I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
This is an Achilles heel for the NU10K concept, or rather the cause-effect logic of it. Are there 10k (or however many) people who are structurally safe in their position as a result of the logic of NU10K, regardless of their own personalities? Or are there people with the innate greasy-pole climbing skills and Machiaevellian slipperiness that mean they tend to find themselves in influential senior positions? I think it's probably more the latter.
From time to time - perhaps more often than we think - people who are not slippery Machiaevellis do make it into prominent positions, and sometimes they are unfairly scapegoated for other people's failings. They then succeed downwards.
Wow. A guy (Rudkin) on WATO explaining that Jujitsu employees would (allegedly) manually and remotely access branch terminals to correct Horizon to balance the books and mask the errors in the PO's favour especially when Fujitsu contracts were about to renew.
Starmer fans please explain.
That takes it to quite a spectacular new level. Certainly criminal, indeed conspiratorial, and surely people will get big big jail sentences
Not so fast. I have worked in companies and remote correction of errors either by the system or branch input errors is common place. If the amendment were fraudulent then becomes the issue. By the sounds of it, on the balance of probability...
Wow. A guy (Rudkin) on WATO explaining that Jujitsu employees would (allegedly) manually and remotely access branch terminals to correct Horizon to balance the books and mask the errors in the PO's favour especially when Fujitsu contracts were about to renew.
Starmer fans please explain.
That takes it to quite a spectacular new level. Certainly criminal, indeed conspiratorial, and surely people will get big big jail sentences
Not so fast. I have worked in companies and remote correction of errors either by the system or branch input errors is common place. If the amendment were fraudulent then becomes the issue. By the sounds of it, on the balance of probability...
"... to correct Horizon to balance the books and mask the errors in the PO's favour especially when Fujitsu contracts were about to renew..." doesn't sound quite the sort of thing you regularly witnessed.
Wow. A guy (Rudkin) on WATO explaining that Jujitsu employees would (allegedly) manually and remotely access branch terminals to correct Horizon to balance the books and mask the errors in the PO's favour especially when Fujitsu contracts were about to renew.
Starmer fans please explain.
That takes it to quite a spectacular new level. Certainly criminal, indeed conspiratorial, and surely people will get big big jail sentences
Not so fast. I have worked in companies and remote correction of errors either by the system or branch input errors is common place. If the amendment were fraudulent then becomes the issue. By the sounds of it, on the balance of probability...
This was a key scene in the Mr Bates v PO TV programme. SubPostmasters' Federation rep (Rudkin?) visits Fujitsu and is shown a branch terminal being changed remotely. Later it is revealed that Fujitsu have removed all records of the Fed Reps visit. He is able to find proof in the form of emails confirming his visit (and copied to senior PO staff)
Wow. A guy (Rudkin) on WATO explaining that Jujitsu employees would (allegedly) manually and remotely access branch terminals to correct Horizon to balance the books and mask the errors in the PO's favour especially when Fujitsu contracts were about to renew.
Starmer fans please explain.
That takes it to quite a spectacular new level. Certainly criminal, indeed conspiratorial, and surely people will get big big jail sentences
Not so fast. I have worked in companies and remote correction of errors either by the system or branch input errors is common place. If the amendment were fraudulent then becomes the issue. By the sounds of it, on the balance of probability...
This was a key scene in the Mr Bates v PO TV programme. SubPostmasters' Federation rep (Rudkin?) visits Fujitsu and is shown a branch terminal being changed remotely. Later it is revealed that Fujitsu have removed all records of the Fed Reps visit. He is able to find proof in the form of emails confirming his visit (and copied to senior PO staff)
Yep. That was the guy. I was trying to be more circumspect to keep the PB lawyers' blood pressure constant.
Wow. A guy (Rudkin) on WATO explaining that Jujitsu employees would (allegedly) manually and remotely access branch terminals to correct Horizon to balance the books and mask the errors in the PO's favour especially when Fujitsu contracts were about to renew.
Starmer fans please explain.
That takes it to quite a spectacular new level. Certainly criminal, indeed conspiratorial, and surely people will get big big jail sentences
Not so fast. I have worked in companies and remote correction of errors either by the system or branch input errors is common place. If the amendment were fraudulent then becomes the issue. By the sounds of it, on the balance of probability...
This was a key scene in the Mr Bates v PO TV programme. SubPostmasters' Federation rep (Rudkin?) visits Fujitsu and is shown a branch terminal being changed remotely. Later it is revealed that Fujitsu have removed all records of the Fed Reps visit. He is able to find proof in the form of emails confirming his visit (and copied to senior PO staff)
Yeah, the drama never quite pursued that line of the story. Blatant lies and fraud at Fujitsu….
TwiX has a BIG rumour (retweeted by Musk, no less) that Biden is going to pull out shortly
Caveat Empt, DYOR, I have NO idea if it is true
Isn't "retweeted by Musk" the Uxbridge English Dictionary definition of the word "bollocks"?
No
The tweet actually comes from a right wing journalist. Whether that makes it more or less reliable I dunno. More, because it is less likely to be wishful thinking; less, because it is more likely to be misinformed?
i hope that is clear, now place your bets, gentlemen
Instead of breathlessly fapping yourself off over your interpretation, why not just link to the tweet so we can read the bollox directly?
I’ve found that doesn’t help much
With the fapping ?
I must be the one who is wet behind the ears now, as I don’t know what fapping means
Don't google it.
If you get wet behind your ears after fapping, you're doing it wrong.
Paula Vennells says she will hand back her CBE with immediate effect.
I don't care. It is just a distraction from what matters. What's the downside for her? 30 seconds spent removing CBE from her LinkedIn profile? Someone else will fix Wikipedia and it is not as if she wears it to go shopping. Being awarded a CBE means a new frock for a day out in London SW1 but on the second day it is put away in a drawer and never seen again. A million people (or bots) signed a petition to give the government more breathing space.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
This is an Achilles heel for the NU10K concept, or rather the cause-effect logic of it. Are there 10k (or however many) people who are structurally safe in their position as a result of the logic of NU10K, regardless of their own personalities? Or are there people with the innate greasy-pole climbing skills and Machiaevellian slipperiness that mean they tend to find themselves in influential senior positions? I think it's probably more the latter.
From time to time - perhaps more often than we think - people who are not slippery Machiaevellis do make it into prominent positions, and sometimes they are unfairly scapegoated for other people's failings. They then succeed downwards.
In her case, she managed to bomb out hard enough to become a liability. Despite a lot of work from her peers to rehabilitate her.
I’m quite sure, that if she had lived longer, she would have come back.
Every concept has edge cases and exceptions.
EDIT : The NU10K concept isn’t a conspiracy or a secret society. It’s about group think, people you know and a kind of sheep like mutual protection. Much as company directors always sign off huge bonus etc for other company directors.
Wow. A guy (Rudkin) on WATO explaining that Jujitsu employees would (allegedly) manually and remotely access branch terminals to correct Horizon to balance the books and mask the errors in the PO's favour especially when Fujitsu contracts were about to renew.
Starmer fans please explain.
That takes it to quite a spectacular new level. Certainly criminal, indeed conspiratorial, and surely people will get big big jail sentences
Not so fast. I have worked in companies and remote correction of errors either by the system or branch input errors is common place. If the amendment were fraudulent then becomes the issue. By the sounds of it, on the balance of probability...
"... to correct Horizon to balance the books and mask the errors in the PO's favour especially when Fujitsu contracts were about to renew..." doesn't sound quite the sort of thing you regularly witnessed.
I hope ?
I don't believe the intention was proxy fraud on behalf of the Post Office, just correcting errors as they saw appropriate. There was no malice aforethought, that turned out to be a collateral effect.
I was listening to someone discuss this the other day, and he put it quite succinctly. Donald Trump is insane, but coherent. His world view is a delusion, but he can express it and describe it and make people believe in it. Joe Biden is sane, but incoherent. Despite living in reality, he does not have the capability to communicate that - whether that is due to his age or not, it doesn't matter. So what voters see is a politician they might not agree with who is energetic and could definitely do the job, versus someone who many be half sensible but also looks half dead and incapable of doing the job.
Edit: first?
Biden Valley Forge speech last week was both coherent and sane. Well worth watching in full. That isn't a man about to pull out.
Biden trips over a word or two and we have a confirmation of senility. Trump spends an hour spitting out incoherent bollocks and he's seen as cogent. It's a funny old game Saint!
But Trump can dad dance to YMCA. You watch that and just the one word springs to mind. Vigour.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
I was listening to someone discuss this the other day, and he put it quite succinctly. Donald Trump is insane, but coherent. His world view is a delusion, but he can express it and describe it and make people believe in it. Joe Biden is sane, but incoherent. Despite living in reality, he does not have the capability to communicate that - whether that is due to his age or not, it doesn't matter. So what voters see is a politician they might not agree with who is energetic and could definitely do the job, versus someone who many be half sensible but also looks half dead and incapable of doing the job.
Edit: first?
Biden Valley Forge speech last week was both coherent and sane. Well worth watching in full. That isn't a man about to pull out.
Biden trips over a word or two and we have a confirmation of senility. Trump spends an hour spitting out incoherent bollocks and he's seen as cogent. It's a funny old game Saint!
But Trump can dad dance to YMCA. You watch that and just the one word springs to mind. Vigour.
Dance?
He can't ascend a shallow stairway without latching onto Theresa May's trousers.
A slightly belated happy 40th birthday to Kim Jong Un, by the way.
I know he's a fairly regular poster - and even more regular lurker - on this site, although I'm certainly not going to dox the guy, as I value his betting insights on Parliamentary by-elections.
A slightly belated happy 40th birthday to Kim Jong Un, by the way.
I know he's a fairly regular poster - and even more regular lurker - on this site, although I'm certainly not going to dox the guy, as I value his betting insights on Parliamentary by-elections.
You do know the penalty for being late in wishing the great leader well ?
Understandably, all the focus is on the qualities (or lack of them) of Biden and Trump. Setting that aside, obviously POTUS can't be in charge of everything. So I'm inclined to think about who they would appoint to key positions of power in the next administration - who would actually run the government?
Once you think about that, it's a no-brainer. Biden would (continue to) appoint sensible, intelligent people who could to some extent make up for his shortcomings as POTUS. Trump would appoint dangerous maniacs to all the key positions, wouldn't he?
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
This is an Achilles heel for the NU10K concept, or rather the cause-effect logic of it. Are there 10k (or however many) people who are structurally safe in their position as a result of the logic of NU10K, regardless of their own personalities? Or are there people with the innate greasy-pole climbing skills and Machiaevellian slipperiness that mean they tend to find themselves in influential senior positions? I think it's probably more the latter.
From time to time - perhaps more often than we think - people who are not slippery Machiaevellis do make it into prominent positions, and sometimes they are unfairly scapegoated for other people's failings. They then succeed downwards.
In her case, she managed to bomb out hard enough to become a liability. Despite a lot of work from her peers to rehabilitate her.
I’m quite sure, that if she had lived longer, she would have come back.
Every concept has edge cases and exceptions.
EDIT : The NU10K concept isn’t a conspiracy or a secret society. It’s about group think, people you know and a kind of sheep like mutual protection. Much as company directors always sign off huge bonus etc for other company directors.
Years ago when our old VC was around and 'earning' the biggest salary of any University VC, it was revealed how the salary came about. Externals with an interest in keeping said VC sweet were involved, such as the building contractors who seemed to keep winning those multi-million pound contracts for new Uni buildings.
Mind you, when it works for you, its fine... Many moons ago I was PI (i.e the lead) on a Grant Application to the Wellcome Trust. My CI (collaborator) happened to be sitting on the same committee that the grant application was discussed. Now clearly he recused himself, but I have no doubt that his mates on the committee knew the score. Grant awarded. Kerching!
I was listening to someone discuss this the other day, and he put it quite succinctly. Donald Trump is insane, but coherent. His world view is a delusion, but he can express it and describe it and make people believe in it. Joe Biden is sane, but incoherent. Despite living in reality, he does not have the capability to communicate that - whether that is due to his age or not, it doesn't matter. So what voters see is a politician they might not agree with who is energetic and could definitely do the job, versus someone who many be half sensible but also looks half dead and incapable of doing the job.
Edit: first?
Biden Valley Forge speech last week was both coherent and sane. Well worth watching in full. That isn't a man about to pull out.
Biden trips over a word or two and we have a confirmation of senility. Trump spends an hour spitting out incoherent bollocks and he's seen as cogent. It's a funny old game Saint!
But Trump can dad dance to YMCA. You watch that and just the one word springs to mind. Vigour.
Vigour? I had a different six-letter word in mind, beginning with W.
A slightly belated happy 40th birthday to Kim Jong Un, by the way.
I know he's a fairly regular poster - and even more regular lurker - on this site, although I'm certainly not going to dox the guy, as I value his betting insights on Parliamentary by-elections.
You do know the penalty for being late in wishing the great leader well ?
Is it that I only get a relatively small slice of birthday cake?
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
A slightly belated happy 40th birthday to Kim Jong Un, by the way.
I know he's a fairly regular poster - and even more regular lurker - on this site, although I'm certainly not going to dox the guy, as I value his betting insights on Parliamentary by-elections.
You do know the penalty for being late in wishing the great leader well ?
Is it that I only get a relatively small slice of birthday cake?
Yes, but thankfully the disappointment is short-lived as the excitement of being shot out of the cannon kicks in.
Wow. A guy (Rudkin) on WATO explaining that Jujitsu employees would (allegedly) manually and remotely access branch terminals to correct Horizon to balance the books and mask the errors in the PO's favour especially when Fujitsu contracts were about to renew.
Starmer fans please explain.
That takes it to quite a spectacular new level. Certainly criminal, indeed conspiratorial, and surely people will get big big jail sentences
Not so fast. I have worked in companies and remote correction of errors either by the system or branch input errors is common place. If the amendment were fraudulent then becomes the issue. By the sounds of it, on the balance of probability...
This was a key scene in the Mr Bates v PO TV programme. SubPostmasters' Federation rep (Rudkin?) visits Fujitsu and is shown a branch terminal being changed remotely. Later it is revealed that Fujitsu have removed all records of the Fed Reps visit. He is able to find proof in the form of emails confirming his visit (and copied to senior PO staff)
Yep. That was the guy. I was trying to be more circumspect to keep the PB lawyers' blood pressure constant.
The NYT is reporting that Boeing are lucky the entire 737 fleet has not been grounded, and maybe other models as well
That seems quite extreme, but if it is even half true, then this could be spectacularly bad for such an enormous company - and have vast implications for the airline/tourist/travel industries. How many Boeing planes are out there?
The only reason every recently built (< 2 years) Boeing hasn't been grounded is because of the FAA's general reluctance to take actions that would seriously damage both Boeing and several large US airlines unless aircraft are literally falling out of the sky. I don't agree with that stance, but it is what it is.
Finding similar gross defects in multiple 737 Max 9s indicates a deep, systemic problem at Boeing, or at least at the Renton facility that handles final assembly of the 737. This isn't just some tired, lazy or under-trained technician making a mistake. There should be multiple layers of checks in place to make sure errors are caught and rectified before airframes make it out the door. And clearly those checks are either ineffective or not being done at all, which means nothing in those aircraft can be trusted unless airlines have thoroughly inspected it.
Boeing recently had to warn airlines about lose bolts in the 737's tail assembly, and now there are lose bolts in the plug door. There will be more as yet undiscovered problems with the 737 Max because they were simply not built to a high enough standard.
Yes, that was the gist of the NYT article. Boeing are perilously close to a calamitous FAA order to ground all new Boeing planes, worldwide
Imagine the chaos
One theory being canvassed is that the pandemic screwed their production line reliability, many key staff left and weren’t replaced, etc
That kinda makes sense but then why didn’t the same happen to Airbus?
The people at Boeing need to stay positive in this tough time for as they say, when a door closes another one opens.
I hear Putin is interested in installing these window/doors on Aeroflot....
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
What is NU10K?
Aside, the story of her and her charity is a fascinating (if depressing) case study of politicised journalism going too far. Her crookedness and/or incompetence (and that of Botney) was taken as axiomatic, eventually, even across the lefties. She was that most despised of people by the Mail/Express axis - the do-gooder, and her supposed hypocrisy confirmed everything that nasty right-wingers believe about the altruistic; deeply misguided and naive at the absolute best, most likely a criminal or traitor, or both.
And turns out it was all wrong - and barely a word was uttered.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
What's that an example of? Friends rally round and do what they can if they think an acquaintance has had a hard time. Look at how Jo Hamilton's neighbours raised money for her after she was convicted of false accounting.
A slightly belated happy 40th birthday to Kim Jong Un, by the way.
I know he's a fairly regular poster - and even more regular lurker - on this site, although I'm certainly not going to dox the guy, as I value his betting insights on Parliamentary by-elections.
You do know the penalty for being late in wishing the great leader well ?
Is it that I only get a relatively small slice of birthday cake?
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
This is an Achilles heel for the NU10K concept, or rather the cause-effect logic of it. Are there 10k (or however many) people who are structurally safe in their position as a result of the logic of NU10K, regardless of their own personalities? Or are there people with the innate greasy-pole climbing skills and Machiaevellian slipperiness that mean they tend to find themselves in influential senior positions? I think it's probably more the latter.
From time to time - perhaps more often than we think - people who are not slippery Machiaevellis do make it into prominent positions, and sometimes they are unfairly scapegoated for other people's failings. They then succeed downwards.
In her case, she managed to bomb out hard enough to become a liability. Despite a lot of work from her peers to rehabilitate her.
I’m quite sure, that if she had lived longer, she would have come back.
Every concept has edge cases and exceptions.
EDIT : The NU10K concept isn’t a conspiracy or a secret society. It’s about group think, people you know and a kind of sheep like mutual protection. Much as company directors always sign off huge bonus etc for other company directors.
The sort of people Private Eye features occasionally, who move on from one job to another, and you wonder quite what skills they've shown to hold five major positions consecutively...
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Absolutely. The breathless “what-iffery” regarding Biden’s candidacy makes little sense now. He is running and the deadlines have passed. Absent a severe health crisis which forces him to withdraw, or death, he is running. The process has started. It’s done.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
NU10K is about the people who inhabit the high paid jobs in government, the third sector and the private sector. Managerial roles, not politicians.
They are not right or left - though they are generally in favour of more government spending.
The key characteristic is that when they utterly fail at a role, they waft into a better paid job and suffer little or no real consequence for their failure.
The USA is already a failed democracy. Like New York snow arrives on UK shores a short while after, a year of a Braverman Government should be more than enough time for us to catch up.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
This is an Achilles heel for the NU10K concept, or rather the cause-effect logic of it. Are there 10k (or however many) people who are structurally safe in their position as a result of the logic of NU10K, regardless of their own personalities? Or are there people with the innate greasy-pole climbing skills and Machiaevellian slipperiness that mean they tend to find themselves in influential senior positions? I think it's probably more the latter.
From time to time - perhaps more often than we think - people who are not slippery Machiaevellis do make it into prominent positions, and sometimes they are unfairly scapegoated for other people's failings. They then succeed downwards.
In her case, she managed to bomb out hard enough to become a liability. Despite a lot of work from her peers to rehabilitate her.
I’m quite sure, that if she had lived longer, she would have come back.
Every concept has edge cases and exceptions.
EDIT : The NU10K concept isn’t a conspiracy or a secret society. It’s about group think, people you know and a kind of sheep like mutual protection. Much as company directors always sign off huge bonus etc for other company directors.
Years ago when our old VC was around and 'earning' the biggest salary of any University VC, it was revealed how the salary came about. Externals with an interest in keeping said VC sweet were involved, such as the building contractors who seemed to keep winning those multi-million pound contracts for new Uni buildings.
Mind you, when it works for you, its fine... Many moons ago I was PI (i.e the lead) on a Grant Application to the Wellcome Trust. My CI (collaborator) happened to be sitting on the same committee that the grant application was discussed. Now clearly he recused himself, but I have no doubt that his mates on the committee knew the score. Grant awarded. Kerching!
Yes. Directors pay is often set by external boards. Stuffed full of directors, quite often.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
NU10K is about the people who inhabit the high paid jobs in government, the third sector and the private sector. Managerial roles, not politicians.
They are not right or left - though they are generally in favour of more government spending.
The key characteristic is that when they utterly fail at a role, they waft into a better paid job and suffer little or no real consequence for their failure.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
What's that an example of? Friends rally round and do what they can if they think an acquaintance has had a hard time. Look at how Jo Hamilton's neighbours raised money for her after she was convicted of false accounting.
An example of someone from the NU10K that you don't think exists.
TwiX has a BIG rumour (retweeted by Musk, no less) that Biden is going to pull out shortly
Caveat Empt, DYOR, I have NO idea if it is true
Isn't "retweeted by Musk" the Uxbridge English Dictionary definition of the word "bollocks"?
No
The tweet actually comes from a right wing journalist. Whether that makes it more or less reliable I dunno. More, because it is less likely to be wishful thinking; less, because it is more likely to be misinformed?
i hope that is clear, now place your bets, gentlemen
Instead of breathlessly fapping yourself off over your interpretation, why not just link to the tweet so we can read the bollox directly?
I’ve found that doesn’t help much
With the fapping ?
I must be the one who is wet behind the ears now, as I don’t know what fapping means
Don't google it.
If you get wet behind your ears after fapping, you're doing it wrong.
Or very right!
If so I have questions about the scale of either your ears or your virility.
The NYT is reporting that Boeing are lucky the entire 737 fleet has not been grounded, and maybe other models as well
That seems quite extreme, but if it is even half true, then this could be spectacularly bad for such an enormous company - and have vast implications for the airline/tourist/travel industries. How many Boeing planes are out there?
The only reason every recently built (< 2 years) Boeing hasn't been grounded is because of the FAA's general reluctance to take actions that would seriously damage both Boeing and several large US airlines unless aircraft are literally falling out of the sky. I don't agree with that stance, but it is what it is.
Finding similar gross defects in multiple 737 Max 9s indicates a deep, systemic problem at Boeing, or at least at the Renton facility that handles final assembly of the 737. This isn't just some tired, lazy or under-trained technician making a mistake. There should be multiple layers of checks in place to make sure errors are caught and rectified before airframes make it out the door. And clearly those checks are either ineffective or not being done at all, which means nothing in those aircraft can be trusted unless airlines have thoroughly inspected it.
Boeing recently had to warn airlines about lose bolts in the 737's tail assembly, and now there are lose bolts in the plug door. There will be more as yet undiscovered problems with the 737 Max because they were simply not built to a high enough standard.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
This is an Achilles heel for the NU10K concept, or rather the cause-effect logic of it. Are there 10k (or however many) people who are structurally safe in their position as a result of the logic of NU10K, regardless of their own personalities? Or are there people with the innate greasy-pole climbing skills and Machiaevellian slipperiness that mean they tend to find themselves in influential senior positions? I think it's probably more the latter.
From time to time - perhaps more often than we think - people who are not slippery Machiaevellis do make it into prominent positions, and sometimes they are unfairly scapegoated for other people's failings. They then succeed downwards.
In her case, she managed to bomb out hard enough to become a liability. Despite a lot of work from her peers to rehabilitate her.
I’m quite sure, that if she had lived longer, she would have come back.
Every concept has edge cases and exceptions.
EDIT : The NU10K concept isn’t a conspiracy or a secret society. It’s about group think, people you know and a kind of sheep like mutual protection. Much as company directors always sign off huge bonus etc for other company directors.
Years ago when our old VC was around and 'earning' the biggest salary of any University VC, it was revealed how the salary came about. Externals with an interest in keeping said VC sweet were involved, such as the building contractors who seemed to keep winning those multi-million pound contracts for new Uni buildings.
Mind you, when it works for you, its fine... Many moons ago I was PI (i.e the lead) on a Grant Application to the Wellcome Trust. My CI (collaborator) happened to be sitting on the same committee that the grant application was discussed. Now clearly he recused himself, but I have no doubt that his mates on the committee knew the score. Grant awarded. Kerching!
Yes. Directors pay is often set by external boards. Stuffed full of directors, quite often.
The one that really grates is the key requirement to be a non-exec director is... other non-exec directorships. Underlying that is the 'old boys (and girls) network'. So if that's what NU10K is referring to, I stand corrected.
But I thought it was some new imagined clique of media people that the Tory establishment doesn't feel it controls and hence doesn't like.
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Absolutely. The breathless “what-iffery” regarding Biden’s candidacy makes little sense now. He is running and the deadlines have passed. Absent a severe health crisis which forces him to withdraw, or death, he is running. The process has started. It’s done.
I don’t think that’s right. Yes, deadlines have passed but Biden could still withdraw pre-/ at the Convention and so a new candidate would have to be found. The simple fact is that, if Biden is still polling badly vs Trump come next May / June, the apparatus will swing into motion and there will be plenty of reasons given why an ‘extraordinary’ set of circumstances mean the rules have to be circumvented.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Isn't it just another way of referring to the right's cherished old chestnut, the 'liberal elite'?
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
NU10K is about the people who inhabit the high paid jobs in government, the third sector and the private sector. Managerial roles, not politicians.
They are not right or left - though they are generally in favour of more government spending.
The key characteristic is that when they utterly fail at a role, they waft into a better paid job and suffer little or no real consequence for their failure.
Isn't that true of most people? Certainly sounds like the private financial sector - does this fall inside the envelope of this shadowy conspiracy?
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
This is an Achilles heel for the NU10K concept, or rather the cause-effect logic of it. Are there 10k (or however many) people who are structurally safe in their position as a result of the logic of NU10K, regardless of their own personalities? Or are there people with the innate greasy-pole climbing skills and Machiaevellian slipperiness that mean they tend to find themselves in influential senior positions? I think it's probably more the latter.
From time to time - perhaps more often than we think - people who are not slippery Machiaevellis do make it into prominent positions, and sometimes they are unfairly scapegoated for other people's failings. They then succeed downwards.
In her case, she managed to bomb out hard enough to become a liability. Despite a lot of work from her peers to rehabilitate her.
I’m quite sure, that if she had lived longer, she would have come back.
Every concept has edge cases and exceptions.
EDIT : The NU10K concept isn’t a conspiracy or a secret society. It’s about group think, people you know and a kind of sheep like mutual protection. Much as company directors always sign off huge bonus etc for other company directors.
Years ago when our old VC was around and 'earning' the biggest salary of any University VC, it was revealed how the salary came about. Externals with an interest in keeping said VC sweet were involved, such as the building contractors who seemed to keep winning those multi-million pound contracts for new Uni buildings.
Mind you, when it works for you, its fine... Many moons ago I was PI (i.e the lead) on a Grant Application to the Wellcome Trust. My CI (collaborator) happened to be sitting on the same committee that the grant application was discussed. Now clearly he recused himself, but I have no doubt that his mates on the committee knew the score. Grant awarded. Kerching!
Yes. Directors pay is often set by external boards. Stuffed full of directors, quite often.
The one that really grates is the key requirement to be a non-exec director is... other non-exec directorships.
There is something quite splendid in the idea of being paid large sums, to decide on the large sums to be paid to people like yourself. And your own remuneration being decided by other people being paid large sums, to do it.
I mean, exactly how many conspiracy theorists around the world are now punching the air and saying “SEE, I TOLD YOU”
BREAKING: The NYPD discover secret tunnels under the Chabad (a Hasidic Jewish sect) HQ synagogue in NYC that reportedly connected to the female quarters.
STAINED MATTRESSES are being pulled from the underground tunnels.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
What is NU10K?
Aside, the story of her and her charity is a fascinating (if depressing) case study of politicised journalism going too far. Her crookedness and/or incompetence (and that of Botney) was taken as axiomatic, eventually, even across the lefties. She was that most despised of people by the Mail/Express axis - the do-gooder, and her supposed hypocrisy confirmed everything that nasty right-wingers believe about the altruistic; deeply misguided and naive at the absolute best, most likely a criminal or traitor, or both.
And turns out it was all wrong - and barely a word was uttered.
The fault of not apologising for past accusations lies on both sides of the political axis - many lefties willing to chuck out accusations but then refuse to apologise / back down when proven to be wrong.
Maybe the question you should be asking is why her friends didn’t rally round. My guess is they were too cowardly and / or she was seen as too embarrassing due to her flamboyant mannerisms
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Absolutely. The breathless “what-iffery” regarding Biden’s candidacy makes little sense now. He is running and the deadlines have passed. Absent a severe health crisis which forces him to withdraw, or death, he is running. The process has started. It’s done.
Yep. 100x this.
The lines of the fight are utterly clear.
It is democracy vs Trump 2.0 and Biden is democracy's champion, for better or worse.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
Danny Baker likened Harry & Meghan's child to a chimpanzee. If that's not racist, what is?
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
So is Danny Baker not a member of the NU10K? Despite the years he put in at the coalface of the Daz Doorstep Challenge? It's a cruel world.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
This is an Achilles heel for the NU10K concept, or rather the cause-effect logic of it. Are there 10k (or however many) people who are structurally safe in their position as a result of the logic of NU10K, regardless of their own personalities? Or are there people with the innate greasy-pole climbing skills and Machiaevellian slipperiness that mean they tend to find themselves in influential senior positions? I think it's probably more the latter.
From time to time - perhaps more often than we think - people who are not slippery Machiaevellis do make it into prominent positions, and sometimes they are unfairly scapegoated for other people's failings. They then succeed downwards.
In her case, she managed to bomb out hard enough to become a liability. Despite a lot of work from her peers to rehabilitate her.
I’m quite sure, that if she had lived longer, she would have come back.
Every concept has edge cases and exceptions.
EDIT : The NU10K concept isn’t a conspiracy or a secret society. It’s about group think, people you know and a kind of sheep like mutual protection. Much as company directors always sign off huge bonus etc for other company directors.
Years ago when our old VC was around and 'earning' the biggest salary of any University VC, it was revealed how the salary came about. Externals with an interest in keeping said VC sweet were involved, such as the building contractors who seemed to keep winning those multi-million pound contracts for new Uni buildings.
Mind you, when it works for you, its fine... Many moons ago I was PI (i.e the lead) on a Grant Application to the Wellcome Trust. My CI (collaborator) happened to be sitting on the same committee that the grant application was discussed. Now clearly he recused himself, but I have no doubt that his mates on the committee knew the score. Grant awarded. Kerching!
Yes. Directors pay is often set by external boards. Stuffed full of directors, quite often.
The one that really grates is the key requirement to be a non-exec director is... other non-exec directorships. Underlying that is the 'old boys (and girls) network'. So if that's what NU10K is referring to, I stand corrected.
But I thought it was some new imagined clique of media people that the Tory establishment doesn't feel it controls and hence doesn't like.
Yes, the non-exec gig is great once you get on it, the issue is getting on there in the first place. The key, as always, is who you know - if it’s been publicly advertised, then don’t bother, the candidates have already been decided. Wait for the tap on the shoulder.
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Absolutely. The breathless “what-iffery” regarding Biden’s candidacy makes little sense now. He is running and the deadlines have passed. Absent a severe health crisis which forces him to withdraw, or death, he is running. The process has started. It’s done.
I don’t think that’s right. Yes, deadlines have passed but Biden could still withdraw pre-/ at the Convention and so a new candidate would have to be found. The simple fact is that, if Biden is still polling badly vs Trump come next May / June, the apparatus will swing into motion and there will be plenty of reasons given why an ‘extraordinary’ set of circumstances mean the rules have to be circumvented.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
This is an Achilles heel for the NU10K concept, or rather the cause-effect logic of it. Are there 10k (or however many) people who are structurally safe in their position as a result of the logic of NU10K, regardless of their own personalities? Or are there people with the innate greasy-pole climbing skills and Machiaevellian slipperiness that mean they tend to find themselves in influential senior positions? I think it's probably more the latter.
From time to time - perhaps more often than we think - people who are not slippery Machiaevellis do make it into prominent positions, and sometimes they are unfairly scapegoated for other people's failings. They then succeed downwards.
In her case, she managed to bomb out hard enough to become a liability. Despite a lot of work from her peers to rehabilitate her.
I’m quite sure, that if she had lived longer, she would have come back.
Every concept has edge cases and exceptions.
EDIT : The NU10K concept isn’t a conspiracy or a secret society. It’s about group think, people you know and a kind of sheep like mutual protection. Much as company directors always sign off huge bonus etc for other company directors.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
Danny Baker likened Harry & Meghan's child to a chimpanzee. If that's not racist, what is?
What's the context?
I call my children monkeys all the time. Especially my youngest, that's my nickname for her, "monkey" and if I'm out and about and want her to eg hold my hand before we cross the road I'll say something like "come on, monkey". The fact she's always jumping around and climbing onto the back of the sofa may or may not be related to the inspiration of the nickname.
Wouldn't very often say it about other peoples kids though. But I have called other people's kids "cheeky monkeys" before.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
This is an Achilles heel for the NU10K concept, or rather the cause-effect logic of it. Are there 10k (or however many) people who are structurally safe in their position as a result of the logic of NU10K, regardless of their own personalities? Or are there people with the innate greasy-pole climbing skills and Machiaevellian slipperiness that mean they tend to find themselves in influential senior positions? I think it's probably more the latter.
From time to time - perhaps more often than we think - people who are not slippery Machiaevellis do make it into prominent positions, and sometimes they are unfairly scapegoated for other people's failings. They then succeed downwards.
In her case, she managed to bomb out hard enough to become a liability. Despite a lot of work from her peers to rehabilitate her.
I’m quite sure, that if she had lived longer, she would have come back.
Every concept has edge cases and exceptions.
EDIT : The NU10K concept isn’t a conspiracy or a secret society. It’s about group think, people you know and a kind of sheep like mutual protection. Much as company directors always sign off huge bonus etc for other company directors.
Years ago when our old VC was around and 'earning' the biggest salary of any University VC, it was revealed how the salary came about. Externals with an interest in keeping said VC sweet were involved, such as the building contractors who seemed to keep winning those multi-million pound contracts for new Uni buildings.
Mind you, when it works for you, its fine... Many moons ago I was PI (i.e the lead) on a Grant Application to the Wellcome Trust. My CI (collaborator) happened to be sitting on the same committee that the grant application was discussed. Now clearly he recused himself, but I have no doubt that his mates on the committee knew the score. Grant awarded. Kerching!
Yes. Directors pay is often set by external boards. Stuffed full of directors, quite often.
The one that really grates is the key requirement to be a non-exec director is... other non-exec directorships. Underlying that is the 'old boys (and girls) network'. So if that's what NU10K is referring to, I stand corrected.
But I thought it was some new imagined clique of media people that the Tory establishment doesn't feel it controls and hence doesn't like.
Yes, the non-exec gig is great once you get on it, the issue is getting on there in the first place. The key, as always, is who you know - if it’s been publicly advertised, then don’t bother, the candidates have already been decided. Wait for the tap on the shoulder.
That's my approach.
Still waiting though :-(
Edit: we should ask RCS how it's done, I suspect he's sitting on a few directorships.
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Absolutely. The breathless “what-iffery” regarding Biden’s candidacy makes little sense now. He is running and the deadlines have passed. Absent a severe health crisis which forces him to withdraw, or death, he is running. The process has started. It’s done.
Biden's speech is well worth watching in full. He's old, but he can still deliver a speech pretty effectively. And the passion remains. I think he'll survive a campaign fine.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
Definitely got the sense that the BBC were delighted to find a reason to bin off Danny Baker. He is an excellent broadcaster, but get a very strong sense that he is 'hard work'.
Given the context of his life and work, I don't believe he had racist intent behind his stupid joke, FWIW. I may be wrong.
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Absolutely. The breathless “what-iffery” regarding Biden’s candidacy makes little sense now. He is running and the deadlines have passed. Absent a severe health crisis which forces him to withdraw, or death, he is running. The process has started. It’s done.
I don’t think that’s right. Yes, deadlines have passed but Biden could still withdraw pre-/ at the Convention and so a new candidate would have to be found. The simple fact is that, if Biden is still polling badly vs Trump come next May / June, the apparatus will swing into motion and there will be plenty of reasons given why an ‘extraordinary’ set of circumstances mean the rules have to be circumvented.
What apparatus?
The Democratic Party does not want to risk Trump winning, which is exactly what it looks like now and there is no reason to suggest why that may change.
You may want to ask yourself why Obama spends so much time in Washington DC when the convention amongst US Presidents is that they leave DC when they retire.
The Democratic Party is not going to risk Trump getting back in.
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Absolutely. The breathless “what-iffery” regarding Biden’s candidacy makes little sense now. He is running and the deadlines have passed. Absent a severe health crisis which forces him to withdraw, or death, he is running. The process has started. It’s done.
Biden's speech is well worth watching in full. He's old, but he can still deliver a speech pretty effectively. And the passion remains. I think he'll survive a campaign fine.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
This is an Achilles heel for the NU10K concept, or rather the cause-effect logic of it. Are there 10k (or however many) people who are structurally safe in their position as a result of the logic of NU10K, regardless of their own personalities? Or are there people with the innate greasy-pole climbing skills and Machiaevellian slipperiness that mean they tend to find themselves in influential senior positions? I think it's probably more the latter.
From time to time - perhaps more often than we think - people who are not slippery Machiaevellis do make it into prominent positions, and sometimes they are unfairly scapegoated for other people's failings. They then succeed downwards.
In her case, she managed to bomb out hard enough to become a liability. Despite a lot of work from her peers to rehabilitate her.
I’m quite sure, that if she had lived longer, she would have come back.
Every concept has edge cases and exceptions.
EDIT : The NU10K concept isn’t a conspiracy or a secret society. It’s about group think, people you know and a kind of sheep like mutual protection. Much as company directors always sign off huge bonus etc for other company directors.
What's the Nu bit?
They're all Newcastle United fans. Obviously.
That explains why Ant and Dec are always on the screens.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
Danny Baker likened Harry & Meghan's child to a chimpanzee. If that's not racist, what is?
What's the context?
I call my children monkeys all the time. Especially my youngest, that's my nickname for her, "monkey" and if I'm out and about and want her to eg hold my hand before we cross the road I'll say something like "come on, monkey". The fact she's always jumping around and climbing onto the back of the sofa may or may not be related to the inspiration of the nickname.
Wouldn't very often say it about other peoples kids though. But I have called other people's kids "cheeky monkeys" before.
"Monkeys in Disguise" - my school friend's dad (also Asian) called us that during our Transformers fandom days
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Absolutely. The breathless “what-iffery” regarding Biden’s candidacy makes little sense now. He is running and the deadlines have passed. Absent a severe health crisis which forces him to withdraw, or death, he is running. The process has started. It’s done.
I don’t think that’s right. Yes, deadlines have passed but Biden could still withdraw pre-/ at the Convention and so a new candidate would have to be found. The simple fact is that, if Biden is still polling badly vs Trump come next May / June, the apparatus will swing into motion and there will be plenty of reasons given why an ‘extraordinary’ set of circumstances mean the rules have to be circumvented.
What apparatus?
The Democratic Party does not want to risk Trump winning, which is exactly what it looks like now and there is no reason to suggest why that may change.
You may want to ask yourself why Obama spends so much time in Washington DC when the convention amongst US Presidents is that they leave DC when they retire.
The Democratic Party is not going to risk Trump getting back in.
Thats not really how elections work. The Republicans select their candidate, and of course there is always a substantial "risk" that the Republican wins. Whether it is Biden or A.N.Other it could well be Trump.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
This is an Achilles heel for the NU10K concept, or rather the cause-effect logic of it. Are there 10k (or however many) people who are structurally safe in their position as a result of the logic of NU10K, regardless of their own personalities? Or are there people with the innate greasy-pole climbing skills and Machiaevellian slipperiness that mean they tend to find themselves in influential senior positions? I think it's probably more the latter.
From time to time - perhaps more often than we think - people who are not slippery Machiaevellis do make it into prominent positions, and sometimes they are unfairly scapegoated for other people's failings. They then succeed downwards.
In her case, she managed to bomb out hard enough to become a liability. Despite a lot of work from her peers to rehabilitate her.
I’m quite sure, that if she had lived longer, she would have come back.
Every concept has edge cases and exceptions.
EDIT : The NU10K concept isn’t a conspiracy or a secret society. It’s about group think, people you know and a kind of sheep like mutual protection. Much as company directors always sign off huge bonus etc for other company directors.
Years ago when our old VC was around and 'earning' the biggest salary of any University VC, it was revealed how the salary came about. Externals with an interest in keeping said VC sweet were involved, such as the building contractors who seemed to keep winning those multi-million pound contracts for new Uni buildings.
Mind you, when it works for you, its fine... Many moons ago I was PI (i.e the lead) on a Grant Application to the Wellcome Trust. My CI (collaborator) happened to be sitting on the same committee that the grant application was discussed. Now clearly he recused himself, but I have no doubt that his mates on the committee knew the score. Grant awarded. Kerching!
Yes. Directors pay is often set by external boards. Stuffed full of directors, quite often.
The one that really grates is the key requirement to be a non-exec director is... other non-exec directorships. Underlying that is the 'old boys (and girls) network'. So if that's what NU10K is referring to, I stand corrected.
But I thought it was some new imagined clique of media people that the Tory establishment doesn't feel it controls and hence doesn't like.
Yes, the non-exec gig is great once you get on it, the issue is getting on there in the first place. The key, as always, is who you know - if it’s been publicly advertised, then don’t bother, the candidates have already been decided. Wait for the tap on the shoulder.
That's my approach.
Still waiting though :-(
Edit: we should ask RCS how it's done, I suspect he's sitting on a few directorships.
He might be but, IIRC he is an ex-analyst and companies (generally, at least in the UK) don’t appoint them as NEDs. If he has own firm, there is more of a chance.
I mean, exactly how many conspiracy theorists around the world are now punching the air and saying “SEE, I TOLD YOU”
BREAKING: The NYPD discover secret tunnels under the Chabad (a Hasidic Jewish sect) HQ synagogue in NYC that reportedly connected to the female quarters.
STAINED MATTRESSES are being pulled from the underground tunnels.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
This is an Achilles heel for the NU10K concept, or rather the cause-effect logic of it. Are there 10k (or however many) people who are structurally safe in their position as a result of the logic of NU10K, regardless of their own personalities? Or are there people with the innate greasy-pole climbing skills and Machiaevellian slipperiness that mean they tend to find themselves in influential senior positions? I think it's probably more the latter.
From time to time - perhaps more often than we think - people who are not slippery Machiaevellis do make it into prominent positions, and sometimes they are unfairly scapegoated for other people's failings. They then succeed downwards.
In her case, she managed to bomb out hard enough to become a liability. Despite a lot of work from her peers to rehabilitate her.
I’m quite sure, that if she had lived longer, she would have come back.
Every concept has edge cases and exceptions.
EDIT : The NU10K concept isn’t a conspiracy or a secret society. It’s about group think, people you know and a kind of sheep like mutual protection. Much as company directors always sign off huge bonus etc for other company directors.
What's the Nu bit?
New Upper 10,000
Back in the day, the Old Upper 10,000 were the aristocracy & their near relatives. They filled all the top sinecures of government and society. Part of the objection to them was that they were very hard to bring down when utterly incompetent.
Now we have NU10K - a bit more diverse, in a superficial way. But still incompetent (very often) and still untouchable.
How many times have we heard “Lessons Will be learned” and the author of the disaster sadly has to move to a better job, paying more?
"Welsh Tidy Mouse" is a s**t name. "Tidy" would be far better. Tidy refers to "good" or "nice" in valleys Wales. And of course the mouse is tidying the shed.
Main story is trust in the media is way less divided along partisan lines in the UK than the US, where there is virtually no consensus.
But also interesting to see the 4 media sources in the UK with the biggest partisan gap in trust. They are exactly as you'd expect: The Guardian, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, and GB News.
Further down the list Channel 4 has a notably large gap although it's overall got high levels of trust, and the Express and Sun have surprisingly small gaps, neither being much trusted by anyone.
The funniest overlap is that conservative voters trust GB News more than the Guardian.
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Absolutely. The breathless “what-iffery” regarding Biden’s candidacy makes little sense now. He is running and the deadlines have passed. Absent a severe health crisis which forces him to withdraw, or death, he is running. The process has started. It’s done.
I don’t think that’s right. Yes, deadlines have passed but Biden could still withdraw pre-/ at the Convention and so a new candidate would have to be found. The simple fact is that, if Biden is still polling badly vs Trump come next May / June, the apparatus will swing into motion and there will be plenty of reasons given why an ‘extraordinary’ set of circumstances mean the rules have to be circumvented.
What apparatus?
The Democratic Party does not want to risk Trump winning, which is exactly what it looks like now and there is no reason to suggest why that may change.
You may want to ask yourself why Obama spends so much time in Washington DC when the convention amongst US Presidents is that they leave DC when they retire.
The Democratic Party is not going to risk Trump getting back in.
What is this 'Democratic Party' of which you speak? If Biden has close to 100% of the delegates at the convention - his delegates, pledged to him and in many cases bound by party rules or even law to vote for him - how exactly are these shadowy party leaders going to replace him?
There is no Democratic Party independent of the senior Democrat figures themselves. And it can't "not risk" Trump getting back in. That's down to the public. If they wanted a different candidate, they need a time machine (or a serious health issue) now.
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Absolutely. The breathless “what-iffery” regarding Biden’s candidacy makes little sense now. He is running and the deadlines have passed. Absent a severe health crisis which forces him to withdraw, or death, he is running. The process has started. It’s done.
I don’t think that’s right. Yes, deadlines have passed but Biden could still withdraw pre-/ at the Convention and so a new candidate would have to be found. The simple fact is that, if Biden is still polling badly vs Trump come next May / June, the apparatus will swing into motion and there will be plenty of reasons given why an ‘extraordinary’ set of circumstances mean the rules have to be circumvented.
What apparatus?
The Democratic Party does not want to risk Trump winning, which is exactly what it looks like now and there is no reason to suggest why that may change.
You may want to ask yourself why Obama spends so much time in Washington DC when the convention amongst US Presidents is that they leave DC when they retire.
The Democratic Party is not going to risk Trump getting back in.
Thats not really how elections work. The Republicans select their candidate, and of course there is always a substantial "risk" that the Republican wins. Whether it is Biden or A.N.Other it could well be Trump.
How a candidate is selected for either party is really down to the party with state laws then applying as relevant. But, if Biden is still behind as much as he is now next summer, the chances are he will be eased out. You can mention the rules as much as you want but a way will be found round them
(FWIW, I think the view now is the economy is improving, inflation will likely come down because of the comps more than anything else and so Biden has a few more months to turn it around. But look at the amount of noise come from pro-Democratic circles in the US are Biden stepping down and it is clear that the view of many on this site that the rules mean he will be the candidate is not shared by those who are actually in the US political system).
I mean, exactly how many conspiracy theorists around the world are now punching the air and saying “SEE, I TOLD YOU”
BREAKING: The NYPD discover secret tunnels under the Chabad (a Hasidic Jewish sect) HQ synagogue in NYC that reportedly connected to the female quarters.
STAINED MATTRESSES are being pulled from the underground tunnels.
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Absolutely. The breathless “what-iffery” regarding Biden’s candidacy makes little sense now. He is running and the deadlines have passed. Absent a severe health crisis which forces him to withdraw, or death, he is running. The process has started. It’s done.
I don’t think that’s right. Yes, deadlines have passed but Biden could still withdraw pre-/ at the Convention and so a new candidate would have to be found. The simple fact is that, if Biden is still polling badly vs Trump come next May / June, the apparatus will swing into motion and there will be plenty of reasons given why an ‘extraordinary’ set of circumstances mean the rules have to be circumvented.
What apparatus?
The Democratic Party does not want to risk Trump winning, which is exactly what it looks like now and there is no reason to suggest why that may change.
You may want to ask yourself why Obama spends so much time in Washington DC when the convention amongst US Presidents is that they leave DC when they retire.
The Democratic Party is not going to risk Trump getting back in.
I mean, I think we're seeing the opposite - the stubbornness of a certain generation of Democratic Elites are loath to hand over power to a newer generation of politicians and seem to be willing to risk Trump getting back in to hold onto their power. Nancy Pelosi was still capable, but too old to run the House, they wouldn't let Dianne Feinstein retire because they were worried about who gov Newsom would replace her with and if that would stop their preferred candidate having an easier run in an open primary, and Reed passed the torch to Schumer despite both being ancient. The GOP are much better / more ruthless at this - sure, McConnell is staying in far too long but he delivered for the party (on judges and being obstructionist to Obama) so he can be rewarded with staying in too long. The Democratic leadership are consistent losers - either not winning elections or failing to pass policies their base wants. That that is continually rewarded is absurd.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
Danny Baker likened Harry & Meghan's child to a chimpanzee. If that's not racist, what is?
What's the context?
I call my children monkeys all the time. Especially my youngest, that's my nickname for her, "monkey" and if I'm out and about and want her to eg hold my hand before we cross the road I'll say something like "come on, monkey". The fact she's always jumping around and climbing onto the back of the sofa may or may not be related to the inspiration of the nickname.
Wouldn't very often say it about other peoples kids though. But I have called other people's kids "cheeky monkeys" before.
It is possibly under the category of so obviously racist that it probably wasn't intended as racist. Cheeky monkeys is a saying that is still fairly common, comparing a new baby to a chimp far less so.
Wow. A guy (Rudkin) on WATO explaining that Jujitsu employees would (allegedly) manually and remotely access branch terminals to correct Horizon to balance the books and mask the errors in the PO's favour especially when Fujitsu contracts were about to renew.
Starmer fans please explain.
That takes it to quite a spectacular new level. Certainly criminal, indeed conspiratorial, and surely people will get big big jail sentences
Not so fast. I have worked in companies and remote correction of errors either by the system or branch input errors is common place. If the amendment were fraudulent then becomes the issue. By the sounds of it, on the balance of probability...
But if those "corrections" are all in the same direction?
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Absolutely. The breathless “what-iffery” regarding Biden’s candidacy makes little sense now. He is running and the deadlines have passed. Absent a severe health crisis which forces him to withdraw, or death, he is running. The process has started. It’s done.
I don’t think that’s right. Yes, deadlines have passed but Biden could still withdraw pre-/ at the Convention and so a new candidate would have to be found. The simple fact is that, if Biden is still polling badly vs Trump come next May / June, the apparatus will swing into motion and there will be plenty of reasons given why an ‘extraordinary’ set of circumstances mean the rules have to be circumvented.
What apparatus?
The Democratic Party does not want to risk Trump winning, which is exactly what it looks like now and there is no reason to suggest why that may change.
You may want to ask yourself why Obama spends so much time in Washington DC when the convention amongst US Presidents is that they leave DC when they retire.
The Democratic Party is not going to risk Trump getting back in.
What is this 'Democratic Party' of which you speak? If Biden has close to 100% of the delegates at the convention - his delegates, pledged to him and in many cases bound by party rules or even law to vote for him - how exactly are these shadowy party leaders going to replace him?
There is no Democratic Party independent of the senior Democrat figures themselves. And it can't "not risk" Trump getting back in. That's down to the public. If they wanted a different candidate, they need a time machine (or a serious health issue) now.
Read what many in the Democratic Party are suggesting namely Biden needs to step down and don’t seem too fussed about what the rules are. They are easy to find - just go on The Hill, The Messenger, Politico or the likes of Salon or Vox for something more left wing. Now they may be wrong and you are right but they do not seem too bothered about the rules argument.
The general view is that, if it is going to happen, it will happen at the Convention where the various candidates will jockey for Biden’s pledges and a candidate will be selected
I mean, exactly how many conspiracy theorists around the world are now punching the air and saying “SEE, I TOLD YOU”
BREAKING: The NYPD discover secret tunnels under the Chabad (a Hasidic Jewish sect) HQ synagogue in NYC that reportedly connected to the female quarters.
STAINED MATTRESSES are being pulled from the underground tunnels.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
Danny Baker likened Harry & Meghan's child to a chimpanzee. If that's not racist, what is?
What's the context?
I call my children monkeys all the time. Especially my youngest, that's my nickname for her, "monkey" and if I'm out and about and want her to eg hold my hand before we cross the road I'll say something like "come on, monkey". The fact she's always jumping around and climbing onto the back of the sofa may or may not be related to the inspiration of the nickname.
Wouldn't very often say it about other peoples kids though. But I have called other people's kids "cheeky monkeys" before.
According to wiki:
Baker posted an image on Twitter of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes. He had added the caption: "Royal Baby leaves hospital," referring to the recent birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, son of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Absolutely. The breathless “what-iffery” regarding Biden’s candidacy makes little sense now. He is running and the deadlines have passed. Absent a severe health crisis which forces him to withdraw, or death, he is running. The process has started. It’s done.
I don’t think that’s right. Yes, deadlines have passed but Biden could still withdraw pre-/ at the Convention and so a new candidate would have to be found. The simple fact is that, if Biden is still polling badly vs Trump come next May / June, the apparatus will swing into motion and there will be plenty of reasons given why an ‘extraordinary’ set of circumstances mean the rules have to be circumvented.
What apparatus?
The Democratic Party does not want to risk Trump winning, which is exactly what it looks like now and there is no reason to suggest why that may change.
You may want to ask yourself why Obama spends so much time in Washington DC when the convention amongst US Presidents is that they leave DC when they retire.
The Democratic Party is not going to risk Trump getting back in.
I mean, I think we're seeing the opposite - the stubbornness of a certain generation of Democratic Elites are loath to hand over power to a newer generation of politicians and seem to be willing to risk Trump getting back in to hold onto their power. Nancy Pelosi was still capable, but too old to run the House, they wouldn't let Dianne Feinstein retire because they were worried about who gov Newsom would replace her with and if that would stop their preferred candidate having an easier run in an open primary, and Reed passed the torch to Schumer despite both being ancient. The GOP are much better / more ruthless at this - sure, McConnell is staying in far too long but he delivered for the party (on judges and being obstructionist to Obama) so he can be rewarded with staying in too long. The Democratic leadership are consistent losers - either not winning elections or failing to pass policies their base wants. That that is continually rewarded is absurd.
Yes, definite truth in that. One of the issues is that the Democrats are more of a coalition these days than the GOP - so it’s tempting to keep existing leaders in power because otherwise it risks raising splits.
Re Newsom, worth looking at what he is doing re the Democrat candidacy - he’s essentially saying “look, I’m so loyal to Joe” while positioning himself for the candidacy at a contested convention if JB steps down . Personally, I don’t think he can do it but it’s probably his best shot.
Wow. A guy (Rudkin) on WATO explaining that Jujitsu employees would (allegedly) manually and remotely access branch terminals to correct Horizon to balance the books and mask the errors in the PO's favour especially when Fujitsu contracts were about to renew.
Starmer fans please explain.
That takes it to quite a spectacular new level. Certainly criminal, indeed conspiratorial, and surely people will get big big jail sentences
Not so fast. I have worked in companies and remote correction of errors either by the system or branch input errors is common place. If the amendment were fraudulent then becomes the issue. By the sounds of it, on the balance of probability...
But if those "corrections" are all in the same direction?
That should be a sign.
As would not recording the corrections and labelling them as such.
Typically, on the systems I work on, we never change records. An account would be a series of transaction records. A correction is another transaction, labelled as such. So you have a clear history of each and every change, along with who, why and when.
Wow. A guy (Rudkin) on WATO explaining that Jujitsu employees would (allegedly) manually and remotely access branch terminals to correct Horizon to balance the books and mask the errors in the PO's favour especially when Fujitsu contracts were about to renew.
Starmer fans please explain.
That takes it to quite a spectacular new level. Certainly criminal, indeed conspiratorial, and surely people will get big big jail sentences
Not so fast. I have worked in companies and remote correction of errors either by the system or branch input errors is common place. If the amendment were fraudulent then becomes the issue. By the sounds of it, on the balance of probability...
But if those "corrections" are all in the same direction?
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
Danny Baker likened Harry & Meghan's child to a chimpanzee. If that's not racist, what is?
What's the context?
I call my children monkeys all the time. Especially my youngest, that's my nickname for her, "monkey" and if I'm out and about and want her to eg hold my hand before we cross the road I'll say something like "come on, monkey". The fact she's always jumping around and climbing onto the back of the sofa may or may not be related to the inspiration of the nickname.
Wouldn't very often say it about other peoples kids though. But I have called other people's kids "cheeky monkeys" before.
According to wiki:
Baker posted an image on Twitter of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes. He had added the caption: "Royal Baby leaves hospital," referring to the recent birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, son of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
Baker claimed - and I believe him - that he had no idea Meghan Markle is mixed race (he thought she was white) so the remark was entirely innocent, and devoid of any racial intent
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
Danny Baker likened Harry & Meghan's child to a chimpanzee. If that's not racist, what is?
That's not what he did, and certainly not his intention. You may disagree.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
Danny Baker likened Harry & Meghan's child to a chimpanzee. If that's not racist, what is?
What's the context?
I call my children monkeys all the time. Especially my youngest, that's my nickname for her, "monkey" and if I'm out and about and want her to eg hold my hand before we cross the road I'll say something like "come on, monkey". The fact she's always jumping around and climbing onto the back of the sofa may or may not be related to the inspiration of the nickname.
Wouldn't very often say it about other peoples kids though. But I have called other people's kids "cheeky monkeys" before.
According to wiki:
Baker posted an image on Twitter of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes. He had added the caption: "Royal Baby leaves hospital," referring to the recent birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, son of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
Baker claimed - and I believe him - that he had no idea Meghan Markle is mixed race (he thought she was white) so the remark was entirely innocent, and devoid of any racial intent
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
Danny Baker likened Harry & Meghan's child to a chimpanzee. If that's not racist, what is?
What's the context?
I call my children monkeys all the time. Especially my youngest, that's my nickname for her, "monkey" and if I'm out and about and want her to eg hold my hand before we cross the road I'll say something like "come on, monkey". The fact she's always jumping around and climbing onto the back of the sofa may or may not be related to the inspiration of the nickname.
Wouldn't very often say it about other peoples kids though. But I have called other people's kids "cheeky monkeys" before.
According to wiki:
Baker posted an image on Twitter of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes. He had added the caption: "Royal Baby leaves hospital," referring to the recent birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, son of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
Danny Baker likened Harry & Meghan's child to a chimpanzee. If that's not racist, what is?
What's the context?
I call my children monkeys all the time. Especially my youngest, that's my nickname for her, "monkey" and if I'm out and about and want her to eg hold my hand before we cross the road I'll say something like "come on, monkey". The fact she's always jumping around and climbing onto the back of the sofa may or may not be related to the inspiration of the nickname.
Wouldn't very often say it about other peoples kids though. But I have called other people's kids "cheeky monkeys" before.
According to wiki:
Baker posted an image on Twitter of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes. He had added the caption: "Royal Baby leaves hospital," referring to the recent birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, son of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
You clearly believe he intended it as a racist slur. I do not - I think he thought the photo was amusing in the way that Have I Got News For You has funny captions about photos.
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
Danny Baker likened Harry & Meghan's child to a chimpanzee. If that's not racist, what is?
What's the context?
I call my children monkeys all the time. Especially my youngest, that's my nickname for her, "monkey" and if I'm out and about and want her to eg hold my hand before we cross the road I'll say something like "come on, monkey". The fact she's always jumping around and climbing onto the back of the sofa may or may not be related to the inspiration of the nickname.
Wouldn't very often say it about other peoples kids though. But I have called other people's kids "cheeky monkeys" before.
According to wiki:
Baker posted an image on Twitter of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes. He had added the caption: "Royal Baby leaves hospital," referring to the recent birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, son of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
Baker claimed - and I believe him - that he had no idea Meghan Markle is mixed race (he thought she was white) so the remark was entirely innocent, and devoid of any racial intent
Bless
You think Danny Baker is personally racist AND thought it would be funny to call a race-mixed royal child a chimpanzee?
You have an ability to see inside a man’s soul which I am kinda glad I do not possess
I wonder where Camila Batmanghelidjh sat with respect to the NU10K? Influential third sector director, extensive links with other parts of the political, charity and media establishment, sounds like she's a member. Yet her fall from grace was absolute - even though ultimately unjustified. I thought NU10Kers only failed upwards? I thought they all protected each other - yet it seems like the absolute opposite in her case.
NU10K is an right-wing invention, no such thing exists.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates David Cameron King Charles Suella Braverman Gary Lineker Paul Dacre Sue Gray Frederick Barclay Carol Vorderman Rishi Sunak Richard Tice Rachel Reeves
Here's an example. There once was a leading economist who was sent to prison in disgrace for lying about a speeding offence. After her time was served he friends in the media did all they could to rehabilitate her - evert time the BBC needed an economist, you've guessed it, dear old ex-con Vicki Pryce (for it is she) would be wheeled out.
If this was a real conspiracy surely she'd have avoided jail altogether. She's done her time, she's good at her job, I don't see why she shouldn't work tbh.
I think her rehabilitation was a bit easier than others, shall we say. Take Danny Baker - a career ended because he made an off the cuff joke that some 'chose' to call racist.
Danny Baker likened Harry & Meghan's child to a chimpanzee. If that's not racist, what is?
What's the context?
I call my children monkeys all the time. Especially my youngest, that's my nickname for her, "monkey" and if I'm out and about and want her to eg hold my hand before we cross the road I'll say something like "come on, monkey". The fact she's always jumping around and climbing onto the back of the sofa may or may not be related to the inspiration of the nickname.
Wouldn't very often say it about other peoples kids though. But I have called other people's kids "cheeky monkeys" before.
According to wiki:
Baker posted an image on Twitter of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes. He had added the caption: "Royal Baby leaves hospital," referring to the recent birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, son of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
Baker claimed - and I believe him - that he had no idea Meghan Markle is mixed race (he thought she was white) so the remark was entirely innocent, and devoid of any racial intent
Bless
My wife also assumed that Markle was white. Its not that difficult to believe.
Both Trump and Biden remain too long, Biden especially.
Haley is polling well in NH but Trump has commanding leads nationwide and she can't beat him unless she goes for him directly, which she isn't doing. So given that Trump won't withdraw, even if in prison then unless he's barred somehow, she doesn't get the nomination.
I simply don't see Biden retiring either. Leave aside that he really wants the job and has done all his life. The mechanics are tough. The primaries are already underway. Filing deadlines have passed and are passing. If Biden withdraws, there's every chance that random wierdos end up with a load of delegates because they're the only ones left - and Biden still gets a majority because he's on the ballot anyway and there's no-one else credible to vote for, and so can more-or-less dictate his successor (but who? Not Harris, surely?). We're already close to being too late for a proper Democrat primary campaign.
Yep.
Could be convention that decides the nominee if Biden has to pull in Spring because of health.
That could well be popcorntastic.
It would be Harris as incumbent but we all know that’s going to be a disaster.
Not sure how the Democrats would escape the issue though
If Biden withdrew, they couldn't escape the issue.
But it wouldn't necessarily be Harris (who may not be incumbent; Biden could withdraw from the nomination race while remaining president - or he could quit both, voluntarily or otherwise; those are three different scenarios that need gaming out individually). Whatever, it would be Biden's delegates at the convention deciding, with or without his input. Harris might have some claim based on seniority but she's hardly been a glowing success as VP (not that it's an easy role in which to be successful).
Biden won't quit as President unless he has a very major and acute health issue. But there must be a >30% chance he will decide not to run again. Then the Dem nomination field is wide open.
I simply don't get that thinking. Why would there be a 1-in-3 chance that Biden decides not to run again, given that he literally is running again? If there was a time to step back, it was about 3-4 months ago. That would have given potential successors time to arrange primary campaigns and the public the chance to choose someone.
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Absolutely. The breathless “what-iffery” regarding Biden’s candidacy makes little sense now. He is running and the deadlines have passed. Absent a severe health crisis which forces him to withdraw, or death, he is running. The process has started. It’s done.
I don’t think that’s right. Yes, deadlines have passed but Biden could still withdraw pre-/ at the Convention and so a new candidate would have to be found. The simple fact is that, if Biden is still polling badly vs Trump come next May / June, the apparatus will swing into motion and there will be plenty of reasons given why an ‘extraordinary’ set of circumstances mean the rules have to be circumvented.
What apparatus?
The Democratic Party does not want to risk Trump winning, which is exactly what it looks like now and there is no reason to suggest why that may change.
You may want to ask yourself why Obama spends so much time in Washington DC when the convention amongst US Presidents is that they leave DC when they retire.
The Democratic Party is not going to risk Trump getting back in.
What is this 'Democratic Party' of which you speak? If Biden has close to 100% of the delegates at the convention - his delegates, pledged to him and in many cases bound by party rules or even law to vote for him - how exactly are these shadowy party leaders going to replace him?
There is no Democratic Party independent of the senior Democrat figures themselves. And it can't "not risk" Trump getting back in. That's down to the public. If they wanted a different candidate, they need a time machine (or a serious health issue) now.
Comments
Plain old Tony Blair, Keir Starmer and Andrew Windsor please.
From time to time - perhaps more often than we think - people who are not slippery Machiaevellis do make it into prominent positions, and sometimes they are unfairly scapegoated for other people's failings. They then succeed downwards.
I hope ?
I’m quite sure, that if she had lived longer, she would have come back.
Every concept has edge cases and exceptions.
EDIT : The NU10K concept isn’t a conspiracy or a secret society. It’s about group think, people you know and a kind of sheep like mutual protection. Much as company directors always sign off huge bonus etc for other company directors.
There are influential people, some of whom would obviously be among the 10,000 most influential in the UK, but once you get beyond the obvious, you soon get into argument.
Here's a (fairly) random list of a dozen influential people - are they amongst the top 10k influencers? Are they in the 'so-called' NU10K?
Alan Bates
David Cameron
King Charles
Suella Braverman
Gary Lineker
Paul Dacre
Sue Gray
Frederick Barclay
Carol Vorderman
Rishi Sunak
Richard Tice
Rachel Reeves
BORIS SANCHEZ: What would be your justification for removing Joe Biden from the ballot in Missouri?
JAY ASHCROFT: There have been allegations that he's engaged in insurrection
SANCHEZ: How so?
ASHCROFT: Um, I've seen allegations from the lieutenant governor of Texas..
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1744443800175427879
He can't ascend a shallow stairway without latching onto Theresa May's trousers.
I know he's a fairly regular poster - and even more regular lurker - on this site, although I'm certainly not going to dox the guy, as I value his betting insights on Parliamentary by-elections.
Once you think about that, it's a no-brainer. Biden would (continue to) appoint sensible, intelligent people who could to some extent make up for his shortcomings as POTUS. Trump would appoint dangerous maniacs to all the key positions, wouldn't he?
Mind you, when it works for you, its fine... Many moons ago I was PI (i.e the lead) on a Grant Application to the Wellcome Trust. My CI (collaborator) happened to be sitting on the same committee that the grant application was discussed. Now clearly he recused himself, but I have no doubt that his mates on the committee knew the score. Grant awarded. Kerching!
No, YOUR mum
No YOUR MUM
etc
One of the golden rules of political betting is Understand the Process (alongside understand the people, precedent, public and political culture).
In this case, many filing deadlines for the primary are long passed. Arkansas, for example, closed in November; California closed in December. If you're not on the ballot, you won't be getting any delegates. It's all very well saying that the field would be wide open if Biden withdrew - yes, in a sense it would - but if he withdrew now it would render the primaries all-but redundant. Biden has decided to run again; this is not an open question any more.
Aside, the story of her and her charity is a fascinating (if depressing) case study of politicised journalism going too far. Her crookedness and/or incompetence (and that of Botney) was taken as axiomatic, eventually, even across the lefties. She was that most despised of people by the Mail/Express axis - the do-gooder, and her supposed hypocrisy confirmed everything that nasty right-wingers believe about the altruistic; deeply misguided and naive at the absolute best, most likely a criminal or traitor, or both.
And turns out it was all wrong - and barely a word was uttered.
They are not right or left - though they are generally in favour of more government spending.
The key characteristic is that when they utterly fail at a role, they waft into a better paid job and suffer little or no real consequence for their failure.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-wants-faa-to-exempt-max-7-from-safety-rules-to-get-it-in-the-air/
The FAA needs to become far more robust and independent when it comes to safety.
But I thought it was some new imagined clique of media people that the Tory establishment doesn't feel it controls and hence doesn't like.
Trebles all round?
BREAKING: The NYPD discover secret tunnels under the Chabad (a Hasidic Jewish sect) HQ synagogue in NYC that reportedly connected to the female quarters.
STAINED MATTRESSES are being pulled from the underground tunnels.
ARRESTS are reported.”
https://x.com/maajidnawaz/status/1744683019363832099?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg
“4chan anon discusses the NYC Jewish tunnels and how his friend disappeared into one never to be seen again:”
https://x.com/tamedprocess/status/1744569370611679235?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg
Maybe the question you should be asking is why her friends didn’t rally round. My guess is they were too cowardly and / or she was seen as too embarrassing due to her flamboyant mannerisms
The lines of the fight are utterly clear.
It is democracy vs Trump 2.0 and Biden is democracy's champion, for better or worse.
Speaking of weird subterranean shenans in (or rather under) NYC, have you ever read Jennifer Toth's The Mole People?
Liberal Democrat leader has faced criticism since it emerged that he turned down request to meet campaigner Alan Bates in 2010"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/09/lib-dem-ed-davey-faces-calls-resignation-post-office-scanda/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-wales-67907306
I call my children monkeys all the time. Especially my youngest, that's my nickname for her, "monkey" and if I'm out and about and want her to eg hold my hand before we cross the road I'll say something like "come on, monkey". The fact she's always jumping around and climbing onto the back of the sofa may or may not be related to the inspiration of the nickname.
Wouldn't very often say it about other peoples kids though. But I have called other people's kids "cheeky monkeys" before.
Still waiting though :-(
Edit: we should ask RCS how it's done, I suspect he's sitting on a few directorships.
https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1743384856002748782?t=KGqaxBQkrvPmOfTVdmJQFw&s=19
Given the context of his life and work, I don't believe he had racist intent behind his stupid joke, FWIW. I may be wrong.
You may want to ask yourself why Obama spends so much time in Washington DC when the convention amongst US Presidents is that they leave DC when they retire.
The Democratic Party is not going to risk Trump getting back in.
Lab Leak? ‘Oh of course. AND it was a bioweapon - don’t be daft”
Er, Elite Pedo Island With British Royals? “lol, absolutely, and Bill Gates is involved”
Uhm, Jewish tunnels under New York? “Yeah, and this is why they -“
That explains why Ant and Dec are always on the screens.
- vaccine conspiracy theories - check!
- EVs are worse than ICEVs - check!
- conspiracy against far-right nutjobs (Bolsanaro) - check!
- global warming conspiracy - check!
Is there an actual news report on any of this?Back in the day, the Old Upper 10,000 were the aristocracy & their near relatives. They filled all the top sinecures of government and society. Part of the objection to them was that they were very hard to bring down when utterly incompetent.
Now we have NU10K - a bit more diverse, in a superficial way. But still incompetent (very often) and still untouchable.
How many times have we heard “Lessons Will be learned” and the author of the disaster sadly has to move to a better job, paying more?
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1744716508570550695?s=20
Main story is trust in the media is way less divided along partisan lines in the UK than the US, where there is virtually no consensus.
But also interesting to see the 4 media sources in the UK with the biggest partisan gap in trust. They are exactly as you'd expect: The Guardian, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, and GB News.
Further down the list Channel 4 has a notably large gap although it's overall got high levels of trust, and the Express and Sun have surprisingly small gaps, neither being much trusted by anyone.
The funniest overlap is that conservative voters trust GB News more than the Guardian.
There is no Democratic Party independent of the senior Democrat figures themselves. And it can't "not risk" Trump getting back in. That's down to the public. If they wanted a different candidate, they need a time machine (or a serious health issue) now.
(FWIW, I think the view now is the economy is improving, inflation will likely come down because of the comps more than anything else and so Biden has a few more months to turn it around. But look at the amount of noise come from pro-Democratic circles in the US are Biden stepping down and it is clear that the view of many on this site that the rules mean he will be the candidate is not shared by those who are actually in the US political system).
The general view is that, if it is going to happen, it will happen at the Convention where the various candidates will jockey for Biden’s pledges and a candidate will be selected
https://www.thejc.com/news/usa/chabad-embroiled-in-broiges-after-tunnels-found-under-world-headquarters-in-new-york-tfnqp38a
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12941611/synagogue-tunnels-brooklyn-orthodox-jewish-770-eastern-parkway-chabad.html
https://www.newsweek.com/secret-tunnel-new-york-synagogue-students-fill-chaotic-protest-unsafe-1858925
Baker posted an image on Twitter of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes. He had added the caption: "Royal Baby leaves hospital," referring to the recent birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, son of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Baker#Sacking_by_the_BBC_(2019)
Re Newsom, worth looking at what he is doing re the Democrat candidacy - he’s essentially saying “look, I’m so loyal to Joe” while positioning himself for the candidacy at a contested convention if JB steps down
. Personally, I don’t think he can do it but it’s probably his best shot.
As would not recording the corrections and labelling them as such.
Typically, on the systems I work on, we never change records. An account would be a series of transaction records. A correction is another transaction, labelled as such. So you have a clear history of each and every change, along with who, why and when.
Racist people make racist stereotypes because that's how they think and operate.
Non-racist people can by accident because they're not thinking that way and mean something entirely innocuous.
A racist who does it, does it on purpose and will continue to do it, repeatedly.
A non-racist person will get embarrassed and apologise.
You have an ability to see inside a man’s soul which I am kinda glad I do not possess
https://m.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-781206