservative Texas next year he has announced he is running for.
Surely any Governor newly-elected in 2023 is unlikely to start campaigning for the presidency in the same year?
If Biden does not run again it may be the best chance to win the Presidency they ever get, they will run. By 2025 they would have been governor for nearly 3 years if elected, though they would then give it up if elected President.
Obama ran in 2008 having only been a Senator for 4 years, Cameron for Tory leader in 2005 having only been an MP for 4 years
Mr. Boy, I'm not a baby boomer, but I certainly don't subscribe to the nonsense of woke and 'critical thinking', or the race-baiting Marxism of BLM.
Describing “woke” as “nonsense” is hilarious. It’s a completely meaningless statement considering “woke” just means “all the things I disagree with” to each beholder.
I note there was next to no boos to the Toon players taking the knee at the weekend. Nobody cares.
Unlike three points which they have been unable to take all season
"Ms Price, headmistress of the prestigious, independent Benenden School in Kent, will tell her organisation's annual conference: "Adults comment that they feel today's teenagers are speaking a different language; that they can't say anything without being corrected or 'called out' by these PC children."
She says she is "weary of hearing the older generation say, 'you can't say anything any more'."
And she adds: "The fact is that times have changed, and we simply need to keep up with them."
So - the head of the head teachers association apparently no longer actually believes in free speech or indeed free enquiry any more, or indeed that childrens views should not actually even be challenged, according to this article by the BBC, which, appropriately enough, merely reports her views and does not even interrogate them.
It sounds more like the adults don’t like to be challenged
Isn’t the point of education to teach you how to think, rather than what to think?
Yes. It’s rather a good thing that the girls at Beneden are willing to challenge adults politely and respectfully
She assumes that all change is for the better. It isn't.
"Think before you speak. Read before you think. This will give you something to think about that you didn't make up yourself - a wise move at any age, but most especially at seventeen, when you are in the greatest danger of coming to annoying conclusions."
Fran Lebowitz
It may not be for "the better" (who gets to judge) but it is change and that is the thing. Plenty of oldies dismiss or rail against change whereas it is the youngsters who often drive it. Thanks goodness. And "bad" or "annoying" choices (I believe you have misread Lebowitz) are ones they will live with, handle and then change or not.
The quote is an accurate one.
The point is not that change happens - which is trite - but that pretty much all changes have good and bad (or less good) consequences. Or perhaps unintended consequences is a better way of putting it. It is silly to divide things into only good or only bad. An inquiring mind would understand this. Too many people assume - without thinking and without challenging the "change is good" mantra - that because something is new it is, ipso facto, better. It may be but it is not a given.
Some change seems to me to be reverting to older ways of doing things and old tropes which some do not see because they either refuse to be told or do not have the experience or historical knowledge to recognise old wine in new bottles.
Indeed.
When I was young, the film Chariots Of Fire promulgated the idea that the Victorian/Edwardian view of amateur sport was stupid nonsense and bigoted. At the time a great deal of major sport was still amateur.
Some little time later, we had the famous 100m final with Ben Johnson in it. I believe that one person in that final has not be found to be a drug cheat.
The Victorian/Edwardian amateur thing was not just a class based thing (though there was an element of that) - it was that money is a corrupting influence in sport. And popular sportsmen and women will end up highly paid.
The point is not that the Edwardians were right - but that human nature hasn't changed that much. Money created corruption in sport - which they dealt with using the amateur "systems". If you re-introduce money into sport, then the same problems will occur.
Biden if he does not run again because of age will probably leave it until the last moment, ie mid to late 2023, to make such an announcement. If he makes that announcement too early he risks becoming a lame duck.
Harris generally polls even worse than Biden so I doubt would get the nomination even if she ran. AOC will likely run as the candidate of the Democratic woke and populist left, Sanders is too old to run again too, however if she got it the GOP would likely win a landslide victory outside of the inner cities and university towns.
So the Democrats best bet is a younger more centrist candidate like Buttigieg, the Transport Secretary, who did well in 2020 when he won the Iowa caucus. We also went to a talk in Oxford last week by Joseph Kennedy III who is similar to Buttigieg ideologically and could be an outside bet if he runs for and wins the Massachusetts governorship next year. Same goes for Beto O'Rourke in the unlikely event he manages to win the governorship in conservative Texas next year he has announced he is running for.
Surely any Governor newly-elected in 2023 is unlikely to start campaigning for the presidency in the same year?
Don't think that would stop them! O'Rourke would have huge momentum if he'd just flipped Texas.
Sure. But (1) the Democrats are likely to get a hammering in 2022 and Texas's demographics aren't changing that quickly to overcome that, and (2) if he had just flipped Texas against its history, he really ought to be embedding himself there rather than galivanting off campaigning for the presidency with the significant risk that he'd fall flat in the next campaign for both offices. If he does have a design on the White House, he ought to look to 2028.
Joe Kennedy III is more likely to win the Massachussetts governorship next year if he runs than O'Rourke is to win Texas, though they are friends and a ticket between the 2 or Buttigieg instead of one of them would be ideal for the Democrats I would assume
To call Joe Biden "sleepy Joe" is succumbing to Trump's perverse talent for "epitheting". Let him who has never fallen asleep during a lengthy and dull conference cast the first stone.
To harp on Biden's age may well bear on betting possibilities, for this is indeed a site for bettors.
But Biden is very busy trying to unravel some of Trump's many perverse acts and lacunae. And actually some of us think he is sometimes bringing it off.
But sloppy too. Stoke does not have a "Labour town hall", the council is run by the Tories, which you'd have thought would be pretty vital context for an article like this. It doesn't even mention that the Tories flipped all four formerly Labour seats in the Potteries in 2019 which is quiet extraordinary if you have any understanding of what Stoke is like and its political history.
However he does get one thing right. Bet365 does indeed employ "thousands", actually over 4,000. (I looked it up as I couldn't believe it). Am I alone in finding this pretty depressing?
This is a betting site, at least in name, and in this very thread's header, so we are unlikely to be distressed by the existence of bookmakers, even if we do object to some of their practices. Though tbh I too would have found it surprising that Bet365 in particular employs so many, given it does not have a large chain of shops.
Software can consume workers like no-one business and it's complex because they need to handle things in real time.
You also have customer service, marketing....
Indeed - the belief that you "buy some software" and setup a business is pernicious and distorts the reality of what running an online business is really about..
Th online bit just means that the front end is online. The rest of the business still has to exist.
A close relative who setup a small delivery business was somewhat interested to find that a combined web portal/warehouse system is quite definitely not available off the shelf. He ended up paying a fair bit to integrate various systems.
I’ve dealt with many customers and potential customers over a few years of working in IT consultancy, who seemed to think that a retail website is something that can be done in a few days and for a few hundred quid.
Yes, you can set up something with Squarespace, if the business is a sideline that generates a handful of orders a day - but if you need to do anything more complicated or start integrating business processes, the costs quickly rise by orders of magnitude.
B365 annual turnover is going to be in the tens of *billions*. They regularly make the news for paying hundreds of millions in dividends. The software also needs to have a lot of backstops, escalations and real-time feedback loops integrated into it, and a single mispricing can cost them a fortune.
What's the betting... five, six "rebels"? The Conservative party hasn't show itself lately to have much backbone.This morning's potential rebellion is this afternoon's damp squib.
Well, and this is one reason why I think Laura K would be wrong for Today as her forte is analysis and back channel knowledge, she said that there were not enough rebels for the bill not to pass but that there was a hope that it would receive a bumpier ride in the Lords.
By pushing it through today there isn't enough time for MPs to see the issue it will cause up North - because it basically says - we will protect children down South who will inherit 70-90% of their parents assets, up North you may get 50% if you are lucky.
Alternatively, you know that tax increase we put through on your income ? We'll use it to protect the homes of the wealthy. Levelling up...
Well put.
I note Roz Altmann last night said the effective cost is not £86k but about £150k for most people when you add in costs not covered. A point I keep making to @HYUFD when he states the not so well off will still inherit.
So thanks Boris, as a retired well off pensioner it's a big win for me and my children. I would just like to thank the not so well off for their contributions.
The median house price in seats the Conservatives held in 2019 is £270,000. It would be political suicide for the Tories to go back to May's dementia tax plans and just have £100,000 of estate exempt from care costs with no cap as those seats could potentially lose £170,000 on average and more in the wealthier areas, leading to large scale switching to ReformUK and handing seats in the South to the LDs in particular. The £86.000 cap is far better for them. Those voters are the Tory base. Costs not covered only relate to residential care which only a minority will have, not care at home. Even then £150k is still lower than £170k.
In the RedWall the £86,000 cap is still better for those who face residential care costs and domestic care costs levied on their estate excluding the family home than the current situation where there is no limit on care costs with only £23,250 protected from liability
You can keep repeating this HYUFD, but it doesn't get away from the fact that poorer people are subsidizing the well off. There are lots of people who will inherit nothing who are paying extra NI so I can pass on more to my children. I don't pay any extra NI and I don't need that subsidy.
The Tory base is still home owners and especially wealthier home owners not the poor. Even in 2019 most of those in social housing voted Labour. In any case the genuinely poor will not be hit by this proposal as the state already pays for their care costs anyway and they have few if any assets and are not home owners. The vast majority of home owners though ie those with properties worth £150,000 or more will be better off under these plans and able to protect more of their estate than they are now even if the proposals may be fractionally worse for those with a £100,000 estate only. However even the latter are still likely to be home owners not in social housing or reliant on housing benefits and not genuinely poor.
However the Tory party will support its base first, always. That is what it is elected for. If you disagree then you will have to elect a Labour government backed by the LDs and SNP to see any change.
Ironically the Tories are likely to get far more damage in North Shropshire where your party has cleverly attacked the Tory candidate for backing NI for pensioners amongst its core vote than from the Boris social care plans
a) People who don't have significant assets still pay the extra NI so are contributing to my care costs so are impacted without getting anything in return.
b) You keep referring to people being better off. As Tories often tell us 'there is no money tree', so who is paying for it if not the well off? Doesn't that only leave the less well off to foot the bill?
c) I don't care about what is best for a party. I care about what is right. Personally I would abolish NI and roll it into income tax.
On the subject of the US Presidential election, there's one other big story that's not being covered:
The fall out between Trump and DeSantis.
Trump wants DeSantis to rule out a 2024 run. DeSantis, on the other hand, is not yet willing to do so.
Now, I don't think DeSantis beats Trump in the event Trump runs. But I also think that DeSantis is correctly adjudging that he wants to be close to Trump... but not too close.
To call Joe Biden "sleepy Joe" is succumbing to Trump's perverse talent for "epitheting". Let him who has never fallen asleep during a lengthy and dull conference cast the first stone.
To harp on Biden's age may well bear on betting possibilities, for this is indeed a site for bettors.
But Biden is very busy trying to unravel some of Trump's many perverse acts and lacunae. And actually some of us think he is sometimes bringing it off.
Good. Especially if you are a train driver. I've worked night shifts immediately following day shifts, and 72 hours straight. It's not always easy staying awake. That's why the armed forces use drugs.
Biden if he does not run again because of age will probably leave it until the last moment, ie mid to late 2023, to make such an announcement. If he makes that announcement too early he risks becoming a lame duck.
Harris generally polls even worse than Biden so I doubt would get the nomination even if she ran. AOC will likely run as the candidate of the Democratic woke and populist left, Sanders is too old to run again too, however if she got it the GOP would likely win a landslide victory outside of the inner cities and university towns.
So the Democrats best bet is a younger more centrist candidate like Buttigieg, the Transport Secretary, who did well in 2020 when he won the Iowa caucus. We also went to a talk in Oxford last week by Joseph Kennedy III who is similar to Buttigieg ideologically and could be an outside bet if he runs for and wins the Massachusetts governorship next year. Same goes for Beto O'Rourke in the unlikely event he manages to win the governorship in conservative Texas next year he has announced he is running for.
Surely any Governor newly-elected in 2023 is unlikely to start campaigning for the presidency in the same year?
Don't think that would stop them! O'Rourke would have huge momentum if he'd just flipped Texas.
Sure. But (1) the Democrats are likely to get a hammering in 2022 and Texas's demographics aren't changing that quickly to overcome that, and (2) if he had just flipped Texas against its history, he really ought to be embedding himself there rather than galivanting off campaigning for the presidency with the significant risk that he'd fall flat in the next campaign for both offices. If he does have a design on the White House, he ought to look to 2028.
President of the US is a much more important job than Governor of Texas. Also Texas will have 40 electoral votes, more than WI, MI and AZ combined. So in the event that the Dems discovered they had someone who had what it takes to win TX in a grim mid-term year, they should definitely make that person the nominee.
This is an unlikely counterfactual though, because of your point (1).
GA is a more likely place to get a promising new Dem governor, firstly because the demographics are better, secondly because half the GOP hates their own incumbent, and thirdly because Abrams is a better politician than O'Rourke.
But sloppy too. Stoke does not have a "Labour town hall", the council is run by the Tories, which you'd have thought would be pretty vital context for an article like this. It doesn't even mention that the Tories flipped all four formerly Labour seats in the Potteries in 2019 which is quiet extraordinary if you have any understanding of what Stoke is like and its political history.
However he does get one thing right. Bet365 does indeed employ "thousands", actually over 4,000. (I looked it up as I couldn't believe it). Am I alone in finding this pretty depressing?
This is a betting site, at least in name, and in this very thread's header, so we are unlikely to be distressed by the existence of bookmakers, even if we do object to some of their practices. Though tbh I too would have found it surprising that Bet365 in particular employs so many, given it does not have a large chain of shops.
Software can consume workers like no-one business and it's complex because they need to handle things in real time.
You also have customer service, marketing....
Indeed - the belief that you "buy some software" and setup a business is pernicious and distorts the reality of what running an online business is really about..
Th online bit just means that the front end is online. The rest of the business still has to exist.
A close relative who setup a small delivery business was somewhat interested to find that a combined web portal/warehouse system is quite definitely not available off the shelf. He ended up paying a fair bit to integrate various systems.
I’ve dealt with many customers and potential customers over a few years of working in IT consultancy, who seemed to think that a retail website is something that can be done in a few days and for a few hundred quid.
Yes, you can set up something with Squarespace, if the business is a sideline that generates a handful of orders a day - but if you need to do anything more complicated or start integrating business processes, the costs quickly rise by orders of magnitude.
B365 annual turnover is going to be in the tens of *billions*. They regularly make the news for paying hundreds of millions in dividends.
Bet365 makes the news for paying its founder hundreds of millions in salary rather than (or strictly, as well as) dividends, so at least she pays income tax.
The Lib Dems are disgusting. After trying to nefariously overturn a Democratic vote on Brexit, the most NIMBY party in existence now backs entrenched generational inequality in the tax system as well as giving grist to the antivaxxers mill. I'd probably vote Labour in the North Shropshire by-election.
What's context on the last two? Does the first relate to the social care bill (not seen the LD position). Also intrigued on the antivax stuff - what's that about?
No vaxports of any kind and the Bath 5G nonsense. NI being an age defined tax.
Thanks. I can see the liberal case for opposing vaxports (not saying I agree necessarily, but it's not a position that would make me less likely to vote LD). I wasn't aware of the Bath nonsense, that's pretty fruity. Also with you on NI.
Mr. Farooq, CRT (critical race theory) is a brand of identity politics that judges people based on the colour of their skin, and removes Asians (in the American parlance, so Koreans/Japanese/Chinese) from the category of ethnic minorities because their academic and occupational attainment levels rather undermine the case of evil white oppression.
It's rampantly racist while pretending to be virtuous by opposing the 'inherent white supremacy' of the system. It's the sort of muddled nonsense that saw people claim Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, when everyone he shot at was, er, white.
Plenty of stuff on Twitter about it, including overtly racist takes on hiring practices:
That is the Republican definition, which they invented in order to argue against. As the Atlantic article I linked to above sets out.
Actually, I think you overstate things.
Have you read "Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race"?
It's British, rather than American, but it's very title gets your (or at least my) back up. Would it be acceptable for me to write a book called "Why I'm no longer talking to black people about business"? Of course not.
What's worse is that I'm sure there is stuff in there that is probably going to be eye opening. I am certain that there remains institutional racism out there that needs to be confronted. But I was unable to finish reading the first chapter of the book, so much did it get my back up.
If you're antagonizing me, and causing me to act all prickly, then you're probably losing the argument.
Interesting. I read it and enjoyed it although I don't think there was anything especially earth-shattering in in for anyone who'd spent any time thinking about these things. There's actually a term for white people who can't read books about racism because they get so defensive (white fragility). But you probably don't want to know that! 😉
That very phrase is attributing characteristics based on race.
Biden if he does not run again because of age will probably leave it until the last moment, ie mid to late 2023, to make such an announcement. If he makes that announcement too early he risks becoming a lame duck.
Harris generally polls even worse than Biden so I doubt would get the nomination even if she ran. AOC will likely run as the candidate of the Democratic woke and populist left, Sanders is too old to run again too, however if she got it the GOP would likely win a landslide victory outside of the inner cities and university towns.
So the Democrats best bet is a younger more centrist candidate like Buttigieg, the Transport Secretary, who did well in 2020 when he won the Iowa caucus. We also went to a talk in Oxford last week by Joseph Kennedy III who is similar to Buttigieg ideologically and could be an outside bet if he runs for and wins the Massachusetts governorship next year. Same goes for Beto O'Rourke in the unlikely event he manages to win the governorship in conservative Texas next year he has announced he is running for.
Surely any Governor newly-elected in 2023 is unlikely to start campaigning for the presidency in the same year?
Don't think that would stop them! O'Rourke would have huge momentum if he'd just flipped Texas.
Sure. But (1) the Democrats are likely to get a hammering in 2022 and Texas's demographics aren't changing that quickly to overcome that, and (2) if he had just flipped Texas against its history, he really ought to be embedding himself there rather than galivanting off campaigning for the presidency with the significant risk that he'd fall flat in the next campaign for both offices. If he does have a design on the White House, he ought to look to 2028.
President of the US is a much more important job than Governor of Texas. Also Texas will have 40 electoral votes, more than WI, MI and AZ combined. So in the event that the Dems discovered they had someone who had what it takes to win TX in a grim mid-term year, they should definitely make that person the nominee.
This is an unlikely counterfactual though, because of your point (1).
GA is a more likely place to get a promising new Dem governor, firstly because the demographics are better, secondly because half the GOP hates their own incumbent, and thirdly because Abrams is a better politician than O'Rourke.
Abrams is not even quoted on Betfair which means no-one betting on WH2024 has been bothered to ask Betfair to add her to the list. I'd be inclined to wait for news she (or anyone else) is actually running.
Biden if he does not run again because of age will probably leave it until the last moment, ie mid to late 2023, to make such an announcement. If he makes that announcement too early he risks becoming a lame duck.
Harris generally polls even worse than Biden so I doubt would get the nomination even if she ran. AOC will likely run as the candidate of the Democratic woke and populist left, Sanders is too old to run again too, however if she got it the GOP would likely win a landslide victory outside of the inner cities and university towns.
So the Democrats best bet is a younger more centrist candidate like Buttigieg, the Transport Secretary, who did well in 2020 when he won the Iowa caucus. We also went to a talk in Oxford last week by Joseph Kennedy III who is similar to Buttigieg ideologically and could be an outside bet if he runs for and wins the Massachusetts governorship next year. Same goes for Beto O'Rourke in the unlikely event he manages to win the governorship in conservative Texas next year he has announced he is running for.
Surely any Governor newly-elected in 2023 is unlikely to start campaigning for the presidency in the same year?
If Biden does not run again it may be the best chance to win the Presidency they ever get, they will run. By 2025 they would have been governor for nearly 3 years if elected, though they would then give it up if elected President.
Obama ran in 2008 having only been a Senator for 4 years, Cameron for Tory leader in 2005 having only been an MP for 4 years
Obama; quite a good example to follow. Cameron; not so much.
Mr. Farooq, CRT (critical race theory) is a brand of identity politics that judges people based on the colour of their skin, and removes Asians (in the American parlance, so Koreans/Japanese/Chinese) from the category of ethnic minorities because their academic and occupational attainment levels rather undermine the case of evil white oppression.
It's rampantly racist while pretending to be virtuous by opposing the 'inherent white supremacy' of the system. It's the sort of muddled nonsense that saw people claim Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, when everyone he shot at was, er, white.
Plenty of stuff on Twitter about it, including overtly racist takes on hiring practices:
That is the Republican definition, which they invented in order to argue against. As the Atlantic article I linked to above sets out.
Actually, I think you overstate things.
Have you read "Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race"?
It's British, rather than American, but it's very title gets your (or at least my) back up. Would it be acceptable for me to write a book called "Why I'm no longer talking to black people about business"? Of course not.
What's worse is that I'm sure there is stuff in there that is probably going to be eye opening. I am certain that there remains institutional racism out there that needs to be confronted. But I was unable to finish reading the first chapter of the book, so much did it get my back up.
If you're antagonizing me, and causing me to act all prickly, then you're probably losing the argument.
I've been rewatching The Last Kingdom and I've joked that Uhtred demonstrates "How To Make Enemies And Antagonize People" and that often seems to be the modus operandi of the Left.
Though you can also say the same of the Right, but it doesn't seem to hurt them as much.
But sloppy too. Stoke does not have a "Labour town hall", the council is run by the Tories, which you'd have thought would be pretty vital context for an article like this. It doesn't even mention that the Tories flipped all four formerly Labour seats in the Potteries in 2019 which is quiet extraordinary if you have any understanding of what Stoke is like and its political history.
However he does get one thing right. Bet365 does indeed employ "thousands", actually over 4,000. (I looked it up as I couldn't believe it). Am I alone in finding this pretty depressing?
This is a betting site, at least in name, and in this very thread's header, so we are unlikely to be distressed by the existence of bookmakers, even if we do object to some of their practices. Though tbh I too would have found it surprising that Bet365 in particular employs so many, given it does not have a large chain of shops.
Software can consume workers like no-one business and it's complex because they need to handle things in real time.
You also have customer service, marketing....
Indeed - the belief that you "buy some software" and setup a business is pernicious and distorts the reality of what running an online business is really about..
Th online bit just means that the front end is online. The rest of the business still has to exist.
A close relative who setup a small delivery business was somewhat interested to find that a combined web portal/warehouse system is quite definitely not available off the shelf. He ended up paying a fair bit to integrate various systems.
I’ve dealt with many customers and potential customers over a few years of working in IT consultancy, who seemed to think that a retail website is something that can be done in a few days and for a few hundred quid.
Yes, you can set up something with Squarespace, if the business is a sideline that generates a handful of orders a day - but if you need to do anything more complicated or start integrating business processes, the costs quickly rise by orders of magnitude.
B365 annual turnover is going to be in the tens of *billions*. They regularly make the news for paying hundreds of millions in dividends. The software also needs to have a lot of backstops, escalations and real-time feedback loops integrated into it, and a single mispricing can cost them a fortune.
Indeed.
"How hard can a website be? My 12 year old daughter can make one in 10 minutes...." etc etc
Mr. Z, normalising judging people based on their skin colour is repulsive. It's the textbook definition of racism.
The idea that bigotry's good if it's the 'right' kind is utterly despicable.
Mr. B, I've made a note of that link and will read it later, when I have the time.
There is no "judgment" involved in saying black people deserve a break, it isn't an assertion of their relative intrinsic worth but of the meaning of justice. And if white people hadn't treated non-white people the way they have we wouldn't need or be interested in the definition of racism.
But sloppy too. Stoke does not have a "Labour town hall", the council is run by the Tories, which you'd have thought would be pretty vital context for an article like this. It doesn't even mention that the Tories flipped all four formerly Labour seats in the Potteries in 2019 which is quiet extraordinary if you have any understanding of what Stoke is like and its political history.
However he does get one thing right. Bet365 does indeed employ "thousands", actually over 4,000. (I looked it up as I couldn't believe it). Am I alone in finding this pretty depressing?
This is a betting site, at least in name, and in this very thread's header, so we are unlikely to be distressed by the existence of bookmakers, even if we do object to some of their practices. Though tbh I too would have found it surprising that Bet365 in particular employs so many, given it does not have a large chain of shops.
Software can consume workers like no-one business and it's complex because they need to handle things in real time.
You also have customer service, marketing....
Indeed - the belief that you "buy some software" and setup a business is pernicious and distorts the reality of what running an online business is really about..
Th online bit just means that the front end is online. The rest of the business still has to exist.
A close relative who setup a small delivery business was somewhat interested to find that a combined web portal/warehouse system is quite definitely not available off the shelf. He ended up paying a fair bit to integrate various systems.
I’ve dealt with many customers and potential customers over a few years of working in IT consultancy, who seemed to think that a retail website is something that can be done in a few days and for a few hundred quid.
Yes, you can set up something with Squarespace, if the business is a sideline that generates a handful of orders a day - but if you need to do anything more complicated or start integrating business processes, the costs quickly rise by orders of magnitude.
B365 annual turnover is going to be in the tens of *billions*. They regularly make the news for paying hundreds of millions in dividends. The software also needs to have a lot of backstops, escalations and real-time feedback loops integrated into it, and a single mispricing can cost them a fortune.
I ran pressure groups for various products/industries based around their IT infrastructure. I was asked to run one for a group of very large retail companies. I was blown away by how good their IT people were, such that I wondered whether I could actually offer them anything. Manufacturing users seemed the worse and with them I struggled on getting them to understand what they needed to do.
What dawned on me was if the tills went down in Tesco they were stuffed. If the Bill of Materials went down in a manufacturing company they would muddle through in the short term.
The Lib Dems are disgusting. After trying to nefariously overturn a Democratic vote on Brexit, the most NIMBY party in existence now backs entrenched generational inequality in the tax system as well as giving grist to the antivaxxers mill. I'd probably vote Labour in the North Shropshire by-election.
Weren't you a LibDem council candidate back in 2017 ?
Comments
Much like BLM, they wrap bullshit in a nice tagline, but the product remains nothing of the sort.
Mr. Gate, habituating people to a daft gesture doesn't stop it being daft.
Which seems a not unreasonable position.
Ambitious maybe, as in we are hearing a lot more about him than previously. I wouldn't have recognised the voice at all until he appeared on Today. And I was surprised to see that he did the Palace documentary so he is def more visible (audible?) than hitherto so that could qualify as ambitious. Next he'll be co-presenting Bake Off.
A bright, frosty morning in this part of Yorkshire.
The seasons have changed in the space of 36 hours.
Let's see how many red wall Tories show some backbone later today.
The kids are all right. My daughter and the other young women* in her friendship group (and young men) are a lovely thoughtful bunch, intelligent, kind and extremely hard working.
* at their South London Comp, definitely young women not young ladies, thank God.
- "I'm against Multiculturalism*"
- "So you're a racist who is against other cultures?"
*The belief system that multiple cultures should live together, without merging or compromise (apart from the host culture), with as much "separate development"** as possible. Think rejoicing in the ability for people not to need to speak English in the UK.
**Yes. Indeed.
I know it's outdated to point out their campaigning on Stephen Lawrence but I would also say they like a juicy story whatever the flavour.
Again I don't read it but the front pages suggest that the Express is more as you describe.
Edit: did I do it right?
As for Harris, I don't think she'd get a clear run even if she was already president - though that would depend very much on her approval ratings, which would no doubt get a honeymoon boost. To that extent, *when* Biden stood down (or vacated the office in some other, less controlled, way) is critical. If next year or early 2023, Harris has a horrible time with a Republican congress; if mid-2023, her honeymoon period will be fading come the primaries but would likely have been strong enough to put some off running when they would normally have been establishing campaigns; if late-2023, she probably walks it; if into 2024, then all hell breaks loose as the primaries are thrown into chaos - particularly if Biden has a major (maybe controlling) share of delegates built up.
But the last time a VP got promoted mid-term, in 1976, Ford very nearly lost the nomination to Reagan. If Harris is called on to do likewise in the next 18 months, I could well see a challenge to her running strongly.
I note Roz Altmann last night said the effective cost is not £86k but about £150k for most people when you add in costs not covered. A point I keep making to @HYUFD when he states the not so well off will still inherit.
So thanks Boris, as a retired well off pensioner it's a big win for me and my children. I would just like to thank the not so well off for their contributions.
Progressive, rather than regressive.
Absolute jaw dropping revelation in today's Athletic about who could be Manchester United's interim manager.
Steve Bruce, recently let go by Newcastle, would be very keen on the role, and believes he could help stabilise the dressing room.'
https://theathletic.com/2968984/2021/11/22/who-should-be-the-next-manager-of-manchester-united/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/opponents-critical-race-theory-are-arguing-themselves/619391/
Turns out the Tory candidate in North Shropshire has said in the past that pensioners should pay NI.
The Lib Dems are going big on this and promising they'll never put NI for the over 65s.
https://twitter.com/MatthewGreen02/status/1462695870592339972
It's rampantly racist while pretending to be virtuous by opposing the 'inherent white supremacy' of the system. It's the sort of muddled nonsense that saw people claim Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, when everyone he shot at was, er, white.
Plenty of stuff on Twitter about it, including overtly racist takes on hiring practices:
https://twitter.com/johnrobertgage/status/1462131149015240708
They have their moments, but don't we all!
Harris generally polls even worse than Biden so I doubt would get the nomination even if she ran. AOC will likely run as the candidate of the Democratic woke and populist left, Sanders is too old to run again too, however if she got it the GOP would likely win a landslide victory outside of the inner cities and university towns.
So the Democrats best bet is a younger more centrist candidate like Buttigieg, the Transport Secretary, who did well in 2020 when he won the Iowa caucus. We also went to a talk in Oxford last week by Joseph Kennedy III who is similar to Buttigieg ideologically and could be an outside bet if he runs for and wins the Massachusetts governorship in 2022. Same goes for Beto O'Rourke in the unlikely event he manages to win the governorship in conservative Texas next year he has announced he is running for.
All would seek to be Macron if Biden did a Hollande and did not run for re election after one term having narrowly beaten the incumbent conservative President to get the Presidency
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/21/keir-starmer-offer-hope-stoke-labour-heartlands-north-narrative
But sloppy too. Stoke does not have a "Labour town hall", the council is run by the Tories, which you'd have thought would be pretty vital context for an article like this. It doesn't even mention that the Tories flipped all four formerly Labour seats in the Potteries in 2019 which is quiet extraordinary if you have any understanding of what Stoke is like and its political history.
However he does get one thing right. Bet365 does indeed employ "thousands", actually over 4,000. (I looked it up as I couldn't believe it). Am I alone in finding this pretty depressing?
Your lack of understanding is compounded by attaching a thread from a "Christian, Faith and Flag Conservative" commentator (John Gage), who I don't think can be expected to give any objective assessment of CRT.
Mind, it would have pushed me into full-time retirement sooner. By the time I'd paid registration fees, professional insurance and income tax on my income I calculated I was working from January until about May until I started working for me!
In the RedWall the £86,000 cap is still better for those who face residential care costs and domestic care costs levied on their estate excluding the family home than the current situation where there is no limit on care costs with only £23,250 protected from liability
As the Atlantic article I linked to above sets out.
The point is not that change happens - which is trite - but that pretty much all changes have good and bad (or less good) consequences. Or perhaps unintended consequences is a better way of putting it. It is silly to divide things into only good or only bad. An inquiring mind would understand this. Too many people assume - without thinking and without challenging the "change is good" mantra - that because something is new it is, ipso facto, better. It may be but it is not a given.
Some change seems to me to be reverting to older ways of doing things and old tropes which some do not see because they either refuse to be told or do not have the experience or historical knowledge to recognise old wine in new bottles.
Or so I've read. Can't recall the source now.
Have you read "Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race"?
It's British, rather than American, but it's very title gets your (or at least my) back up. Would it be acceptable for me to write a book called "Why I'm no longer talking to black people about business"? Of course not.
What's worse is that I'm sure there is stuff in there that is probably going to be eye opening. I am certain that there remains institutional racism out there that needs to be confronted. But I was unable to finish reading the first chapter of the book, so much did it get my back up.
If you're antagonizing me, and causing me to act all prickly, then you're probably losing the argument.
You also have customer service, marketing....
Is trying to slant things a tiny, tiny bit in their favour really the worst thing that could ever happen?
I haven't read Ms Price's full transcript but the snippet reproduced here suggests she wants people to understand that society, social norms and mores, aren't set in aspic. And that the older generation shouldn't automatically dismiss the views of the younger one (as Lebowitz satirises in the quote).
I'm sure there is some rhetoric in there also and if so it seems to have worked as we are all talking about it now.
Is this a case of people not being careful what they wish for?
Th online bit just means that the front end is online. The rest of the business still has to exist.
A close relative who setup a small delivery business was somewhat interested to find that a combined web portal/warehouse system is quite definitely not available off the shelf. He ended up paying a fair bit to integrate various systems.
You: bug
HYUFD: feature
You: bug
HYUFD: feature
You: bug
HYUFD: feature
You: bug
HYUFD: feature
You: bug
HYUFD: feature
etc
However the Tory party will support its base first, always. That is what it is elected for. If you disagree then you will have to elect a Labour government backed by the LDs and SNP to see any change.
Ironically the Tories are likely to get far more damage in North Shropshire where your party has cleverly attacked the Tory candidate for backing NI for pensioners amongst its core vote than from the Boris social care plans
Look at Insulate Britain, XR, etc. They are irritating as f**k and make me reach for the keys to the nearest 4x4 but are they "losing the argument"?
*Not antagonising you personally, obvs.
Eddo-Lodge was born in 1989, so I'm not sure what your point is ?
Obama ran in 2008 having only been a Senator for 4 years, Cameron for Tory leader in 2005 having only been an MP for 4 years
When I was young, the film Chariots Of Fire promulgated the idea that the Victorian/Edwardian view of amateur sport was stupid nonsense and bigoted. At the time a great deal of major sport was still amateur.
Some little time later, we had the famous 100m final with Ben Johnson in it. I believe that one person in that final has not be found to be a drug cheat.
The Victorian/Edwardian amateur thing was not just a class based thing (though there was an element of that) - it was that money is a corrupting influence in sport. And popular sportsmen and women will end up highly paid.
The point is not that the Edwardians were right - but that human nature hasn't changed that much. Money created corruption in sport - which they dealt with using the amateur "systems". If you re-introduce money into sport, then the same problems will occur.
The idea that bigotry's good if it's the 'right' kind is utterly despicable.
Mr. B, I've made a note of that link and will read it later, when I have the time.
Yes, you can set up something with Squarespace, if the business is a sideline that generates a handful of orders a day - but if you need to do anything more complicated or start integrating business processes, the costs quickly rise by orders of magnitude.
B365 annual turnover is going to be in the tens of *billions*. They regularly make the news for paying hundreds of millions in dividends. The software also needs to have a lot of backstops, escalations and real-time feedback loops integrated into it, and a single mispricing can cost them a fortune.
b) You keep referring to people being better off. As Tories often tell us 'there is no money tree', so who is paying for it if not the well off? Doesn't that only leave the less well off to foot the bill?
c) I don't care about what is best for a party. I care about what is right. Personally I would abolish NI and roll it into income tax.
The fall out between Trump and DeSantis.
Trump wants DeSantis to rule out a 2024 run. DeSantis, on the other hand, is not yet willing to do so.
Now, I don't think DeSantis beats Trump in the event Trump runs. But I also think that DeSantis is correctly adjudging that he wants to be close to Trump... but not too close.
This is an unlikely counterfactual though, because of your point (1).
GA is a more likely place to get a promising new Dem governor, firstly because the demographics are better, secondly because half the GOP hates their own incumbent, and thirdly because Abrams is a better politician than O'Rourke.
Looks like I'm still politically homeless.
Though you can also say the same of the Right, but it doesn't seem to hurt them as much.
"How hard can a website be? My 12 year old daughter can make one in 10 minutes...." etc etc
What dawned on me was if the tills went down in Tesco they were stuffed. If the Bill of Materials went down in a manufacturing company they would muddle through in the short term.
Things have moved on since then.