Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

I’m not convinced by Liz Truss – the big CON leader betting mover – politicalbetting.com

13»

Comments

  • Scott_xP said:

    Pulpstar said:

    £140 a head is undoubtedly a very very expensive lunch. But potentially justifiable if it could help grease US trade wheels.

    The EU got new trade rules.

    The UK did not...
    How much was their meal out? Was it the foie gras that won it?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,146
    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    I think it’s more people who are familiar with London prices vs not
    I really, really doubt that. I've not eaten out much in London in the last ten years, but I doubt prices have gone up that much.

    Look at it this way: if the average salary in London is ~40k per year, then you're looking at a nearly a fortnight's salary for one meal. For many people that's not even a once-in-a-lifetime thing.

    Heck, I've never spent anywhere near that much on a meal - and I doubt my life's the worse for it.
    Ten meals.
    It was almost all spent on wine and gin, just an excuse for a piss up at public expense.
    I woiuldn't have minded so much if it had been spent on UK produce - some Buckfast would have done perfectly well.
    The thing that gets me Carnyx are the contemptible people on here who think it is perfectly acceptable.
    Morning Malky! Frosty clear night last night and nice sunny day now over here.

  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    Exactly , some quite obscene people on here who like to think they are special because they were handed it on a plate by rich parents etc and witter on about how spending thousands on a meal , using poor people's money as well, is somehow very normal and admirable. They are amazed that they went to such a cheap joint rather than thinking the same arseholes that took £20 a week off the poorest think nothing of living high on the hog at public expense. Nothing worse than a rich person looking down their nose at the poor, it is common on here.
    I am sure you can always get a fulfilling meal for several people from the vast quantity of chips on your shoulder.
    Go F*** yourself.
    Lol. Your immense powers of articulate debate in full force there Malc. 10/10.

    By the way, I am sure I am not the only person to wonder how your idol (you know the one who was described by his QC...?) got so fecking obese. I doubt he was eating the gruel of the oppressed. I bet he's enjoyed a good few slap up meals at the expense of the taxpayer in his time.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    For some reason I'd be fascinated to see a real-life meal including both malc and charles.

    A later PB fly-on-the-wall documentary, too, but done in the sympathetic 1980's BBC style.

    I'd also like to see other episodes...

    Topping and Leon do three rounds of bare knuckle boxing in a pub car park.
    HYUFD and El Barto go on a caravanning holiday to Scotland
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,920

    MattW said:

    Norman Mailer has been cancelled.


    Andrew Lilico
    @andrew_lilico
    ·
    1h
    Now you get cancelled for the title of articles from 1957.

    I take it this is "The White Negro: Superficial Reflections on the Hipster" ?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Negro

    Has anyone read it? I haven't.


    I have, a long time ago.

    The idea that Mailer hasn't been on people's cancellation lists since he was in his prime could only be held by the ignorant and/or the overwrought.
    He was - as we all will be - cancelled by the almighty some time ago.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    On topic - I'm not convinced by Liz Truss either. She's trying far too hard to be the next Mrs Thatcher. Too many photo ops and set pieces. If that comparison was forthcoming people would make it without "friends of Liz" going around telling everyone just how much like Maggie she is.

    On the wider next leaders market, I think the party will want a palate cleanser after Boris so I'm not sure than any of the current Cabinet will get the nod. Of the cabinet Rishi probably has the best chance with a short coronation ceremony but I'm not sure he's got the support with MPs to pull it off and there's too many rival factions. He'd have to unite the ERG/CRG behind him (which is doable) rather than their own man (likely Steve Baker or Mark Harper).

    Boris has probably seen off the near term threat to his leadership by not locking down, I think the next big threat will be renewal of plan B measures towards the end of this month but I'm not sure they'll depose him for renewing something that already exists with Labour support.

    The biggest threat to Boris is if we get to May/June and Labour still has a big lead and the Boris 2019 voter coalition looks fractured. Like it or not (from a Tory perspective) in 2019 they got ~25% of all remainers to vote for them alongside their more leave coalition, that was the difference between the 80 seat majority and a much smaller one. These are the key swing voters in the next election and Boris is going to struggle to keep them in the tent, the next leader will have to come up with a platform of competence and some kind of "open Britain" type of policy to get them back on board. I don't know who does that.

    Those 25% remain supporters want a Government that doesn't spend money up North.

    The red wall seats want a chance of levelling up actually levelling things up and that means spending money.

    I can't see how you square that circle and the Tories do need to to keep both sides on side.
    Essentially by focusing on the cultural / taxation stuff.

    For example, many of those southern, wealthier Remain-voting Tories are likely to have kids in private school so you make a big song and dance about Labour threatening the tax breaks, their private schools etc. You also bang home the message Labour will put up your taxes more;

    Then you get tougher on immigration. Yes, many of those voters will like to say they are liberals but ask them how many would like refugees housed in their areas and I think that tolerance would lessen. The likes of Patel does the dirty work for them of not letting immigrants in while allowing their consciences to be clean.

    Then you don't build houses in their areas and say "protect the green belt" and warble on about how much you care for the environment (while adapting technical measures that ease the transition burden).
    Possibly the main problem for the Tories in the South, and also increasingly in some rural and market town-type areas outside the South, is that Brexit has become a cultural touchstone for many younger, reasonably educated voters. They absolutely hate it and everything it represents, which keeps them at an enormous distance from the current Tory party.
    Not necessarily, I think tuition fees and taxes on working people are the motivators for people under 40. Stuff like the big NI rise has hurt the most, loads of younger people have recognised it as a tax on young people to pay for old age care.

    If the Tories want to win young people back they will need to start cutting working age taxes and put up taxes on assets and pension income, potentially cut the state pension for people in the higher rate tax bracket.
    Why would we tax our base more to cut tax on people who will almost always vote Labour anyway?
    Governing for the nation rather than the party?
    We are elected to govern for our voters primarily, they are who put us in power in the first place not Labour voters
    Isn't that profoundly subversive of the Constitution?

    Not to mention the divine mandate of the Sovereign? I don't see anywhere in the Coronation service where it said that QEII had to rule with fear and favour in the interest of W.S.Churchill's party, or wqhoever was elected PM at the time.
    Yes, on this he is completely and utterly wrong. An MP is elected to represent all their constituents, whatever their views. A government is elected to govern in what they consider to be the best interest of the whole country.
    Which government ever governed in the interests of their opposition voters? Certainly not Thatcher or Boris or Cameron who Labour voters despised, nor Brown who Tory voters despised.

    Maybe Blair 1997 to 2001 is the closest to it but even then anti EU and pro hunting Tories hated him and after Iraq many of even his own voters hated him too
    Well, I may be dancing on pinheads, but I respectfully suggest that you perhaps misunderstand one of the principles of our (admittedly flawed) system of democracy. MPs are elected to represent ALL their constituents. That does not mean that they need to reflect all their views as that would be impossible. I doubt very much whether you could get any of the people you mention to publicly support your view. It is counter to years of principle and practice of our system. To suggest that individuals could be ignored because they voted for another party is pretty monstrous and leads in a very unpleasant direction.
    You do casework for opposition party voters in your constituency if an MP, you do not put their views ahead of the views of the voters who elected you however
    No no no! I suspect you would like to be considered as a prospective parliamentary candidate? An MP has a duty to properly consider the problems of all constituents and do what they, as the elected MP (with the delegated power of the constituency) consider to be correct based on their sound judgement. If you do not consider this to be a first principle then you are not suitable to be an MP.
    Yes but those are case work issues.

    If you want to be elected as a Tory MP you need to get enough Tory voters to vote for you, voters who always vote Labour will never vote for you anyway
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited January 2022

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    Exactly , some quite obscene people on here who like to think they are special because they were handed it on a plate by rich parents etc and witter on about how spending thousands on a meal , using poor people's money as well, is somehow very normal and admirable. They are amazed that they went to such a cheap joint rather than thinking the same arseholes that took £20 a week off the poorest think nothing of living high on the hog at public expense. Nothing worse than a rich person looking down their nose at the poor, it is common on here.
    I am sure you can always get a fulfilling meal for several people from the vast quantity of chips on your shoulder.
    Go F*** yourself.
    Lol. Your immense powers of articulate debate in full force there Malc. 10/10.

    By the way, I am sure I am not the only person to wonder how your idol (you know the one who was described by his QC...?) got so fecking obese. I doubt he was eating the gruel of the oppressed. I bet he's enjoyed a good few slap up meals at the expense of the taxpayer in his time.
    Are you saying that MalcolmG's idol is Alec Salmond..

    Explains a lot including his desire to attack rather than listen...
  • Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    I think it’s more people who are familiar with London prices vs not
    I really, really doubt that. I've not eaten out much in London in the last ten years, but I doubt prices have gone up that much.

    Look at it this way: if the average salary in London is ~40k per year, then you're looking at a nearly a fortnight's salary for one meal. For many people that's not even a once-in-a-lifetime thing.

    Heck, I've never spent anywhere near that much on a meal - and I doubt my life's the worse for it.
    Ten meals.
    It was almost all spent on wine and gin, just an excuse for a piss up at public expense.
    I woiuldn't have minded so much if it had been spent on UK produce - some Buckfast would have done perfectly well.
    Massive opportunity missed to bore on about British sparkling wine being the best in the world by Fizzy Lizzy.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Dura_Ace said:

    For some reason I'd be fascinated to see a real-life meal including both malc and charles.

    A later PB fly-on-the-wall documentary, too, but done in the sympathetic 1980's BBC style.

    I'd also like to see other episodes...

    Topping and Leon do three rounds of bare knuckle boxing in a pub car park.
    HYUFD and El Barto go on a caravanning holiday to Scotland
    Three rounds?!
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    I think it’s more people who are familiar with London prices vs not
    I really, really doubt that. I've not eaten out much in London in the last ten years, but I doubt prices have gone up that much.

    Look at it this way: if the average salary in London is ~40k per year, then you're looking at a nearly a fortnight's salary for one meal. For many people that's not even a once-in-a-lifetime thing.

    Heck, I've never spent anywhere near that much on a meal - and I doubt my life's the worse for it.
    Ten meals.
    It was almost all spent on wine and gin, just an excuse for a piss up at public expense.
    I woiuldn't have minded so much if it had been spent on UK produce - some Buckfast would have done perfectly well.
    Has anyone done the cheese speech joke yet?

    "We import two-thirds of the wine that Liz Truss drinks. That is a disgrace!" :wink:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited January 2022

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    On topic - I'm not convinced by Liz Truss either. She's trying far too hard to be the next Mrs Thatcher. Too many photo ops and set pieces. If that comparison was forthcoming people would make it without "friends of Liz" going around telling everyone just how much like Maggie she is.

    On the wider next leaders market, I think the party will want a palate cleanser after Boris so I'm not sure than any of the current Cabinet will get the nod. Of the cabinet Rishi probably has the best chance with a short coronation ceremony but I'm not sure he's got the support with MPs to pull it off and there's too many rival factions. He'd have to unite the ERG/CRG behind him (which is doable) rather than their own man (likely Steve Baker or Mark Harper).

    Boris has probably seen off the near term threat to his leadership by not locking down, I think the next big threat will be renewal of plan B measures towards the end of this month but I'm not sure they'll depose him for renewing something that already exists with Labour support.

    The biggest threat to Boris is if we get to May/June and Labour still has a big lead and the Boris 2019 voter coalition looks fractured. Like it or not (from a Tory perspective) in 2019 they got ~25% of all remainers to vote for them alongside their more leave coalition, that was the difference between the 80 seat majority and a much smaller one. These are the key swing voters in the next election and Boris is going to struggle to keep them in the tent, the next leader will have to come up with a platform of competence and some kind of "open Britain" type of policy to get them back on board. I don't know who does that.

    Those 25% remain supporters want a Government that doesn't spend money up North.

    The red wall seats want a chance of levelling up actually levelling things up and that means spending money.

    I can't see how you square that circle and the Tories do need to to keep both sides on side.
    Essentially by focusing on the cultural / taxation stuff.

    For example, many of those southern, wealthier Remain-voting Tories are likely to have kids in private school so you make a big song and dance about Labour threatening the tax breaks, their private schools etc. You also bang home the message Labour will put up your taxes more;

    Then you get tougher on immigration. Yes, many of those voters will like to say they are liberals but ask them how many would like refugees housed in their areas and I think that tolerance would lessen. The likes of Patel does the dirty work for them of not letting immigrants in while allowing their consciences to be clean.

    Then you don't build houses in their areas and say "protect the green belt" and warble on about how much you care for the environment (while adapting technical measures that ease the transition burden).
    Possibly the main problem for the Tories in the South, and also increasingly in some rural and market town-type areas outside the South, is that Brexit has become a cultural touchstone for many younger, reasonably educated voters. They absolutely hate it and everything it represents, which keeps them at an enormous distance from the current Tory party.
    Not necessarily, I think tuition fees and taxes on working people are the motivators for people under 40. Stuff like the big NI rise has hurt the most, loads of younger people have recognised it as a tax on young people to pay for old age care.

    If the Tories want to win young people back they will need to start cutting working age taxes and put up taxes on assets and pension income, potentially cut the state pension for people in the higher rate tax bracket.
    Why would we tax our base more to cut tax on people who will almost always vote Labour anyway?
    Governing for the nation rather than the party?
    We are elected to govern for our voters primarily, they are who put us in power in the first place not Labour voters
    Isn't that profoundly subversive of the Constitution?

    Not to mention the divine mandate of the Sovereign? I don't see anywhere in the Coronation service where it said that QEII had to rule with fear and favour in the interest of W.S.Churchill's party, or wqhoever was elected PM at the time.
    Yes, on this he is completely and utterly wrong. An MP is elected to represent all their constituents, whatever their views. A government is elected to govern in what they consider to be the best interest of the whole country.
    Which government ever governed in the interests of their opposition voters? Certainly not Thatcher or Boris or Cameron who Labour voters despised, nor Brown who Tory voters despised.

    Maybe Blair 1997 to 2001 is the closest to it but even then anti EU and pro hunting Tories hated him and after Iraq many of even his own voters hated him too
    Well, I may be dancing on pinheads, but I respectfully suggest that you perhaps misunderstand one of the principles of our (admittedly flawed) system of democracy. MPs are elected to represent ALL their constituents. That does not mean that they need to reflect all their views as that would be impossible. I doubt very much whether you could get any of the people you mention to publicly support your view. It is counter to years of principle and practice of our system. To suggest that individuals could be ignored because they voted for another party is pretty monstrous and leads in a very unpleasant direction.
    You do casework for opposition party voters in your constituency if an MP, you do not put their views ahead of the views of the voters who elected you however
    There's still a line which looks like it's being crossed here.

    The traditional model was to govern in the interests of the whole nation, just disagreeing about how that interest was served. So Conservative governments and councils built council houses and Labour governments accepted that the country needed the money from the city.

    We do seem to be moving to a situation where the target is to benefit your side at the expense at the other lot as a conscious end in itself.

    Maybe it's our fault as voters for changing the mental balance of "me" and "us". But it is a change, and it's not one I like- whoever is doing it.
    That is already certainly the case in the US, especially in Congress in the House of Representatives where most seats are safe for the GOP or Democrats respectively and the real contest is the party primary not the general election.

  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    Always fancied a meal at the Fat Duck. Anyone know what the damage would be for two people inc wine?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    For some reason I'd be fascinated to see a real-life meal including both malc and charles.

    A later PB fly-on-the-wall documentary, too, but done in the sympathetic 1980's BBC style.

    I'd also like to see other episodes...

    Topping and Leon do three rounds of bare knuckle boxing in a pub car park.
    HYUFD and El Barto go on a caravanning holiday to Scotland
    Three rounds?!
    At least give the punters a bit of a show.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Scott_xP said:
    The Tories cut the Labour lead in London to just 5% with Redfield last night after Boris did not impose any new restrictions over the holiday period. Labour won London by 16% even in 2019
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,168
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning everyone.
    As we crawl back towards working normality.

    Speak for yourself, I'm getting further away from it.

    Although apparently in the government's view an invasive and futile gesture based on the need to do something is 'not a new restriction.'

    This is, of course, because they're complete twats.
    Noted. You are clearly worrying yourself into some sort of problem, Dr, and I'm sure I'm not the only one of your friends here who are becoming concerned about you.
    I've been quite concerned about myself, for the matter of that, since the difficulty of teaching in masks first time around left me with stress pains that made it impossible to walk.
    Sorry to hear that. I take it that you don't wear a mask when speaking in the same way I don't when speaking in court? Do you have to stay at the front of the class and effectively isolate yourself?
    Teaching at a university, I lecture wearing a mask, with all the students wearing masks. I find this fine, although an hour teaching MSc students is a lot easier than spending all day teaching younger students.

    We’ve moved some of our teaching for this month online, where that made more sense. I’m due back in a classroom at the end of the month. We may move that online as well.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,087

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    I think it’s more people who are familiar with London prices vs not
    I really, really doubt that. I've not eaten out much in London in the last ten years, but I doubt prices have gone up that much.

    Look at it this way: if the average salary in London is ~40k per year, then you're looking at a nearly a fortnight's salary for one meal. For many people that's not even a once-in-a-lifetime thing.

    Heck, I've never spent anywhere near that much on a meal - and I doubt my life's the worse for it.
    Ten meals.
    Yeah, I thought about that after my post.

    I shall go and banish myself to Charles' school of etiquette and table-setting. ;)
    I've spent that per head on a couple of special occasions, and once when the first-time-entertaining employee from a contract agency mouthed the immortal words "they did not specify a budget", in 1998.

    As I was being collected from Moorgate we went straight to Nobu in Broadgate for a bill of slightly over £200.

    One comparison is perhaps that a decent Central London Restaurant might have a minimum per head of £50-60. That is approx the number for Veeraswamy on Regent Street.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    edited January 2022
    Stocky said:

    Always fancied a meal at the Fat Duck. Anyone know what the damage would be for two people inc wine?

    In cricket terms a boundary, then two ducks.
  • eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    Exactly , some quite obscene people on here who like to think they are special because they were handed it on a plate by rich parents etc and witter on about how spending thousands on a meal , using poor people's money as well, is somehow very normal and admirable. They are amazed that they went to such a cheap joint rather than thinking the same arseholes that took £20 a week off the poorest think nothing of living high on the hog at public expense. Nothing worse than a rich person looking down their nose at the poor, it is common on here.
    I am sure you can always get a fulfilling meal for several people from the vast quantity of chips on your shoulder.
    Go F*** yourself.
    Lol. Your immense powers of articulate debate in full force there Malc. 10/10.

    By the way, I am sure I am not the only person to wonder how your idol (you know the one who was described by his QC...?) got so fecking obese. I doubt he was eating the gruel of the oppressed. I bet he's enjoyed a good few slap up meals at the expense of the taxpayer in his time.
    Are you saying that MalcolmG's idol is Alec Salmond..

    Explains a lot including his desire to attack rather than listen...
    I think he has inferred that he has offered him continued unswerving fealty in spite of what Wee Eck's QC might say about him.

    Joking aside, I must say I find that level of unquestioning loyalty very weird. It does explain quite a lot about how politicians on the extremes can manipulate their followers. The old adage about some of the people that can be fooled all of the time!
  • MattW said:

    Norman Mailer has been cancelled.


    Andrew Lilico
    @andrew_lilico
    ·
    1h
    Now you get cancelled for the title of articles from 1957.

    I take it this is "The White Negro: Superficial Reflections on the Hipster" ?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Negro

    Has anyone read it? I haven't.


    I have, a long time ago.

    The idea that Mailer hasn't been on people's cancellation lists since he was in his prime could only be held by the ignorant and/or the overwrought.
    He was - as we all will be - cancelled by the almighty some time ago.
    Indeed, and he'll no doubt be doing a bit of explaining to the Old Testament Yahweh in whom always believed, deep down. He'll be gratified that the cancellation which he always relished in life is being applied post mortem.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited January 2022
    Stocky said:

    Always fancied a meal at the Fat Duck. Anyone know what the damage would be for two people inc wine?

    £550 I believe before wine

    Table for 2 can be had on 13:00 on Feb 23rd if you are very quick.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    The Truss story is ludicrous.

    £140/head is a decent, if slightly expensive, boozy lunch at a good central London restaurant.

    I don't do it regularly but I have spent more with my family on a Saturday afternoon FFS.

    Enough of the pathetic hairshirtism.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,009
    Charles said:

    carnforth said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If the spend was all above board and entirely reasonable, why did they lie about it?

    What does that relate to Scott?

    And justification for your claim?
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/04/leak-casts-doubt-on-explanation-for-liz-trusss-3000-lunch-says-labour
    Now downgraded from two bottles of gin to “two measures” of gin, I see. £11.50 each on the menu could hardly have been a bottle.
    They’ve also tweaked the wording on the wine - originally it had been reported as 3 bottles of X costing £153… now it is 3 bottle of X costing a TOTAL of £153

    The difference between a £50 and a £150 bottle is quite important…
    What Scott Fitzgerald wrote was really true, wasn't it?
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    On topic - I'm not convinced by Liz Truss either. She's trying far too hard to be the next Mrs Thatcher. Too many photo ops and set pieces. If that comparison was forthcoming people would make it without "friends of Liz" going around telling everyone just how much like Maggie she is.

    On the wider next leaders market, I think the party will want a palate cleanser after Boris so I'm not sure than any of the current Cabinet will get the nod. Of the cabinet Rishi probably has the best chance with a short coronation ceremony but I'm not sure he's got the support with MPs to pull it off and there's too many rival factions. He'd have to unite the ERG/CRG behind him (which is doable) rather than their own man (likely Steve Baker or Mark Harper).

    Boris has probably seen off the near term threat to his leadership by not locking down, I think the next big threat will be renewal of plan B measures towards the end of this month but I'm not sure they'll depose him for renewing something that already exists with Labour support.

    The biggest threat to Boris is if we get to May/June and Labour still has a big lead and the Boris 2019 voter coalition looks fractured. Like it or not (from a Tory perspective) in 2019 they got ~25% of all remainers to vote for them alongside their more leave coalition, that was the difference between the 80 seat majority and a much smaller one. These are the key swing voters in the next election and Boris is going to struggle to keep them in the tent, the next leader will have to come up with a platform of competence and some kind of "open Britain" type of policy to get them back on board. I don't know who does that.

    Those 25% remain supporters want a Government that doesn't spend money up North.

    The red wall seats want a chance of levelling up actually levelling things up and that means spending money.

    I can't see how you square that circle and the Tories do need to to keep both sides on side.
    Essentially by focusing on the cultural / taxation stuff.

    For example, many of those southern, wealthier Remain-voting Tories are likely to have kids in private school so you make a big song and dance about Labour threatening the tax breaks, their private schools etc. You also bang home the message Labour will put up your taxes more;

    Then you get tougher on immigration. Yes, many of those voters will like to say they are liberals but ask them how many would like refugees housed in their areas and I think that tolerance would lessen. The likes of Patel does the dirty work for them of not letting immigrants in while allowing their consciences to be clean.

    Then you don't build houses in their areas and say "protect the green belt" and warble on about how much you care for the environment (while adapting technical measures that ease the transition burden).
    Possibly the main problem for the Tories in the South, and also increasingly in some rural and market town-type areas outside the South, is that Brexit has become a cultural touchstone for many younger, reasonably educated voters. They absolutely hate it and everything it represents, which keeps them at an enormous distance from the current Tory party.
    Not necessarily, I think tuition fees and taxes on working people are the motivators for people under 40. Stuff like the big NI rise has hurt the most, loads of younger people have recognised it as a tax on young people to pay for old age care.

    If the Tories want to win young people back they will need to start cutting working age taxes and put up taxes on assets and pension income, potentially cut the state pension for people in the higher rate tax bracket.
    Why would we tax our base more to cut tax on people who will almost always vote Labour anyway?
    Governing for the nation rather than the party?
    We are elected to govern for our voters primarily, they are who put us in power in the first place not Labour voters
    Isn't that profoundly subversive of the Constitution?

    Not to mention the divine mandate of the Sovereign? I don't see anywhere in the Coronation service where it said that QEII had to rule with fear and favour in the interest of W.S.Churchill's party, or wqhoever was elected PM at the time.
    Yes, on this he is completely and utterly wrong. An MP is elected to represent all their constituents, whatever their views. A government is elected to govern in what they consider to be the best interest of the whole country.
    Which government ever governed in the interests of their opposition voters? Certainly not Thatcher or Boris or Cameron who Labour voters despised, nor Brown who Tory voters despised.

    Maybe Blair 1997 to 2001 is the closest to it but even then anti EU and pro hunting Tories hated him and after Iraq many of even his own voters hated him too
    Well, I may be dancing on pinheads, but I respectfully suggest that you perhaps misunderstand one of the principles of our (admittedly flawed) system of democracy. MPs are elected to represent ALL their constituents. That does not mean that they need to reflect all their views as that would be impossible. I doubt very much whether you could get any of the people you mention to publicly support your view. It is counter to years of principle and practice of our system. To suggest that individuals could be ignored because they voted for another party is pretty monstrous and leads in a very unpleasant direction.
    You do casework for opposition party voters in your constituency if an MP, you do not put their views ahead of the views of the voters who elected you however
    No no no! I suspect you would like to be considered as a prospective parliamentary candidate? An MP has a duty to properly consider the problems of all constituents and do what they, as the elected MP (with the delegated power of the constituency) consider to be correct based on their sound judgement. If you do not consider this to be a first principle then you are not suitable to be an MP.
    Yes but those are case work issues.

    If you want to be elected as a Tory MP you need to get enough Tory voters to vote for you, voters who always vote Labour will never vote for you anyway
    Yes, but they still deserve to be represented ffs!
  • Dura_Ace said:

    For some reason I'd be fascinated to see a real-life meal including both malc and charles.

    A later PB fly-on-the-wall documentary, too, but done in the sympathetic 1980's BBC style.

    I'd also like to see other episodes...

    Topping and Leon do three rounds of bare knuckle boxing in a pub car park.
    HYUFD and El Barto go on a caravanning holiday to Scotland
    How many Leons would Topping have to fight at once?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,087
    Stocky said:

    Always fancied a meal at the Fat Duck. Anyone know what the damage would be for two people inc wine?

    About £300 per head, and you pay most of it up front :smile: .
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    edited January 2022
    Stocky said:

    Always fancied a meal at the Fat Duck. Anyone know what the damage would be for two people inc wine?

    Don't bother, go to Le Manoir aux Quat'Saisons. It's fantastic, if you've got an anniversary or birthday coming up I'd recommend booking in advance though. Comes in at about ~£300 for lunch or dinner including standard wine pairings (which are still great) and it is truly the best dinner I've ever had.
  • MaxPB said:

    Stocky said:

    Always fancied a meal at the Fat Duck. Anyone know what the damage would be for two people inc wine?

    Don't bother, go to Le Manoir aux Quat'Saisons. It's fantastic, if you've got an anniversary or birthday coming up I'd recommend booking in advance though. Comes in at about ~£300 for lunch or dinner including standard wine pairings (which are still great) and it is truly the best dinner I've ever had.
    That is on my bucket list!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    Exactly , some quite obscene people on here who like to think they are special because they were handed it on a plate by rich parents etc and witter on about how spending thousands on a meal , using poor people's money as well, is somehow very normal and admirable. They are amazed that they went to such a cheap joint rather than thinking the same arseholes that took £20 a week off the poorest think nothing of living high on the hog at public expense. Nothing worse than a rich person looking down their nose at the poor, it is common on here.
    I am sure you can always get a fulfilling meal for several people from the vast quantity of chips on your shoulder.
    Go F*** yourself.
    Lol. Your immense powers of articulate debate in full force there Malc. 10/10.

    By the way, I am sure I am not the only person to wonder how your idol (you know the one who was described by his QC...?) got so fecking obese. I doubt he was eating the gruel of the oppressed. I bet he's enjoyed a good few slap up meals at the expense of the taxpayer in his time.
    Are you saying that MalcolmG's idol is Alec Salmond..

    Explains a lot including his desire to attack rather than listen...
    I think he has inferred that he has offered him continued unswerving fealty in spite of what Wee Eck's QC might say about him.

    Joking aside, I must say I find that level of unquestioning loyalty very weird. It does explain quite a lot about how politicians on the extremes can manipulate their followers. The old adage about some of the people that can be fooled all of the time!
    You halfwit, you know nothing about me whatsoever. You are a moronic cretin and I am sick of you stalking me. Lucky for you you are hiding behind a keyboard. Using your sockpuppet eek the dullard to help does not make it any better.
    I will ask you once again to stop stalking me and take your sickness elsewhere. @eek @Nigel_Foremain
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,781
    Our Christmas treat was some M&S mince pies paid for by my manager and hand delivered to 15 people by me on my bike. That's why this story cuts deep for people in stingier parts of the private/third sector.

    Having said that, there was an absolutely enormous social budget in my old (graduate scheme) job. But that wasn't public money.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    Exactly , some quite obscene people on here who like to think they are special because they were handed it on a plate by rich parents etc and witter on about how spending thousands on a meal , using poor people's money as well, is somehow very normal and admirable. They are amazed that they went to such a cheap joint rather than thinking the same arseholes that took £20 a week off the poorest think nothing of living high on the hog at public expense. Nothing worse than a rich person looking down their nose at the poor, it is common on here.
    I am sure you can always get a fulfilling meal for several people from the vast quantity of chips on your shoulder.
    Go F*** yourself.
    Lol. Your immense powers of articulate debate in full force there Malc. 10/10.

    By the way, I am sure I am not the only person to wonder how your idol (you know the one who was described by his QC...?) got so fecking obese. I doubt he was eating the gruel of the oppressed. I bet he's enjoyed a good few slap up meals at the expense of the taxpayer in his time.
    Are you saying that MalcolmG's idol is Alec Salmond..

    Explains a lot including his desire to attack rather than listen...
    Another retard joins the zoo.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,087
    edited January 2022
    MattW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If the spend was all above board and entirely reasonable, why did they lie about it?

    What does that relate to Scott?

    And justification for your claim?
    Have you identified this alleged lie yet @Scott_xP ?

    Or is it "read the headline and retweet, then run away?".
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    I think it’s more people who are familiar with London prices vs not
    I really, really doubt that. I've not eaten out much in London in the last ten years, but I doubt prices have gone up that much.

    Look at it this way: if the average salary in London is ~40k per year, then you're looking at a nearly a fortnight's salary for one meal. For many people that's not even a once-in-a-lifetime thing.

    Heck, I've never spent anywhere near that much on a meal - and I doubt my life's the worse for it.
    It’s a corporate expense tab thing as well. £130 a head including wine is not flash by any means. I spend that regularly - but would rarely spend that much private money.

    But for client entertainment it’s fairly modest
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited January 2022
    On chatroom "fights" I used to be quite active in a few martial arts/boxing chatrooms and I can tell you that even on those places the ratio of fights to threatened fights is around 1:1,000,000.

    Perhaps Leon and I could face off after a five hour lunch at the Fat Duck which would certainly be amusing. Selling tickets to PBers might even pay for the lunch itself.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,912
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    On topic - I'm not convinced by Liz Truss either. She's trying far too hard to be the next Mrs Thatcher. Too many photo ops and set pieces. If that comparison was forthcoming people would make it without "friends of Liz" going around telling everyone just how much like Maggie she is.

    On the wider next leaders market, I think the party will want a palate cleanser after Boris so I'm not sure than any of the current Cabinet will get the nod. Of the cabinet Rishi probably has the best chance with a short coronation ceremony but I'm not sure he's got the support with MPs to pull it off and there's too many rival factions. He'd have to unite the ERG/CRG behind him (which is doable) rather than their own man (likely Steve Baker or Mark Harper).

    Boris has probably seen off the near term threat to his leadership by not locking down, I think the next big threat will be renewal of plan B measures towards the end of this month but I'm not sure they'll depose him for renewing something that already exists with Labour support.

    The biggest threat to Boris is if we get to May/June and Labour still has a big lead and the Boris 2019 voter coalition looks fractured. Like it or not (from a Tory perspective) in 2019 they got ~25% of all remainers to vote for them alongside their more leave coalition, that was the difference between the 80 seat majority and a much smaller one. These are the key swing voters in the next election and Boris is going to struggle to keep them in the tent, the next leader will have to come up with a platform of competence and some kind of "open Britain" type of policy to get them back on board. I don't know who does that.

    Those 25% remain supporters want a Government that doesn't spend money up North.

    The red wall seats want a chance of levelling up actually levelling things up and that means spending money.

    I can't see how you square that circle and the Tories do need to to keep both sides on side.
    Essentially by focusing on the cultural / taxation stuff.

    For example, many of those southern, wealthier Remain-voting Tories are likely to have kids in private school so you make a big song and dance about Labour threatening the tax breaks, their private schools etc. You also bang home the message Labour will put up your taxes more;

    Then you get tougher on immigration. Yes, many of those voters will like to say they are liberals but ask them how many would like refugees housed in their areas and I think that tolerance would lessen. The likes of Patel does the dirty work for them of not letting immigrants in while allowing their consciences to be clean.

    Then you don't build houses in their areas and say "protect the green belt" and warble on about how much you care for the environment (while adapting technical measures that ease the transition burden).
    Possibly the main problem for the Tories in the South, and also increasingly in some rural and market town-type areas outside the South, is that Brexit has become a cultural touchstone for many younger, reasonably educated voters. They absolutely hate it and everything it represents, which keeps them at an enormous distance from the current Tory party.
    Not necessarily, I think tuition fees and taxes on working people are the motivators for people under 40. Stuff like the big NI rise has hurt the most, loads of younger people have recognised it as a tax on young people to pay for old age care.

    If the Tories want to win young people back they will need to start cutting working age taxes and put up taxes on assets and pension income, potentially cut the state pension for people in the higher rate tax bracket.
    Why would we tax our base more to cut tax on people who will almost always vote Labour anyway?
    Governing for the nation rather than the party?
    We are elected to govern for our voters primarily, they are who put us in power in the first place not Labour voters
    Isn't that profoundly subversive of the Constitution?

    Not to mention the divine mandate of the Sovereign? I don't see anywhere in the Coronation service where it said that QEII had to rule with fear and favour in the interest of W.S.Churchill's party, or wqhoever was elected PM at the time.
    Yes, on this he is completely and utterly wrong. An MP is elected to represent all their constituents, whatever their views. A government is elected to govern in what they consider to be the best interest of the whole country.
    Which government ever governed in the interests of their opposition voters? Certainly not Thatcher or Boris or Cameron who Labour voters despised, nor Brown who Tory voters despised.

    Maybe Blair 1997 to 2001 is the closest to it but even then anti EU and pro hunting Tories hated him and after Iraq many of even his own voters hated him too
    Well, I may be dancing on pinheads, but I respectfully suggest that you perhaps misunderstand one of the principles of our (admittedly flawed) system of democracy. MPs are elected to represent ALL their constituents. That does not mean that they need to reflect all their views as that would be impossible. I doubt very much whether you could get any of the people you mention to publicly support your view. It is counter to years of principle and practice of our system. To suggest that individuals could be ignored because they voted for another party is pretty monstrous and leads in a very unpleasant direction.
    You do casework for opposition party voters in your constituency if an MP, you do not put their views ahead of the views of the voters who elected you however
    There's still a line which looks like it's being crossed here.

    The traditional model was to govern in the interests of the whole nation, just disagreeing about how that interest was served. So Conservative governments and councils built council houses and Labour governments accepted that the country needed the money from the city.

    We do seem to be moving to a situation where the target is to benefit your side at the expense at the other lot as a conscious end in itself.

    Maybe it's our fault as voters for changing the mental balance of "me" and "us". But it is a change, and it's not one I like- whoever is doing it.
    I also disagree with the premise that an MP should regard an issue for someone who voted for them as more important than an issue for someone who didn't. That seems to be charting a really awful path of divisiveness we shouldn't be on. The government and its representatives need to govern for the whole nation, not just its voters. That's true for Tory and Labour.
    Agreed. It doesn't sit well with me at all, and is out of line with traditional Tory behaviour even among the most partisan leaders. Thatcher talked a lot about "our people" but even she worked day and night to get Nissan to locate in the North East, even though she never reaped any electoral dividends from it in the NE, and probably didn't expect to. There was a sense of that them and us attitude in Scotland with the poll tax, and arguably the Tories are still paying for that, so I think it would be naive to assume that you can easily draw a line between your voters and your opponents in any case.
    HYUFD I think you need to stop thinking about voters as statistics in a canvas return and start thinking of them as human beings if you are going to build a useful career in public service, as it appears you want to.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,781

    The Truss story is ludicrous.

    £140/head is a decent, if slightly expensive, boozy lunch at a good central London restaurant.

    I don't do it regularly but I have spent more with my family on a Saturday afternoon FFS.

    Enough of the pathetic hairshirtism.

    When I was in London I went out for a lovely meal with my GF for £50 per head. And we are both earning well above median salaries.

    PB can be hilariously out of touch on stuff like this. If you are on a ministerial salary and going out for food with minted diplomats, don't milk the public purse for your oysters.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,781
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    I think it’s more people who are familiar with London prices vs not
    I really, really doubt that. I've not eaten out much in London in the last ten years, but I doubt prices have gone up that much.

    Look at it this way: if the average salary in London is ~40k per year, then you're looking at a nearly a fortnight's salary for one meal. For many people that's not even a once-in-a-lifetime thing.

    Heck, I've never spent anywhere near that much on a meal - and I doubt my life's the worse for it.
    It’s a corporate expense tab thing as well. £130 a head including wine is not flash by any means. I spend that regularly - but would rarely spend that much private money.

    But for client entertainment it’s fairly modest
    Fine, good for you. I benefited from that culture when I was in finance.

    But you cannot do that with public money.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,162
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MrEd said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    On topic - I'm not convinced by Liz Truss either. She's trying far too hard to be the next Mrs Thatcher. Too many photo ops and set pieces. If that comparison was forthcoming people would make it without "friends of Liz" going around telling everyone just how much like Maggie she is.

    On the wider next leaders market, I think the party will want a palate cleanser after Boris so I'm not sure than any of the current Cabinet will get the nod. Of the cabinet Rishi probably has the best chance with a short coronation ceremony but I'm not sure he's got the support with MPs to pull it off and there's too many rival factions. He'd have to unite the ERG/CRG behind him (which is doable) rather than their own man (likely Steve Baker or Mark Harper).

    Boris has probably seen off the near term threat to his leadership by not locking down, I think the next big threat will be renewal of plan B measures towards the end of this month but I'm not sure they'll depose him for renewing something that already exists with Labour support.

    The biggest threat to Boris is if we get to May/June and Labour still has a big lead and the Boris 2019 voter coalition looks fractured. Like it or not (from a Tory perspective) in 2019 they got ~25% of all remainers to vote for them alongside their more leave coalition, that was the difference between the 80 seat majority and a much smaller one. These are the key swing voters in the next election and Boris is going to struggle to keep them in the tent, the next leader will have to come up with a platform of competence and some kind of "open Britain" type of policy to get them back on board. I don't know who does that.

    Those 25% remain supporters want a Government that doesn't spend money up North.

    The red wall seats want a chance of levelling up actually levelling things up and that means spending money.

    I can't see how you square that circle and the Tories do need to to keep both sides on side.
    Essentially by focusing on the cultural / taxation stuff.

    For example, many of those southern, wealthier Remain-voting Tories are likely to have kids in private school so you make a big song and dance about Labour threatening the tax breaks, their private schools etc. You also bang home the message Labour will put up your taxes more;

    Then you get tougher on immigration. Yes, many of those voters will like to say they are liberals but ask them how many would like refugees housed in their areas and I think that tolerance would lessen. The likes of Patel does the dirty work for them of not letting immigrants in while allowing their consciences to be clean.

    Then you don't build houses in their areas and say "protect the green belt" and warble on about how much you care for the environment (while adapting technical measures that ease the transition burden).
    Possibly the main problem for the Tories in the South, and also increasingly in some rural and market town-type areas outside the South, is that Brexit has become a cultural touchstone for many younger, reasonably educated voters. They absolutely hate it and everything it represents, which keeps them at an enormous distance from the current Tory party.
    Not necessarily, I think tuition fees and taxes on working people are the motivators for people under 40. Stuff like the big NI rise has hurt the most, loads of younger people have recognised it as a tax on young people to pay for old age care.

    If the Tories want to win young people back they will need to start cutting working age taxes and put up taxes on assets and pension income, potentially cut the state pension for people in the higher rate tax bracket.
    Why would we tax our base more to cut tax on people who will almost always vote Labour anyway?
    Governing for the nation rather than the party?
    We are elected to govern for our voters primarily, they are who put us in power in the first place not Labour voters
    Isn't that profoundly subversive of the Constitution?

    Not to mention the divine mandate of the Sovereign? I don't see anywhere in the Coronation service where it said that QEII had to rule with fear and favour in the interest of W.S.Churchill's party, or wqhoever was elected PM at the time.
    Yes, on this he is completely and utterly wrong. An MP is elected to represent all their constituents, whatever their views. A government is elected to govern in what they consider to be the best interest of the whole country.
    Which government ever governed in the interests of their opposition voters? Certainly not Thatcher or Boris or Cameron who Labour voters despised, nor Brown who Tory voters despised.

    Maybe Blair 1997 to 2001 is the closest to it but even then anti EU and pro hunting Tories hated him and after Iraq many of even his own voters hated him too
    Well, I may be dancing on pinheads, but I respectfully suggest that you perhaps misunderstand one of the principles of our (admittedly flawed) system of democracy. MPs are elected to represent ALL their constituents. That does not mean that they need to reflect all their views as that would be impossible. I doubt very much whether you could get any of the people you mention to publicly support your view. It is counter to years of principle and practice of our system. To suggest that individuals could be ignored because they voted for another party is pretty monstrous and leads in a very unpleasant direction.
    You do casework for opposition party voters in your constituency if an MP, you do not put their views ahead of the views of the voters who elected you however
    There's still a line which looks like it's being crossed here.

    The traditional model was to govern in the interests of the whole nation, just disagreeing about how that interest was served. So Conservative governments and councils built council houses and Labour governments accepted that the country needed the money from the city.

    We do seem to be moving to a situation where the target is to benefit your side at the expense at the other lot as a conscious end in itself.

    Maybe it's our fault as voters for changing the mental balance of "me" and "us". But it is a change, and it's not one I like- whoever is doing it.
    That is already certainly the case in the US, especially in Congress in the House of Representatives where most seats are safe for the GOP or Democrats respectively and the real contest is the party primary not the general election.

    Indeed, who needs to spend megabucks on a posh meal for a US trade delegation when we already have a deal giving us tariff-free imports of most of the worst aspects of American politics and culture war? Just add on a chapter for gun rights and we'll have the full set.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Pulpstar said:

    £140 a head is undoubtedly a very very expensive lunch. But potentially justifiable if it could help grease US trade wheels.

    There would be an issue with a departmental lunch coming to that much - but it wasn’t a departmental lunch, it was a meal for a visiting international trade delegation, there’s a certain level at which these things need to be done.
  • malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    Exactly , some quite obscene people on here who like to think they are special because they were handed it on a plate by rich parents etc and witter on about how spending thousands on a meal , using poor people's money as well, is somehow very normal and admirable. They are amazed that they went to such a cheap joint rather than thinking the same arseholes that took £20 a week off the poorest think nothing of living high on the hog at public expense. Nothing worse than a rich person looking down their nose at the poor, it is common on here.
    I am sure you can always get a fulfilling meal for several people from the vast quantity of chips on your shoulder.
    Go F*** yourself.
    Lol. Your immense powers of articulate debate in full force there Malc. 10/10.

    By the way, I am sure I am not the only person to wonder how your idol (you know the one who was described by his QC...?) got so fecking obese. I doubt he was eating the gruel of the oppressed. I bet he's enjoyed a good few slap up meals at the expense of the taxpayer in his time.
    Are you saying that MalcolmG's idol is Alec Salmond..

    Explains a lot including his desire to attack rather than listen...
    I think he has inferred that he has offered him continued unswerving fealty in spite of what Wee Eck's QC might say about him.

    Joking aside, I must say I find that level of unquestioning loyalty very weird. It does explain quite a lot about how politicians on the extremes can manipulate their followers. The old adage about some of the people that can be fooled all of the time!
    You halfwit, you know nothing about me whatsoever. You are a moronic cretin and I am sick of you stalking me. Lucky for you you are hiding behind a keyboard. Using your sockpuppet eek the dullard to help does not make it any better.
    I will ask you once again to stop stalking me and take your sickness elsewhere. @eek @Nigel_Foremain
    Don't flatter yourself. You are an inarticulate offensive little turd with anger management issues and a weird loyalty to a man who has been morally discredited by his own defence team. He deserves you and you him.

    I will continue to take the piss out of your pathetic, childish and inarticulate posts where I see fit. The thinly veiled threat of violence is something that I should expect from a nationalist, but it really has got me pissing myself laughing rather than pissing my pants. Go and get some help you sad little man.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited January 2022

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    Exactly , some quite obscene people on here who like to think they are special because they were handed it on a plate by rich parents etc and witter on about how spending thousands on a meal , using poor people's money as well, is somehow very normal and admirable. They are amazed that they went to such a cheap joint rather than thinking the same arseholes that took £20 a week off the poorest think nothing of living high on the hog at public expense. Nothing worse than a rich person looking down their nose at the poor, it is common on here.
    I am sure you can always get a fulfilling meal for several people from the vast quantity of chips on your shoulder.
    Go F*** yourself.
    Lol. Your immense powers of articulate debate in full force there Malc. 10/10.

    By the way, I am sure I am not the only person to wonder how your idol (you know the one who was described by his QC...?) got so fecking obese. I doubt he was eating the gruel of the oppressed. I bet he's enjoyed a good few slap up meals at the expense of the taxpayer in his time.
    Are you saying that MalcolmG's idol is Alec Salmond..

    Explains a lot including his desire to attack rather than listen...
    I think he has inferred that he has offered him continued unswerving fealty in spite of what Wee Eck's QC might say about him.

    Joking aside, I must say I find that level of unquestioning loyalty very weird. It does explain quite a lot about how politicians on the extremes can manipulate their followers. The old adage about some of the people that can be fooled all of the time!
    You halfwit, you know nothing about me whatsoever. You are a moronic cretin and I am sick of you stalking me. Lucky for you you are hiding behind a keyboard. Using your sockpuppet eek the dullard to help does not make it any better.
    I will ask you once again to stop stalking me and take your sickness elsewhere. @eek @Nigel_Foremain
    Don't flatter yourself. You are an inarticulate offensive little turd with anger management issues and a weird loyalty to a man who has been morally discredited by his own defence team. He deserves you and you him.

    I will continue to take the piss out of your pathetic, childish and inarticulate posts where I see fit. The thinly veiled threat of violence is something that I should expect from a nationalist, but it really has got me pissing myself laughing rather than pissing my pants. Go and get some help you sad little man.
    So all in all, all's well with the world this sunny Tuesday lunchtime, as Christmas winds its way to a close and the last Christmas biscuits and left-over starters are eaten.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,168
    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:


    I always have a funny thought when a new US Civil War gets mentioned - I am imagining the build-up to it, with one side arguing about the precise gender and racial imbalance of their army, while the other is stockpiling ammunition for their many guns.

    The guns are irrelevant; whoever has control of the logistics and comms capabilities of the armed forces will win. You can have all the Ruger 10/22s you want but it doesn't mean shit if the other side are flying in C-5Ms full of supplies and have MQ-1Cs overhead.

    Also, the Red Team MAGA Mall Ninjas are usually as fat as fuck with unmanaged diabetes and opiate addictions. Most of them will gas out 2 minutes into a firefight.
    There's more than one way to have a civil war.
    All the military capabilities if the US would be of only limited use against a sustained campaign of domestic terrorism, for example.
    The US, of course, has a history of both a traditional civil war and a sustained campaign of domestic terrorism (decades of lynchings, KKK etc.). The latter was part of a successful campaign to undo the loss of the former: for nearly a century, white supremacism remained in charge in the South. One of the great what-ifs of American history is what would’ve happened if the North/the Republicans had kept enforcing the Reconstruction. The federal government let the terrorism happen.

    Today? The more violent the MAGA side gets, the more the population turn against them. After Jan 6, there was a sense that it was all over for MAGA. Time having passed, and the Republicans seem set to do well in the mid-terms. If they started bombing places, I think they’d lose support. They could continue bombing places, but they’d never win.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    Exactly , some quite obscene people on here who like to think they are special because they were handed it on a plate by rich parents etc and witter on about how spending thousands on a meal , using poor people's money as well, is somehow very normal and admirable. They are amazed that they went to such a cheap joint rather than thinking the same arseholes that took £20 a week off the poorest think nothing of living high on the hog at public expense. Nothing worse than a rich person looking down their nose at the poor, it is common on here.
    I am sure you can always get a fulfilling meal for several people from the vast quantity of chips on your shoulder.
    Go F*** yourself.
    Lol. Your immense powers of articulate debate in full force there Malc. 10/10.

    By the way, I am sure I am not the only person to wonder how your idol (you know the one who was described by his QC...?) got so fecking obese. I doubt he was eating the gruel of the oppressed. I bet he's enjoyed a good few slap up meals at the expense of the taxpayer in his time.
    Are you saying that MalcolmG's idol is Alec Salmond..

    Explains a lot including his desire to attack rather than listen...
    I think he has inferred that he has offered him continued unswerving fealty in spite of what Wee Eck's QC might say about him.

    Joking aside, I must say I find that level of unquestioning loyalty very weird. It does explain quite a lot about how politicians on the extremes can manipulate their followers. The old adage about some of the people that can be fooled all of the time!
    You halfwit, you know nothing about me whatsoever. You are a moronic cretin and I am sick of you stalking me. Lucky for you you are hiding behind a keyboard. Using your sockpuppet eek the dullard to help does not make it any better.
    I will ask you once again to stop stalking me and take your sickness elsewhere. @eek @Nigel_Foremain
    Don't flatter yourself. You are an inarticulate offensive little turd with anger management issues and a weird loyalty to a man who has been morally discredited by his own defence team. He deserves you and you him.

    I will continue to take the piss out of your pathetic, childish and inarticulate posts where I see fit. The thinly veiled threat of violence is something that I should expect from a nationalist, but it really has got me pissing myself laughing rather than pissing my pants. Go and get some help you sad little man.
    You moron , you are the piss and could not take it out of anyone. A spineless creep.
  • TOPPING said:

    On chatroom "fights" I used to be quite active in a few martial arts/boxing chatrooms and I can tell you that even on those places the ratio of fights to threatened fights is around 1:1,000,000.

    Perhaps Leon and I could face off after a five hour lunch at the Fat Duck which would certainly be amusing. Selling tickets to PBers might even pay for the lunch itself.

    Leon would offer you a bribe to throw it large enough to pay for several lunches.

    'I'll double it if you beg for mercy.'
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,162
    Eabhal said:

    The Truss story is ludicrous.

    £140/head is a decent, if slightly expensive, boozy lunch at a good central London restaurant.

    I don't do it regularly but I have spent more with my family on a Saturday afternoon FFS.

    Enough of the pathetic hairshirtism.

    When I was in London I went out for a lovely meal with my GF for £50 per head. And we are both earning well above median salaries.

    PB can be hilariously out of touch on stuff like this. If you are on a ministerial salary and going out for food with minted diplomats, don't milk the public purse for your oysters.
    For Labour this story works well. It probably won't have much salience for wealthy Lib-Dem-tempted remainers in the home counties many of whom will think it's a storm in a teacup, but they have other things to get worked up about like Peppa Pig speeches, raw sewage in rivers, Brexit bureaucracy and general government uncouthness. But I suspect it will work well in poorer marginals. There's a tricky pincer movement for the Tories at the moment.
  • The Truss story is ludicrous.

    £140/head is a decent, if slightly expensive, boozy lunch at a good central London restaurant.

    I don't do it regularly but I have spent more with my family on a Saturday afternoon FFS.

    Enough of the pathetic hairshirtism.

    I agree. The alternative proposed by the civil servants, Quo Vadis, would have cost pretty much the same. Their fixed menu prices are from £50 to £75 a head, and there are only 4 or 5 wines on their wine list that would have been cheaper than the scandalously expensive ones they had. And they might have had to sit in QV's "Marx Room", which could have put off the yanks.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    I think it’s more people who are familiar with London prices vs not
    I lived in London for 5 years. There are Michelin star restaurants that cost less than £140 a head.
    You're a bit out of touch on this one.

    Inclusive of wine? Which ones? Would love to go!

    Realistically in a nice but not upscale restaurant you can get a veggie MWI course for £20, with fish & meat at around £25. Once you add a side dish then you are likely to be a £30+. Add in a starter or main you are probably at £40-45 for food with an additional £2-3 for half a bottle of water. Let’s say £50-60 including a tip.

    That’s before wine and/or dessert.

    Prices may be ludicrous but that’s what they are. And this is not dining at the Ritz or anywhere like that.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Johnson is in a very weak position, but his main opponents aren't in as strong a position as they could be yet, either. Sunak still looks like a leader for the South, and Truss seems to share some or all the same problems as Johnson.

    For these reasons, as mentioned previously, it could be a complete wildcard that comes to the fore. Penny Mordaunt is interesting on this front - a completely different style to all the challengers.

    In re Ms Truss - the lunch issue is not quite going away.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/04/leak-casts-doubt-on-explanation-for-liz-trusss-3000-lunch-says-labour
    Well it wasn’t £3,000… it was £1,400 conditional on immediate payment.., which I guess means using a credit card to settle the bill rather than an invoice…
    50% sounds about right. If I were a small business invoicing a large government department, I’d be doubling the price vs a credit card on the day too.
    The £3,000 number was £500 room hire plus £2,500 minimum spend

    If the room was empty then both could be very painlessly waived
    Isn't that what happened - or am I missing something? The restaurant waived the minimum spend and charged only for what was actually bought, conditional on immediate payment.

    I don't think it's that complicated, I have done the same before.
    Of course it’s entirely normal. But people seem desperate to find a scandal.

    I’m surprised for example that the civil service had to use an “emergency procedure”.

    Although when I want to spend over my cap I have to email the COO. He usually emails an approval back in about 10 minutes. So I guess that counts as an “emergency procedure”

    Perhaps you should get pre-approval for the next PB meet up.
    I don’t think I could afford your drinking habit!
    Yet you think 1400 for a lunch is petty cash, methinks you dost protest too much.
    I don’t, and I never said that.

    I think it’s within our expenses policy, which is not generous, so I think it’s reasonable for this level of entertainment.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    I quite like a decent meal and good food occasionally - I want to take Mrs J back to Fortnum and Mason's afternoon tea sometime. It's great to dress up and really treat yourself occasionally. Perhaps we'll make it a hotel in London (*) and the theatre.

    I do wonder if people who frequently wine and dine expensively actually get the most out of their food: if familiarity breeds a certain amount of contempt.

    So do they go down McDonalds occasionally for a palate cleanser? ;)

    (*) Hopefully not as hilariously bad as the last one we stayed at. So bad it was worth staying at for the story.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    New thread.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Actually, that's an interesting one: the worst hotel you've ever stayed at, and why.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,836
    This kind of meal is standard for certain classes. For your average punter it is astronomical.
    That's fine when the economy is doing well and folk can aspire to it. It is what people expect.
    It looks different when heating costs are through the roof and pay isn't keeping up. Looks like troughing and fits with the prevailing narrative I'm afraid.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Stocky said:

    Always fancied a meal at the Fat Duck. Anyone know what the damage would be for two people inc wine?

    Hardens says £396 for a 3 course dinner, half a bottle of wine, coffee, cover charge, service and VAT

    By comparison Hawksmoor (a humdrum steak chain) is £85 per head, Cabotte (which I like) is £71 and Nando’s about £25-30.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Chris said:

    Charles said:

    carnforth said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If the spend was all above board and entirely reasonable, why did they lie about it?

    What does that relate to Scott?

    And justification for your claim?
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/04/leak-casts-doubt-on-explanation-for-liz-trusss-3000-lunch-says-labour
    Now downgraded from two bottles of gin to “two measures” of gin, I see. £11.50 each on the menu could hardly have been a bottle.
    They’ve also tweaked the wording on the wine - originally it had been reported as 3 bottles of X costing £153… now it is 3 bottle of X costing a TOTAL of £153

    The difference between a £50 and a £150 bottle is quite important…
    What Scott Fitzgerald wrote was really true, wasn't it?
    Tender is the Night was only lightly fictionalised, I believe, but Gatsby was largely made up
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Thanks for the header Mike.

    I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?

    Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
    Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are.
    I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
    I think it’s more people who are familiar with London prices vs not
    I lived in London for 5 years. There are Michelin star restaurants that cost less than £140 a head.
    You're a bit out of touch on this one.

    Inclusive of wine? Which ones? Would love to go!

    Realistically in a nice but not upscale restaurant you can get a veggie MWI course for £20, with fish & meat at around £25. Once you add a side dish then you are likely to be a £30+. Add in a starter or main you are probably at £40-45 for food with an additional £2-3 for half a bottle of water. Let’s say £50-60 including a tip.

    That’s before wine and/or dessert.

    Prices may be ludicrous but that’s what they are. And this is not dining at the Ritz or anywhere like that.
    https://www.cntraveller.com/article/michelin-lunch-deals-london
    Here are 12 for you. Amazing what you can save by googling!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Since we're on expensive meals.....first business trip to Japan - bumped into a colleague on the plane who suggested we dine at the hotel's top floor teppanyaki restaurant. Going in I saw a Set Menu which looked like it cost £18/head (this was the mid-nineties) - jolly reasonable, I thought, though as the meal progressed it gradually dawned on me that I'd misplaced a decimal point and it was £180.....
This discussion has been closed.