politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Team Corbyn’s aim is not to win the election but to keep contr
Comments
-
The list of proposed renationalisation in the manifesto is actually rather tame.
In Leeds Central CLP we passed a policy motion that called for the renationalisation of British Airways not so long ago...
(I voted against, btw)0 -
And comparing Corbyn to Attlee would be both ludicrous and offensive.rural_voter said:0 -
There is no number (probably not even 0) that would see them willingly give up their control of the party. The only difference is whether at the next leadership election there is one of their number on the ballot (and I don't see them getting the free votes they did in 2015)peter_from_putney said:At what level of seat wins would Corbyn and his chums realise that their game was up and simply give up the good fight ...... would that be the case were they to win say fewer than 150 seats .....130 seats ...... 120 seats ...... just how low would Labour have to fall to force the marxists out?
0 -
How many did Labour get in 1983 in England ? Corbyn did not lose Scotland. Actually, that was lost by standing next to the Tories.Black_Rook said:
Indeed. Given that the SNP is likely to hold the bulk of its seats, that would imply a Tory majority of around 90.kle4 said:
I'm not surprised - 200 would still be bad, but psycologically it feels more defendable, and of course it would mean a big but not mahoosive Tory majority.Black_Rook said:
Funny you should mention 200 seats...kle4 said:It could stave of a challenge - if the vote share is high enough, it is possible it will be enough in enough key places to ensure losses are not too bad, say to around 200 total seats. If that happens, it is bad, but Corbyn really could say he has been hamstrung by MPs who wouldn't back him, and they would be too afraid to challenge him given he did far better than they said he would.
http//twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/864566148490252290
200 seats is the lowest value - for psychological reasons, as you identify - that I think McCluskey could've got away with. If he wanted to be reasonably sure of setting the bar low enough to guarantee success then he could've picked 150, but then he would've looked totally cuckoo rather than, merely, faintly ridiculous.
And we should also remember that 200 seats would still be Labour's worst result since the Thirties.0 -
Fair enough, agreed on the Michelin stars for French chefs, definitely a case of grade inflation or at least the propping up of the French restaurant industry vs the rest of Europe (the UK included).SeanT said:
It's been my opinion that food is significantly better in Italy and Spain, compared to France, for quite a while (as I have said on here for a couple of years). Some on here have disputed this.MaxPB said:
Italy has been beating France for cuisine for a while now. Surprised it has taken you this long to realise, Sean. Michelin stars are not, IMO, the same mark of quality they used to be, especially in France.SeanT said:Global Gastronomy Latest
I know PB-ers love and cherish my views on matters culinary and oenophile, so I have an update.
I'v
Italy won.
So I approached this as an honest and interesting experiment, and with an open mind, but my convictions were reinforced. France is no longer supreme.
In particular, Michelin starred restaurants are too often disappointing in France. I can't help but think the French Michelin reviewers are more generous to their native cuisine.
I would personally rate Italian food at the top of the tree, I'm not overly enamoured by Scandinavian cuisine, even though it seems to be all the rage right now. Next time you're in London go to Elizabeth Haigh/Allen's pop up or wait for her next project to get up and running. Pidgin was definitely a highlight of the London dining scene when she was there.0 -
You're right - the cocktails were really good, the nibbles disappointing so we requested a plate of fresh fruit. We were given an off menu rainbow of fruit carpaccio. I didn't look at the bill, but it was worth it....SeanT said:
I'd quite like to live in the Igeia. The only disappointing thing was the nibbles with aperitivos (normally brilliant in Italy).Mortimer said:
The Igeia is fantastic. Spent a few nights there in 2015. Breakfast was stunning, evening meal a work of art.SeanT said:Global Gastronomy Latest
I know PB-ers love and cherish my views on matters culinary and oenophile, so I have an update.
I've just come back from a Times Travel assignment in Palermo and Pantelleria, two weeks before that I did a trip through the gardens and chateaux of the Loire.
It made for a fascinating comparison. In both cases I stayed in very nice hotels, and, more importantly, ate in all kinds of establishments, from famous Michelin starred restaurants to brasseries and trattorias. Both regions are well known but not absolutely renowned for their wine and cuisine.
France was nice (better and more flavoursome than recent experiences in Lyon, Paris, etc). I had one totally outstanding meal - oysters and foie gras in a revered Art Deco brasserie in Nantes. Simple but brilliant ingredients, served simply but brilliantly.
Italy was good, with several moments of greatness: a pasta dish of sea urchins and scorpionfish at the Igeia in Palermo was just mindblowing. In general, Italy was consistently one or two notches better, even if the Michelin stars were rarer.
Italy won.
Otherwise, yes, a sublime hotel with ridiculously gorgeous views. And dinner, OMG.0 -
And yet there was massive investment when water was nationalised. Kielder, Rutland, The Thames Water Ring Main (a brilliant and little known feat), although the latter started when nationalised, and was completed under privatisation. And they're just some off the top of my head.Malmesbury said:
It goes back to the basic problem of nationalised industries - investment becomes a negative. Spend money on reducing the workforce (usually), or bung a subsidy at them until the next election? improve environmental standards (expensive), or write a waiver for government owned entities?JosiasJessop said:Can someone tell me what the point of water privatisation is? You have an industry where the supply infrastructure (both water and sewage) cannot be easily replicated to the consumer, the source supply is fairly fixed (aquifers, reservoirs etc), and the room for innovation is very low.
In contrast, telecoms privatisation has been a boon. For one thing, it has allowed massive amount of innovation even though, for fixed lines at least, the infrastructure remains with one company. I just can't say the same for water.
Can someone tell me what's been gained by the consumer (both residential and business) from water privatisation? Is the service 'better' now than it was in (say) the 1980s?0 -
They agreed with the Tories on the Independence issue - how were they to get around that?surbiton said:
How many did Labour get in 1983 in England ? Corbyn did not lose Scotland. Actually, that was lost by standing next to the Tories.Black_Rook said:
Indeed. Given that the SNP is likely to hold the bulk of its seats, that would imply a Tory majority of around 90.kle4 said:
I'm not surprised - 200 would still be bad, but psycologically it feels more defendable, and of course it would mean a big but not mahoosive Tory majority.Black_Rook said:
Funny you should mention 200 seats...kle4 said:It could stave of a challenge - if the vote share is high enough, it is possible it will be enough in enough key places to ensure losses are not too bad, say to around 200 total seats. If that happens, it is bad, but Corbyn really could say he has been hamstrung by MPs who wouldn't back him, and they would be too afraid to challenge him given he did far better than they said he would.
http//twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/864566148490252290
200 seats is the lowest value - for psychological reasons, as you identify - that I think McCluskey could've got away with. If he wanted to be reasonably sure of setting the bar low enough to guarantee success then he could've picked 150, but then he would've looked totally cuckoo rather than, merely, faintly ridiculous.
And we should also remember that 200 seats would still be Labour's worst result since the Thirties.0 -
148 in england + 20 in wales. so anything more than that JC could say isn't the worse defeat since WWIIsurbiton said:
How many did Labour get in 1983 in England ? Corbyn did not lose Scotland. Actually, that was lost by standing next to the Tories.Black_Rook said:
Indeed. Given that the SNP is likely to hold the bulk of its seats, that would imply a Tory majority of around 90.kle4 said:
I'm not surprised - 200 would still be bad, but psycologically it feels more defendable, and of course it would mean a big but not mahoosive Tory majority.Black_Rook said:
Funny you should mention 200 seats...kle4 said:It could stave of a challenge - if the vote share is high enough, it is possible it will be enough in enough key places to ensure losses are not too bad, say to around 200 total seats. If that happens, it is bad, but Corbyn really could say he has been hamstrung by MPs who wouldn't back him, and they would be too afraid to challenge him given he did far better than they said he would.
http//twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/864566148490252290
200 seats is the lowest value - for psychological reasons, as you identify - that I think McCluskey could've got away with. If he wanted to be reasonably sure of setting the bar low enough to guarantee success then he could've picked 150, but then he would've looked totally cuckoo rather than, merely, faintly ridiculous.
And we should also remember that 200 seats would still be Labour's worst result since the Thirties.0 -
That would be ridiculous. The point about water and railways is that they are effectively local monopolies. Rail is a disaster because of Network Rail.SandyRentool said:The list of proposed renationalisation in the manifesto is actually rather tame.
In Leeds Central CLP we passed a policy motion that called for the renationalisation of British Airways not so long ago...
(I voted against, btw)0 -
I tend to agree. But I am interested in what was gained from the privatisation in the first place. I can understand BT, BR and leccy/gas, but water just seems a privatisation too far.Black_Rook said:
Because there are better things to do with the money. Either (a) spend it on something more worthwhile, or (b) don't borrow it in the first place.surbiton said:
Tell me why is it a sound investment for the private sector to borrow and buy a monopoly utility and not for the government ?Black_Rook said:
Possibly fair - but still doesn't follow that any benefit would be gained from the (very considerable) costs of buying the network back again, either.JosiasJessop said:Can someone tell me what the point of water privatisation is? You have an industry where the supply infrastructure (both water and sewage) cannot be easily replicated to the consumer, the source supply is fairly fixed (aquifers, reservoirs etc), and the room for innovation is very low.
In contrast, telecoms privatisation has been a boon. For one thing, it has allowed massive amount of innovation even though, for fixed lines at least, the infrastructure remains with one company. I just can't say the same for water.
Can someone tell me what's been gained by the consumer (both residential and business) from water privatisation? Is the service 'better' now than it was in (say) the 1980s?
You can make a case for rail re-nationalisation. I don't agree with it for reasons I shan't bore on about right now, but you can make a case for it. But why water? Who, apart from the Far Left, is asking for water supply to be re-nationalised? What is so wrong with the current arrangements that the best solution to them would be re-nationalisation? And how many voters actually care - let alone want to see billions in public money spent on such a thing?
That doesn't mean it's automatically sensible to reverse it.0 -
By being the devo max party, and doing their own Unionist thing.kle4 said:
They agreed with the Tories on the Independence issue - how were they to get around that?surbiton said:
How many did Labour get in 1983 in England ? Corbyn did not lose Scotland. Actually, that was lost by standing next to the Tories.Black_Rook said:
Indeed. Given that the SNP is likely to hold the bulk of its seats, that would imply a Tory majority of around 90.kle4 said:
I'm not surprised - 200 would still be bad, but psycologically it feels more defendable, and of course it would mean a big but not mahoosive Tory majority.Black_Rook said:
Funny you should mention 200 seats...kle4 said:It could stave of a challenge - if the vote share is high enough, it is possible it will be enough in enough key places to ensure losses are not too bad, say to around 200 total seats. If that happens, it is bad, but Corbyn really could say he has been hamstrung by MPs who wouldn't back him, and they would be too afraid to challenge him given he did far better than they said he would.
http//twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/864566148490252290
200 seats is the lowest value - for psychological reasons, as you identify - that I think McCluskey could've got away with. If he wanted to be reasonably sure of setting the bar low enough to guarantee success then he could've picked 150, but then he would've looked totally cuckoo rather than, merely, faintly ridiculous.
And we should also remember that 200 seats would still be Labour's worst result since the Thirties.
Not rocket science.0 -
No result would be bad enough. Indeed, if the battering was sufficiently terrible then it would probably work to their advantage - both through encouraging the remaining moderates to give up in despair, and by making it more likely that the Corbynites could make the 15% threshold to nominate an ideologically acceptable successor when Jeremy decides he's ready to call it a day.peter_from_putney said:At what level of seat wins would Corbyn and his chums realise that their game was up and simply give up the good fight ...... would that be the case were they to win say fewer than 150 seats .....130 seats ...... 120 seats ...... just how low would Labour have to fall to force the marxists out?
The Far Left, and especially its fan club amongst the party membership, isn't really that arsed about power. They'd be quite content with a Parliamentary rump of 50 or so, with clusters of secure seats in the inner cities, which would provide the basis for a permanent protest group. It would certainly give them a permanent platform the likes of which they could never have dreamt of as a neglected fringe of a large, grown-up party.
Because, remember, if the Far Left ever actually got into power they'd no longer be able to wave their placards and stick it to the man - they would be the man themselves. And they would struggle, and fail, to square their own ideological purity and sense of self-righteousness with the inevitable compromises that real power would force upon them.0 -
They should have realised the consequence of standing with the Tories. The beneficiaries were the SNP and the Tories.kle4 said:
They agreed with the Tories on the Independence issue - how were they to get around that?surbiton said:
How many did Labour get in 1983 in England ? Corbyn did not lose Scotland. Actually, that was lost by standing next to the Tories.Black_Rook said:
Indeed. Given that the SNP is likely to hold the bulk of its seats, that would imply a Tory majority of around 90.kle4 said:
I'm not surprised - 200 would still be bad, but psycologically it feels more defendable, and of course it would mean a big but not mahoosive Tory majority.Black_Rook said:
Funny you should mention 200 seats...kle4 said:It could stave of a challenge - if the vote share is high enough, it is possible it will be enough in enough key places to ensure losses are not too bad, say to around 200 total seats. If that happens, it is bad, but Corbyn really could say he has been hamstrung by MPs who wouldn't back him, and they would be too afraid to challenge him given he did far better than they said he would.
http//twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/864566148490252290
200 seats is the lowest value - for psychological reasons, as you identify - that I think McCluskey could've got away with. If he wanted to be reasonably sure of setting the bar low enough to guarantee success then he could've picked 150, but then he would've looked totally cuckoo rather than, merely, faintly ridiculous.
And we should also remember that 200 seats would still be Labour's worst result since the Thirties.0 -
Do you believe that would have sufficiently prevented or mitigated against the SNP surge?Theuniondivvie said:
By being the devo max party, and doing their own Unionist thing.kle4 said:
They agreed with the Tories on the Independence issue - how were they to get around that?surbiton said:
How many did Labour get in 1983 in England ? Corbyn did not lose Scotland. Actually, that was lost by standing next to the Tories.Black_Rook said:
Indeed. Given that the SNP is likely to hold the bulk of its seats, that would imply a Tory majority of around 90.kle4 said:
I'm not surprised - 200 would still be bad, but psycologically it feels more defendable, and of course it would mean a big but not mahoosive Tory majority.Black_Rook said:
Funny you should mention 200 seats...kle4 said:It could stave of a challenge - if the vote share is high enough, it is possible it will be enough in enough key places to ensure losses are not too bad, say to around 200 total seats. If that happens, it is bad, but Corbyn really could say he has been hamstrung by MPs who wouldn't back him, and they would be too afraid to challenge him given he did far better than they said he would.
http//twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/864566148490252290
200 seats is the lowest value - for psychological reasons, as you identify - that I think McCluskey could've got away with. If he wanted to be reasonably sure of setting the bar low enough to guarantee success then he could've picked 150, but then he would've looked totally cuckoo rather than, merely, faintly ridiculous.
And we should also remember that 200 seats would still be Labour's worst result since the Thirties.
Not rocket science.0 -
Corbyn is screwed, I think and hope. Remain Labour supporters in safe seats with Remain MPs will vote Labour. He's okay down here. In semi-marginal 'faith, flag and family' Labour seats in provincial seats in the likes of the West Midlands he's going to get fucked. On balance, I think the far-left gets pushed out after June 8. If not, the party splits. En Marche!0
-
chestnut said:
Yes. I can't recall the last time we had a hosepipe ban.JosiasJessop said:Can someone tell me what's been gained by the consumer (both residential and business) from water privatisation? Is the service 'better' now than it was in (say) the 1980s?
Possibly because very few people wash their cars any more, preferring instead to let those nice immigrant workers in the supermarket car parks do it for them whilst they search the shelves instore for baked beans.
Btw whatever happened to those awful rotating plastic brush machines, which scratched your car unmercifully, whilst leaving most of the dirt in place? They appear to have all but disappeared over the past few years.
0 -
Because the government should be looking to make a financial return.surbiton said:
Tell me why is it a sound investment for the private sector to borrow and buy a monopoly utility and not for the government ?Black_Rook said:
Possibly fair - but still doesn't follow that any benefit would be gained from the (very considerable) costs of buying the network back again, either.JosiasJessop said:Can someone tell me what the point of water privatisation is? You have an industry where the supply infrastructure (both water and sewage) cannot be easily replicated to the consumer, the source supply is fairly fixed (aquifers, reservoirs etc), and the room for innovation is very low.
In contrast, telecoms privatisation has been a boon. For one thing, it has allowed massive amount of innovation even though, for fixed lines at least, the infrastructure remains with one company. I just can't say the same for water.
Can someone tell me what's been gained by the consumer (both residential and business) from water privatisation? Is the service 'better' now than it was in (say) the 1980s?
Better to borrow and spend the money on new infrastructure0 -
What alternative was there? Saying nothing would've had the same effect.surbiton said:
They should have realised the consequence of standing with the Tories. The beneficiaries were the SNP and the Tories.kle4 said:
They agreed with the Tories on the Independence issue - how were they to get around that?surbiton said:
How many did Labour get in 1983 in England ? Corbyn did not lose Scotland. Actually, that was lost by standing next to the Tories.Black_Rook said:
Indeed. Given that the SNP is likely to hold the bulk of its seats, that would imply a Tory majority of around 90.kle4 said:
I'm not surprised - 200 would still be bad, but psycologically it feels more defendable, and of course it would mean a big but not mahoosive Tory majority.Black_Rook said:
Funny you should mention 200 seats...kle4 said:It could stave of a challenge - if the vote share is high enough, it is possible it will be enough in enough key places to ensure losses are not too bad, say to around 200 total seats. If that happens, it is bad, but Corbyn really could say he has been hamstrung by MPs who wouldn't back him, and they would be too afraid to challenge him given he did far better than they said he would.
http//twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/864566148490252290
200 seats is the lowest value - for psychological reasons, as you identify - that I think McCluskey could've got away with. If he wanted to be reasonably sure of setting the bar low enough to guarantee success then he could've picked 150, but then he would've looked totally cuckoo rather than, merely, faintly ridiculous.
And we should also remember that 200 seats would still be Labour's worst result since the Thirties.0 -
Whitehouse in lockdown, someone tried to scale the fence.
I think they managed to get him back in.0 -
True, and even more so outside France.SeanT said:Michelin ratings in France are bollocks.
In France, you need to use Gault-Millau, even if it's not as good as it used to be.
In the UK, the Good Food Guide seems to have gone pretty bonkers. You're better off consulting, well, me.0 -
I'm pretty sure mitigated at least.kle4 said:
Do you believe that would have sufficiently prevented or mitigated against the SNP surge?Theuniondivvie said:
By being the devo max party, and doing their own Unionist thing.kle4 said:
They agreed with the Tories on the Independence issue - how were they to get around that?surbiton said:
How many did Labour get in 1983 in England ? Corbyn did not lose Scotland. Actually, that was lost by standing next to the Tories.Black_Rook said:
Indeed. Given that the SNP is likely to hold the bulk of its seats, that would imply a Tory majority of around 90.kle4 said:
I'm not surprised - 200 would still be bad, but psycologically it feels more defendable, and of course it would mean a big but not mahoosive Tory majority.Black_Rook said:
Funny you should mention 200 seats...kle4 said:It could stave of a challenge - if the vote share is high enough, it is possible it will be enough in enough key places to ensure losses are not too bad, say to around 200 total seats. If that happens, it is bad, but Corbyn really could say he has been hamstrung by MPs who wouldn't back him, and they would be too afraid to challenge him given he did far better than they said he would.
http//twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/864566148490252290
200 seats is the lowest value - for psychological reasons, as you identify - that I think McCluskey could've got away with. If he wanted to be reasonably sure of setting the bar low enough to guarantee success then he could've picked 150, but then he would've looked totally cuckoo rather than, merely, faintly ridiculous.
And we should also remember that 200 seats would still be Labour's worst result since the Thirties.
Not rocket science.
The trouble was that they lost their nerve over their own creation, devolution, even before the SNP came to government. When it became evident that devolution hadn't killed the Nats stone dead, SLab ended up starting at shadows, fearful that any increase in devo would strengthen the SNP.
It should always be remembered that in the indy ref/vow aftermath, SLab's version of further devolution was the most pathetically constipated of those offered by the four parties involved.0 -
And to think that the Labour leadership only created the Scottish Parliament in the first place because it thought it was building itself a permanent power base, full of nice little sinecure posts for clapped-out old Glaswegian councillors.surbiton said:
They should have realised the consequence of standing with the Tories. The beneficiaries were the SNP and the Tories.kle4 said:
They agreed with the Tories on the Independence issue - how were they to get around that?surbiton said:
How many did Labour get in 1983 in England ? Corbyn did not lose Scotland. Actually, that was lost by standing next to the Tories.Black_Rook said:
Indeed. Given that the SNP is likely to hold the bulk of its seats, that would imply a Tory majority of around 90.kle4 said:
I'm not surprised - 200 would still be bad, but psycologically it feels more defendable, and of course it would mean a big but not mahoosive Tory majority.Black_Rook said:
Funny you should mention 200 seats...kle4 said:It could stave of a challenge - if the vote share is high enough, it is possible it will be enough in enough key places to ensure losses are not too bad, say to around 200 total seats. If that happens, it is bad, but Corbyn really could say he has been hamstrung by MPs who wouldn't back him, and they would be too afraid to challenge him given he did far better than they said he would.
http//twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/864566148490252290
200 seats is the lowest value - for psychological reasons, as you identify - that I think McCluskey could've got away with. If he wanted to be reasonably sure of setting the bar low enough to guarantee success then he could've picked 150, but then he would've looked totally cuckoo rather than, merely, faintly ridiculous.
And we should also remember that 200 seats would still be Labour's worst result since the Thirties.
It would take a heart of stone not to laugh.0 -
Maybe we ought to have a regular PB foodie slot.Richard_Nabavi said:
True, and even more so outside France.SeanT said:Michelin ratings in France are bollocks.
In France, you need to use Gault-Millau, even if it's not as good as it used to be.
In the UK, the Good Food Guide seems to have gone pretty bonkers. You're better off consulting, well, me.0 -
I bloody hope so. Team twat and his maomentumers need to be removed one way or another from the sensible centre left.bobajobPB said:Corbyn is screwed, I think and hope. Remain Labour supporters in safe seats with Remain MPs will vote Labour. He's okay down here. In semi-marginal 'faith, flag and family' Labour seats in provincial seats in the likes of the West Midlands he's going to get fucked. On balance, I think the far-left gets pushed out after June 8. If not, the party splits. En Marche!
I mean we have a f##king communist leading the GE campaign and a potential marxist chancellor!0 -
The problem is that privatisation has become part of right-wing ideology in the same way that nationalisation is part of the left's. There is very little debate about what's best in delivering the right outcome: getting management to act in the best interest of the end users and offer best value.JosiasJessop said:
And yet there was massive investment when water was nationalised. Kielder, Rutland, The Thames Water Ring Main (a brilliant and little known feat), although the latter started when nationalised, and was completed under privatisation. And they're just some off the top of my head.Malmesbury said:
It goes back to the basic problem of nationalised industries - investment becomes a negative. Spend money on reducing the workforce (usually), or bung a subsidy at them until the next election? improve environmental standards (expensive), or write a waiver for government owned entities?JosiasJessop said:Can someone tell me what the point of water privatisation is? You have an industry where the supply infrastructure (both water and sewage) cannot be easily replicated to the consumer, the source supply is fairly fixed (aquifers, reservoirs etc), and the room for innovation is very low.
In contrast, telecoms privatisation has been a boon. For one thing, it has allowed massive amount of innovation even though, for fixed lines at least, the infrastructure remains with one company. I just can't say the same for water.
Can someone tell me what's been gained by the consumer (both residential and business) from water privatisation? Is the service 'better' now than it was in (say) the 1980s?
Where there is competition (telecomms, relatively) then competition acts to keep companies striving to offer best value. With water, electricity, rail there is no competition - you can try and simulate / fake it either by offering customers the illusion that they can switch, but only one train can run on one track, or one pipe arrive at your house.
In this instance, nationalisation makes more sense, but you enforce best value through political means, and taking global factors into consideration (environment, fuel-poverty, sustainable transport policy, air quality). Private companies running these outfits with government regulators ends up as a recipe for cronyism and kleptocracy, a revolving door between the companies and the civil servants.
Organisations like The Taxpayers Alliance bang on about privatisation being superior to nationalisation as a *point of principle*. They might have had a point 30 years ago, but, ideologically speaking, it's now out of control...0 -
Surbiton
Indeed I dare say that only the communist wing of Momentum are calling for the renationalisation of BA, which is clearly bonkers given it operates well in a competitive free market. Privatised rail, meanwhile, is a fucking joke. If Corbyn had any sense (which he does not) he would have focused on that.0 -
Do you charge and if so do PBers get special rates? Are you like Giles Coren and very seldom move out of the Capital?Richard_Nabavi said:
True, and even more so outside France.SeanT said:Michelin ratings in France are bollocks.
In France, you need to use Gault-Millau, even if it's not as good as it used to be.
In the UK, the Good Food Guide seems to have gone pretty bonkers. You're better off consulting, well, me.
0 -
No self interest there then.SeanT said:
Good luck. You decent lefties need to summon the courage and split from the Corbyn-parasitised Labour party, after June 8, if he tries to cling on, or the Marxists attempt to engineer a second and terminal takeover.bobajobPB said:Corbyn is screwed, I think and hope. Remain Labour supporters in safe seats with Remain MPs will vote Labour. He's okay down here. In semi-marginal 'faith, flag and family' Labour seats in provincial seats in the likes of the West Midlands he's going to get fucked. On balance, I think the far-left gets pushed out after June 8. If not, the party splits. En Marche!
The risk to the country is too serious for you to do anything else. Because there is a chance the pendulum could swing and Corbyn's Labour could somehow win. And then Corbyn and Co really would try and impose a Chavez style economic policy on the UK. It is unthinkably horrific. It would make the travails of Brexit look like a passing sniffle. This would be the plague. A nation committing suicide.
Finish off these Far Left fuckers. Deal with the revolting rats in your basement. They threaten to spread to the entire street.0 -
Jon Ashworth is about the only frontbencher having a good campaign.peter_from_putney said:OGH continues to be Yvette Cooper's Cheerleader in Chief I see. Frankly she wouldn't be in my top 10 as I find her lacking in that essential skill of anyone aspiring to the top job in British politics, being able to think on one's feet. For all his faults, Dave had this ability in spades (I suppose that's what an Eton education does for you), whereas Theresa May struggles but just about gets by. Yvette Cooper simply hasn't got it at all in my experience. Doubtless there will be other contenders anyway.
Still 80/1 on BFX.0 -
Good idea. You could take a leaf out of the FT book: 'How to spend your Macron winnings'.MikeSmithson said:
Maybe we ought to have a regular PB foodie slot.Richard_Nabavi said:
True, and even more so outside France.SeanT said:Michelin ratings in France are bollocks.
In France, you need to use Gault-Millau, even if it's not as good as it used to be.
In the UK, the Good Food Guide seems to have gone pretty bonkers. You're better off consulting, well, me.0 -
Interesting theory but I think the rather more mundane truth is that we've had plenty of rain over the past two decades until the last 12 months which have been very drypeter_from_putney said:chestnut said:
Yes. I can't recall the last time we had a hosepipe ban.JosiasJessop said:Can someone tell me what's been gained by the consumer (both residential and business) from water privatisation? Is the service 'better' now than it was in (say) the 1980s?
Possibly because very few people wash their cars any more, preferring instead to let those nice immigrant workers in the supermarket car parks do it for them whilst they search the shelves instore for baked beans.
Btw whatever happened to those awful rotating plastic brush machines, which scratched your car unmercifully, whilst leaving most of the dirt in place? They appear to have all but disappeared over the past few years.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/384097/UK_Rainfall_Outflow_2014.csv/preview0 -
No vacancyfoxinsoxuk said:
Jon Ashworth is about the only frontbencher having a good campaign.peter_from_putney said:OGH continues to be Yvette Cooper's Cheerleader in Chief I see. Frankly she wouldn't be in my top 10 as I find her lacking in that essential skill of anyone aspiring to the top job in British politics, being able to think on one's feet. For all his faults, Dave had this ability in spades (I suppose that's what an Eton education does for you), whereas Theresa May struggles but just about gets by. Yvette Cooper simply hasn't got it at all in my experience. Doubtless there will be other contenders anyway.
Still 80/1 on BFX.0 -
No, it was lost by energetically and repeatedly calling Indy supporters Nazis. Standing next to the Tories was incidental.surbiton said:
How many did Labour get in 1983 in England ? Corbyn did not lose Scotland. Actually, that was lost by standing next to the Tories.Black_Rook said:
Indeed. Given that the SNP is likely to hold the bulk of its seats, that would imply a Tory majority of around 90.kle4 said:
I'm not surprised - 200 would still be bad, but psycologically it feels more defendable, and of course it would mean a big but not mahoosive Tory majority.Black_Rook said:
Funny you should mention 200 seats...kle4 said:It could stave of a challenge - if the vote share is high enough, it is possible it will be enough in enough key places to ensure losses are not too bad, say to around 200 total seats. If that happens, it is bad, but Corbyn really could say he has been hamstrung by MPs who wouldn't back him, and they would be too afraid to challenge him given he did far better than they said he would.
http//twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/864566148490252290
200 seats is the lowest value - for psychological reasons, as you identify - that I think McCluskey could've got away with. If he wanted to be reasonably sure of setting the bar low enough to guarantee success then he could've picked 150, but then he would've looked totally cuckoo rather than, merely, faintly ridiculous.
And we should also remember that 200 seats would still be Labour's worst result since the Thirties.0 -
The taps were really turned on (pun intended) after privatisation. I knew a chap who supplied bits to the water industry. Slow, steady stuff. Within months of privatisation, he was being asked to bid on the basis of all-he-could-deliver.... ended up working 3 shifts at his factory etc..JosiasJessop said:
And yet there was massive investment when water was nationalised. Kielder, Rutland, The Thames Water Ring Main (a brilliant and little known feat), although the latter started when nationalised, and was completed under privatisation. And they're just some off the top of my head.Malmesbury said:
It goes back to the basic problem of nationalised industries - investment becomes a negative. Spend money on reducing the workforce (usually), or bung a subsidy at them until the next election? improve environmental standards (expensive), or write a waiver for government owned entities?JosiasJessop said:Can someone tell me what the point of water privatisation is? You have an industry where the supply infrastructure (both water and sewage) cannot be easily replicated to the consumer, the source supply is fairly fixed (aquifers, reservoirs etc), and the room for innovation is very low.
In contrast, telecoms privatisation has been a boon. For one thing, it has allowed massive amount of innovation even though, for fixed lines at least, the infrastructure remains with one company. I just can't say the same for water.
Can someone tell me what's been gained by the consumer (both residential and business) from water privatisation? Is the service 'better' now than it was in (say) the 1980s?
It comes down to incentives - if the government invests in the water industry, then that is money that could be better spent on buying votes, elsewhere. If the government tells the water industry to raise standards to X, then that is good politics....0 -
Labour made a total pigs' ear of devolution right from the outset. Governmental power should've been transferred in lockstep with the responsibility for raising revenues: funding virtually everything by bloc grant proved to be a catastrophic blunder. Filling their benches at Holyrood with mostly second-rate politicians, who got worn down and then blown away by the SNP's best troops, was another.Theuniondivvie said:I'm pretty sure mitigated at least.
The trouble was that they lost their nerve over their own creation, devolution, even before the SNP came to government. When it became evident that devolution hadn't killed the Nats stone dead, SLab ended up starting at shadows, fearful that any increase in devo would strengthen the SNP.
It should always be remembered that in the indy ref/vow aftermath, SLab's version of further devolution was the most pathetically constipated of those offered by the four parties involved.
Altogether the best thing about watching the SNP run riot these past few years has been the total humiliation and ruin of Scottish Labour - a fate thoroughly well-deserved.0 -
Absolutely PBers get a special rate. In fact, I don't charge at all, but obviously I wouldn't expect to have to pay my own bill as I explain quite why the Meo-Camuzet Bourgogne Hautes-Cotes-de-Nuits Blanc Clos Saint-Philibert Monopole 2014 goes so fantastically well with the bream.peter_from_putney said:
Do you charge and if so do PBers get special rates? Are you like Giles Coren and very seldom move out of the Capital?Richard_Nabavi said:
True, and even more so outside France.SeanT said:Michelin ratings in France are bollocks.
In France, you need to use Gault-Millau, even if it's not as good as it used to be.
In the UK, the Good Food Guide seems to have gone pretty bonkers. You're better off consulting, well, me.0 -
hmmm like how they called Brexiteers all racist. Interesting.Alistair said:
No, it was lost by energetically and repeatedly calling Indy supporters Nazis. Standing next to the Tories was incidental.surbiton said:
How many did Labour get in 1983 in England ? Corbyn did not lose Scotland. Actually, that was lost by standing next to the Tories.Black_Rook said:
Indeed. Given that the SNP is likely to hold the bulk of its seats, that would imply a Tory majority of around 90.kle4 said:
I'm not surprised - 200 would still be bad, but psycologically it feels more defendable, and of course it would mean a big but not mahoosive Tory majority.Black_Rook said:
Funny you should mention 200 seats...kle4 said:It could stave of a challenge - if the vote share is high enough, it is possible it will be enough in enough key places to ensure losses are not too bad, say to around 200 total seats. If that happens, it is bad, but Corbyn really could say he has been hamstrung by MPs who wouldn't back him, and they would be too afraid to challenge him given he did far better than they said he would.
http//twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/864566148490252290
200 seats is the lowest value - for psychological reasons, as you identify - that I think McCluskey could've got away with. If he wanted to be reasonably sure of setting the bar low enough to guarantee success then he could've picked 150, but then he would've looked totally cuckoo rather than, merely, faintly ridiculous.
And we should also remember that 200 seats would still be Labour's worst result since the Thirties.0 -
And people wonder why the Labour Party is floundering....SandyRentool said:The list of proposed renationalisation in the manifesto is actually rather tame.
In Leeds Central CLP we passed a policy motion that called for the renationalisation of British Airways not so long ago...
(I voted against, btw)
Incidentally, flew BA to Malaga on Friday. What a joke of a customer experience. Their only USP was free drinks and easy service. Taking that away, with staff not used to selling things, is going to really hurt their sales....0 -
Corbyn will survive. Labour voters will be as indecisive as the Labour PLP.bobajobPB said:Corbyn is screwed, I think and hope. Remain Labour supporters in safe seats with Remain MPs will vote Labour. He's okay down here. In semi-marginal 'faith, flag and family' Labour seats in provincial seats in the likes of the West Midlands he's going to get fucked. On balance, I think the far-left gets pushed out after June 8. If not, the party splits. En Marche!
0 -
Ashworth is a loyalist not a rebel, and would not stand against a leader who wanted to continue. This is a trait valued in Labour, such as our own Nick P XMP.bigjohnowls said:
No vacancyfoxinsoxuk said:
Jon Ashworth is about the only frontbencher having a good campaign.peter_from_putney said:OGH continues to be Yvette Cooper's Cheerleader in Chief I see. Frankly she wouldn't be in my top 10 as I find her lacking in that essential skill of anyone aspiring to the top job in British politics, being able to think on one's feet. For all his faults, Dave had this ability in spades (I suppose that's what an Eton education does for you), whereas Theresa May struggles but just about gets by. Yvette Cooper simply hasn't got it at all in my experience. Doubtless there will be other contenders anyway.
Still 80/1 on BFX.
He may well emerge as a John Major like compromise unity candidate.
As a Doctor, I would not recommend starting the post mortem until the patient stops breathing...0 -
-
But those liabilities will be fixed.Scott_P said:0 -
Rapper JME who endorsed Jeremy Corbyn tweeted about Jews 'sweating' at cash machines and branded rape 'surprise sex
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4511596/JME-endorsed-Corbyn-tweeted-Jews-sweating.html
He will probably be doing the next PPB...0 -
To be frank Sean...you are slightly less nauseous discussing food, than your sickening boastful posts about having sex with girls old enough to be somewhere between your daughter and grand daughter....only just mind.....SeanT said:
I've eaten in some Michelin starred restaurants in France, recently, where the food was just laughably mediocre and very badly executed, stuff which wouldn't make for a decent gastropub meal in the UK, let alone a star. Grand Parisian brasseries are not what they were, either (it was interesting that the one in much less touristy Nantes really nailed it)MaxPB said:
Fair enough, agreed on the Michelin stars for French chefs, definitely a case of grade inflation or at least the propping up of the French restaurant industry vs the rest of Europe (the UK included).SeanT said:
It's been my opinion that food is significantly better in Italy and Spain, compared to France, for quite a while (as I have said on here for a couple of years). Some on here have disputed this.MaxPB said:
Italy has been beating France for cuisine for a while now. Surprised it has taken you this long to realise, Sean. Michelin stars are not, IMO, the same mark of quality they used to be, especially in France.SeanT said:Global Gastronomy Latest
I know PB-ers love and cherish my views on matters culinary and oenophile, so I have an update.
I'v
Italy won.
So I approached this as an honest and interesting experiment, and with an open mind, but my convictions were reinforced. France is no longer supreme.
In particular, Michelin starred restaurants are too often disappointing in France. I can't help but think the French Michelin reviewers are more generous to their native cuisine.
I would personally rate Italian food at the top of the tree, I'm not overly enamoured by Scandinavian cuisine, even though it seems to be all the rage right now. Next time you're in London go to Elizabeth Haigh/Allen's pop up or wait for her next project to get up and running. Pidgin was definitely a highlight of the London dining scene when she was there.
Here's a precise comparison. I have recently eaten in the Ledbury, London, and Mere Brazier, Lyon. Both are famous, for different reasons.
http://lamerebrazier.com/
http://www.theledbury.com/
The Ledbury, without being a meal-to-remember for all my life, was better than Mere Brazier by an order of magnitude. Yet both have the same two Michelin stars?
Michelin ratings in France are bollocks.
-1 -
Untrue - Corbyn's had a decent start!foxinsoxuk said:
Jon Ashworth is about the only frontbencher having a good campaign.peter_from_putney said:OGH continues to be Yvette Cooper's Cheerleader in Chief I see. Frankly she wouldn't be in my top 10 as I find her lacking in that essential skill of anyone aspiring to the top job in British politics, being able to think on one's feet. For all his faults, Dave had this ability in spades (I suppose that's what an Eton education does for you), whereas Theresa May struggles but just about gets by. Yvette Cooper simply hasn't got it at all in my experience. Doubtless there will be other contenders anyway.
0 -
Anyone might think it was written by someone who knows, better than almost anyone else, what he is talking about (about the economy, not dodgy strip bars, natch!)Scott_P said:twitter.com/stefanstern/status/864585818899447808
0 -
Returning to my theory about the Car Washing Mafia teams in supermarket car parks, who can sometimes be *cough* overly enthusiastic in their procurement of custom to such an extent that I'm surprised the supermarket companies allow them to continue. I sometimes wonder whether they operate on the basis of their rent being a nice cash earner for the store's local management.TheKingofLangley said:
Interesting theory but I think the rather more mundane truth is that we've had plenty of rain over the past two decades until the last 12 months which have been very drypeter_from_putney said:chestnut said:
Yes. I can't recall the last time we had a hosepipe ban.JosiasJessop said:Can someone tell me what's been gained by the consumer (both residential and business) from water privatisation? Is the service 'better' now than it was in (say) the 1980s?
Possibly because very few people wash their cars any more, preferring instead to let those nice immigrant workers in the supermarket car parks do it for them whilst they search the shelves instore for baked beans.
Btw whatever happened to those awful rotating plastic brush machines, which scratched your car unmercifully, whilst leaving most of the dirt in place? They appear to have all but disappeared over the past few years.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/384097/UK_Rainfall_Outflow_2014.csv/preview0 -
A general question re: rail re-nationalisation, not aimed as a dig at anyone in particular: think very carefully about whom (apart from the RMT and ASLEF) British Rail Mk.2 would benefit the most, and where those persons are largely concentrated. And then explain why it is a good idea for the general taxpayer, everywhere in the country, to cap fares for that cohort of people. Which is effectively what re-nationalisation would end up being all about, because most of the voters who want trains back in public ownership primarily want Government-subsidised tickets.bobajobPB said:Surbiton
Indeed I dare say that only the communist wing of Momentum are calling for the renationalisation of BA, which is clearly bonkers given it operates well in a competitive free market. Privatised rail, meanwhile, is a fucking joke. If Corbyn had any sense (which he does not) he would have focused on that.0 -
As said, pompous prig of the year (infact the century or universe) goes your way..jesus mate, how do you manage to get be so pompous...a feat of terrifying skill....Richard_Nabavi said:
Anyone might think it was written by someone who knows, better than almost anyone else, what he is talking about.Scott_P said:twitter.com/stefanstern/status/864585818899447808
0 -
No, I don't. That one is absolutely stunning. It's not even a named village wine, yet I think it's the finest white burgundy, outside the top appellations which cost an arm and a leg, that I've ever tasted. And I've tasted a lot.SeanT said:
Average user rating: 3 starsRichard_Nabavi said:
Absolutely PBers get a special rate. In fact, I don't charge at all, but obviously I wouldn't expect to have to pay my own bill as I explain quite why the Meo-Camuzet Bourgogne Hautes-Cotes-de-Nuits Blanc Clos Saint-Philibert Monopole 2014 goes so fantastically well with the bream.peter_from_putney said:
Do you charge and if so do PBers get special rates? Are you like Giles Coren and very seldom move out of the Capital?Richard_Nabavi said:
True, and even more so outside France.SeanT said:Michelin ratings in France are bollocks.
In France, you need to use Gault-Millau, even if it's not as good as it used to be.
In the UK, the Good Food Guide seems to have gone pretty bonkers. You're better off consulting, well, me.
http://www.wine-searcher.com/wine-35797-0001-meo-camuzet-bourgogne-hautes-cotes-de-nuits-blanc-clos-saint-philibert-monopole-burgundy-france
You overrate French wine, badly.0 -
None of those round here !peter_from_putney said:
Returning to my theory about the Car Washing Mafia teams in supermarket car parks, who can sometimes be *cough* overly enthusiastic in their procurement of custom to such an extent that I'm surprised the supermarket companies allow them to continue. I sometimes wonder whether they operate on the basis of their rent being a nice cash earner for the store's local management.TheKingofLangley said:
Interesting theory but I think the rather more mundane truth is that we've had plenty of rain over the past two decades until the last 12 months which have been very drypeter_from_putney said:chestnut said:
Yes. I can't recall the last time we had a hosepipe ban.JosiasJessop said:Can someone tell me what's been gained by the consumer (both residential and business) from water privatisation? Is the service 'better' now than it was in (say) the 1980s?
Possibly because very few people wash their cars any more, preferring instead to let those nice immigrant workers in the supermarket car parks do it for them whilst they search the shelves instore for baked beans.
Btw whatever happened to those awful rotating plastic brush machines, which scratched your car unmercifully, whilst leaving most of the dirt in place? They appear to have all but disappeared over the past few years.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/384097/UK_Rainfall_Outflow_2014.csv/preview0 -
Another perk of shopping in waitrose compared to tescos or Saintsbury's you don't get jumped on by a car wash chain gang.peter_from_putney said:
Returning to my theory about the Car Washing Mafia teams in supermarket car parks, who can sometimes be *cough* overly enthusiastic in their procurement of custom to such an extent that I'm surprised the supermarket companies allow them to continue. I sometimes wonder whether they operate on the basis of their rent being a nice cash earner for the store's local management.TheKingofLangley said:
Interesting theory but I think the rather more mundane truth is that we've had plenty of rain over the past two decades until the last 12 months which have been very drypeter_from_putney said:chestnut said:
Yes. I can't recall the last time we had a hosepipe ban.JosiasJessop said:Can someone tell me what's been gained by the consumer (both residential and business) from water privatisation? Is the service 'better' now than it was in (say) the 1980s?
Possibly because very few people wash their cars any more, preferring instead to let those nice immigrant workers in the supermarket car parks do it for them whilst they search the shelves instore for baked beans.
Btw whatever happened to those awful rotating plastic brush machines, which scratched your car unmercifully, whilst leaving most of the dirt in place? They appear to have all but disappeared over the past few years.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/384097/UK_Rainfall_Outflow_2014.csv/preview0 -
Well, for a start I abstain from making jokes about tortured children. It's not hard,tyson said:
As said, pompous prig of the year (infact the century or universe) goes your way..jesus mate, how do you manage to get be so pompous...a feat of terrifying skill....Richard_Nabavi said:
Anyone might think it was written by someone who knows, better than almost anyone else, what he is talking about.Scott_P said:twitter.com/stefanstern/status/864585818899447808
0 -
I think that's slightly unfair, Scottish Labour as was (Dewar, Cook, even Brown) genuinely believed in devo, Blair was mystified & bored by it and twats like Robertson thought it was a stroke of partisan strategic genius. Of course Dewar & Cook died early on and as you say the second & even third raters took over.Black_Rook said:
Labour made a total pigs' ear of devolution right from the outset. Governmental power should've been transferred in lockstep with the responsibility for raising revenues: funding virtually everything by bloc grant proved to be a catastrophic blunder. Filling their benches at Holyrood with mostly second-rate politicians, who got worn down and then blown away by the SNP's best troops, was another.Theuniondivvie said:I'm pretty sure mitigated at least.
The trouble was that they lost their nerve over their own creation, devolution, even before the SNP came to government. When it became evident that devolution hadn't killed the Nats stone dead, SLab ended up starting at shadows, fearful that any increase in devo would strengthen the SNP.
It should always be remembered that in the indy ref/vow aftermath, SLab's version of further devolution was the most pathetically constipated of those offered by the four parties involved.
Altogether the best thing about watching the SNP run riot these past few years has been the total humiliation and ruin of Scottish Labour - a fate thoroughly well-deserved.0 -
It don't think it is penetrating insight on my part to point out that Corbyn has lost the 2017 election. The key for Labour is what next. If they go down to 200 and they somehow and slightly miraculously find a Cameron in their midst who can win 100 seats for them they form the next government in 2022. There are some big ifs there but it is possible. If they go down to 150 then even a Cameron does not put them in government, even in coalition, since at 250 it is very likely that the Tories will still be 300 +.
The consequence for Labour is that those in their ranks with ambition to actually do things are pretty much guaranteed that they are going to spend another decade out of power making futile gestures and noises off. That may suit the Corbyns of this world just fine but those with aspirations to actually achieve anything are going to wonder if there are better things to do with their prime years and look elsewhere.
Labour have already been out of power 7 years. Add a decade and we are looking at pretty much a repeat of the entire Thatcher/Major government. Who knows what sort of a country they would be trying to govern at the end of that. The extent of the defeat matters. And its not looking good.0 -
Momentum have a rather skewed find my marginal map to help the credulous.
https://mynearestmarginal.com/
Not lifting a finger to help any of SW Labour MPs by the look of it. Re Unite has that legal challenge to McClusky gained traction or is the old fool going to be given a free pass to wreck Labour as well?0 -
There is no better return than a monopoly return.Charles said:
Because the government should be looking to make a financial return.surbiton said:
Tell me why is it a sound investment for the private sector to borrow and buy a monopoly utility and not for the government ?Black_Rook said:
Possibly fair - but still doesn't follow that any benefit would be gained from the (very considerable) costs of buying the network back again, either.JosiasJessop said:Can someone tell me what the point of water privatisation is? You have an industry where the supply infrastructure (both water and sewage) cannot be easily replicated to the consumer, the source supply is fairly fixed (aquifers, reservoirs etc), and the room for innovation is very low.
In contrast, telecoms privatisation has been a boon. For one thing, it has allowed massive amount of innovation even though, for fixed lines at least, the infrastructure remains with one company. I just can't say the same for water.
Can someone tell me what's been gained by the consumer (both residential and business) from water privatisation? Is the service 'better' now than it was in (say) the 1980s?
Better to borrow and spend the money on new infrastructure0 -
Labour manifesto would 'bankrupt Britain' with £250bn debt and biggest tax burden since 1950s
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/16/labour-manifesto-would-bankrupt-britain-250bn-debt-biggest-tax/0 -
a footnote reveals that one policy - an offshore company property levy - relies partly on calculations by the satirical magazine Private Eye.0
-
At what level of FUBAR would you consider it necessary for Corbyn to resign?bigjohnowls said:
No vacancyfoxinsoxuk said:
Jon Ashworth is about the only frontbencher having a good campaign.peter_from_putney said:OGH continues to be Yvette Cooper's Cheerleader in Chief I see. Frankly she wouldn't be in my top 10 as I find her lacking in that essential skill of anyone aspiring to the top job in British politics, being able to think on one's feet. For all his faults, Dave had this ability in spades (I suppose that's what an Eton education does for you), whereas Theresa May struggles but just about gets by. Yvette Cooper simply hasn't got it at all in my experience. Doubtless there will be other contenders anyway.
Still 80/1 on BFX.0 -
As the conversation seems to be a mix of Corby's policy's and food. I thought I would share this video from the good people as Reason Magazine, about the new The Venezuela Diet!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBf66wAMpVQ0 -
Many of those that would benefit might even be broadly described as "bankers".Black_Rook said:A general question re: rail re-nationalisation, not aimed as a dig at anyone in particular: think very carefully about whom (apart from the RMT and ASLEF) British Rail Mk.2 would benefit the most, and where those persons are largely concentrated. And then explain why it is a good idea for the general taxpayer, everywhere in the country, to cap fares for that cohort of people. Which is effectively what re-nationalisation would end up being all about, because most of the voters who want trains back in public ownership primarily want Government-subsidised tickets.
Besides that there must be a significant chance that railway nationalisation will look like one of the worst ever economic decisions if TaaS (Transportation as a Service) takes off say in the 2020s. If huge shared fleets of self-driving electric vehicles are cruising our roads we might find that the railways start to reverse recent expansion and go into a sharp decline, then the country would really be on the hook for a service that costs a lot to run for an ever smaller number of users.
0 -
Oi! What about my white Burgundy?Richard_Nabavi said:
No, I don't. That one is absolutely stunning. It's not even a named village wine, yet I think it's the finest white burgundy, outside the top appellations which cost an arm and a leg, that I've ever tasted. And I've tasted a lot.SeanT said:
Average user rating: 3 starsRichard_Nabavi said:
Absolutely PBers get a special rate. In fact, I don't charge at all, but obviously I wouldn't expect to have to pay my own bill as I explain quite why the Meo-Camuzet Bourgogne Hautes-Cotes-de-Nuits Blanc Clos Saint-Philibert Monopole 2014 goes so fantastically well with the bream.peter_from_putney said:
Do you charge and if so do PBers get special rates? Are you like Giles Coren and very seldom move out of the Capital?Richard_Nabavi said:
True, and even more so outside France.SeanT said:Michelin ratings in France are bollocks.
In France, you need to use Gault-Millau, even if it's not as good as it used to be.
In the UK, the Good Food Guide seems to have gone pretty bonkers. You're better off consulting, well, me.
http://www.wine-searcher.com/wine-35797-0001-meo-camuzet-bourgogne-hautes-cotes-de-nuits-blanc-clos-saint-philibert-monopole-burgundy-france
You overrate French wine, badly.
http://www.wine-searcher.com/regions-morey-saint-denis+monts+luisants0 -
-
Cutting! Pretty fun switch from academic type at the end.BigRich said:As the conversation seems to be a mix of Corby's policy's and food. I thought I would share this video from the good people as Reason Magazine, about the new The Venezuela Diet!
hts://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBf66wAMpVQ0 -
It is important to remind PBers that Sean T is a professional purveyor of fiction. So his accounts of fine wines, expensive meals and encounters with the opposite sex are pure fiction, dreamed up from his squalid bed-sit in Neasden, while he microwaves a ready meal from Asda that has been reduced in price because it is getting to its sell by date; on special occasions he goes to Subways with a discount voucher.
His opinions on most subjects are risible0 -
The IFS trying to critic labours plans must be like a university professor tasked with marking a 5 year olds homework.0
-
A social return is better.surbiton said:
There is no better return than a monopoly return.Charles said:
Because the government should be looking to make a financial return.surbiton said:
Tell me why is it a sound investment for the private sector to borrow and buy a monopoly utility and not for the government ?Black_Rook said:
Possibly fair - but still doesn't follow that any benefit would be gained from the (very considerable) costs of buying the network back again, either.JosiasJessop said:Can someone tell me what the point of water privatisation is? You have an industry where the supply infrastructure (both water and sewage) cannot be easily replicated to the consumer, the source supply is fairly fixed (aquifers, reservoirs etc), and the room for innovation is very low.
In contrast, telecoms privatisation has been a boon. For one thing, it has allowed massive amount of innovation even though, for fixed lines at least, the infrastructure remains with one company. I just can't say the same for water.
Can someone tell me what's been gained by the consumer (both residential and business) from water privatisation? Is the service 'better' now than it was in (say) the 1980s?
Better to borrow and spend the money on new infrastructure
Governments should not be taxing people to invest for financial returns.
They should tax people to pay for necessary services and investment0 -
He's conned a number of newspapers too then!franklyn said:It is important to remind PBers that Sean T is a professional purveyor of fiction. So his accounts of fine wines, expensive meals and encounters with the opposite sex are pure fiction, dreamed up from his squalid bed-sit in Neasden, while he microwaves a ready meal from Asda that has been reduced in price because it is getting to its sell by date; on special occasions he goes to Subways with a discount voucher.
His opinions on most subjects are risible0 -
Richard_Nabavi said:
No, I don't. That one is absolutely stunning. It's not even a named village wine, yet I think it's the finest white burgundy, outside the top appellations which cost an arm and a leg, that I've ever tasted. And I've tasted a lot.SeanT said:
Average user rating: 3 starsRichard_Nabavi said:
Absolutely PBers get a special rate. In fact, I don't charge at all, but obviously I wouldn't expect to have to pay my own bill as I explain quite why the Meo-Camuzet Bourgogne Hautes-Cotes-de-Nuits Blanc Clos Saint-Philibert Monopole 2014 goes so fantastically well with the bream.peter_from_putney said:
Do you charge and if so do PBers get special rates? Are you like Giles Coren and very seldom move out of the Capital?Richard_Nabavi said:
True, and even more so outside France.SeanT said:Michelin ratings in France are bollocks.
In France, you need to use Gault-Millau, even if it's not as good as it used to be.
In the UK, the Good Food Guide seems to have gone pretty bonkers. You're better off consulting, well, me.
http://www.wine-searcher.com/wine-35797-0001-meo-camuzet-bourgogne-hautes-cotes-de-nuits-blanc-clos-saint-philibert-monopole-burgundy-france
You overrate French wine, badly.
Can we please put this argument to bed once and for all. Unless you are going for the superstars and their prices, the best maker of white burgundy today is Jean-Marie Guffens-Heynen. That is not to say you won't find individual growers, for such is the nature of Burgundy, that won't amaze you.
On topic. I think that is a conspiracy theory too far. Jezza is giving the nation a chance to choose a properly left wing, redistributive government, and a normal one. If the voters reject it, I think he is clever enough to realise that pushing further left isn't the answer.0 -
Haven't tried that particular one, although I have tried other Dujac whites, and jolly good they were too. But they are a lot more expensive - 1er cru Morey St Denis is not going to be a bargain.Charles said:
Oi! What about my white Burgundy?
http://www.wine-searcher.com/regions-morey-saint-denis+monts+luisants
Mind you, I'm up for a comparative tasting!0 -
£32 a bottle? My champagne to celebrate the Tory victory on 8th June will cost less than that. You're losing touch with the real world Sean.SeanT said:
Hmm. OK. The reviews aren't great, but I will yield to your apparently superior knowledge on French whites. And I will give it a go.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, I don't. That one is absolutely stunning. It's not even a named village wine, yet I think it's the finest white burgundy, outside the top appellations which cost an arm and a leg, that I've ever tasted. And I've tasted a lot.SeanT said:
Average user rating: 3 starsRichard_Nabavi said:
Absolutely PBers get a special rate. In fact, I don't charge at all, but obviously I wouldn't expect to have to pay my own bill as I explain quite why the Meo-Camuzet Bourgogne Hautes-Cotes-de-Nuits Blanc Clos Saint-Philibert Monopole 2014 goes so fantastically well with the bream.peter_from_putney said:
Do you charge and if so do PBers get special rates? Are you like Giles Coren and very seldom move out of the Capital?Richard_Nabavi said:
True, and even more so outside France.SeanT said:Michelin ratings in France are bollocks.
In France, you need to use Gault-Millau, even if it's not as good as it used to be.
In the UK, the Good Food Guide seems to have gone pretty bonkers. You're better off consulting, well, me.
http://www.wine-searcher.com/wine-35797-0001-meo-camuzet-bourgogne-hautes-cotes-de-nuits-blanc-clos-saint-philibert-monopole-burgundy-france
You overrate French wine, badly.
Incidentally, I've just spent two weeks of the last four discussing and tasting wine with wine makers in the Loire, Sicily and Pantelleria. The last-named is one of a handful of UNESCO listed wine making regions in the world,
http://www.decanter.com/wine-news/vine-growing-on-remote-italian-island-gets-unesco-heritage-status-4275/
The Pantellerian sweet wine, Passito, is just fucking mindblowing when it comes from Donnafugata. And I get given a lot of free wine. This is wow. Try.
https://www.vivino.com/wineries/donnafugata/wines/sicilia-ben-rye-passito-di-pantelleria-99990 -
Unfortunately his sleazy tales and love of a freebie are substantially true, just look at his twitter.franklyn said:It is important to remind PBers that Sean T is a professional purveyor of fiction. So his accounts of fine wines, expensive meals and encounters with the opposite sex are pure fiction, dreamed up from his squalid bed-sit in Neasden, while he microwaves a ready meal from Asda that has been reduced in price because it is getting to its sell by date; on special occasions he goes to Subways with a discount voucher.
His opinions on most subjects are risible
His "girlfriends" seem to move on quickly, so one wonders who is using whom. The relationships seem both transient and transactional.0 -
Life's way too short to waste time on drinks involving more than six syllables.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, I don't. That one is absolutely stunning. It's not even a named village wine, yet I think it's the finest white burgundy, outside the top appellations which cost an arm and a leg, that I've ever tasted. And I've tasted a lot.SeanT said:
Average user rating: 3 starsRichard_Nabavi said:
Absolutely PBers get a special rate. In fact, I don't charge at all, but obviously I wouldn't expect to have to pay my own bill as I explain quite why the Meo-Camuzet Bourgogne Hautes-Cotes-de-Nuits Blanc Clos Saint-Philibert Monopole 2014 goes so fantastically well with the bream.peter_from_putney said:
Do you charge and if so do PBers get special rates? Are you like Giles Coren and very seldom move out of the Capital?Richard_Nabavi said:
True, and even more so outside France.SeanT said:Michelin ratings in France are bollocks.
In France, you need to use Gault-Millau, even if it's not as good as it used to be.
In the UK, the Good Food Guide seems to have gone pretty bonkers. You're better off consulting, well, me.
http://www.wine-searcher.com/wine-35797-0001-meo-camuzet-bourgogne-hautes-cotes-de-nuits-blanc-clos-saint-philibert-monopole-burgundy-france
You overrate French wine, badly.
I wouldn't be want to be behind you at the bar ordering a round.....
0 -
I love their short videos, they manage to so much, so many references in to a 2 minutes. and yes the switching of the academic is relay quite good, the way that just 2 years ago people like Coybyn where parsing Venezuela and now they have gone quiet all of a sudden.kle4 said:
Cutting! Pretty fun switch from academic type at the end.BigRich said:As the conversation seems to be a mix of Corby's policy's and food. I thought I would share this video from the good people as Reason Magazine, about the new The Venezuela Diet!
hts://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBf66wAMpVQ
0 -
Dear god I'm getting old I remember when Dujac was a stunning new find in the early '90s...Richard_Nabavi said:
Haven't tried that particular one, although I have tried other Dujac whites, and jolly good they were too. But they are a lot more expensive - 1er cru Morey St Denis is not going to be a bargain.Charles said:
Oi! What about my white Burgundy?
http://www.wine-searcher.com/regions-morey-saint-denis+monts+luisants
Mind you, I'm up for a comparative tasting!0 -
Yeah, the Pantelleria sweeties are extraordinary. Unfortunately the prices have risen a lot in the past few years,SeanT said:
The Pantellerian sweet wine, Passito, is just fucking mindblowing when it comes from Donnafugata. And I get given a lot of free wine. This is wow. Try.
https://www.vivino.com/wineries/donnafugata/wines/sicilia-ben-rye-passito-di-pantelleria-99990 -
A Green of my acquaintance described the electric car revolution as a disaster - "How will we stop people driving if we can't guilt them about emissions?"glw said:
Many of those that would benefit might even be broadly described as "bankers".Black_Rook said:A general question re: rail re-nationalisation, not aimed as a dig at anyone in particular: think very carefully about whom (apart from the RMT and ASLEF) British Rail Mk.2 would benefit the most, and where those persons are largely concentrated. And then explain why it is a good idea for the general taxpayer, everywhere in the country, to cap fares for that cohort of people. Which is effectively what re-nationalisation would end up being all about, because most of the voters who want trains back in public ownership primarily want Government-subsidised tickets.
Besides that there must be a significant chance that railway nationalisation will look like one of the worst ever economic decisions if TaaS (Transportation as a Service) takes off say in the 2020s. If huge shared fleets of self-driving electric vehicles are cruising our roads we might find that the railways start to reverse recent expansion and go into a sharp decline, then the country would really be on the hook for a service that costs a lot to run for an ever smaller number of users.0 -
There's a flaw in your argument, David.DavidL said:It don't think it is penetrating insight on my part to point out that Corbyn has lost the 2017 election. The key for Labour is what next. If they go down to 200 and they somehow and slightly miraculously find a Cameron in their midst who can win 100 seats for them they form the next government in 2022. There are some big ifs there but it is possible. If they go down to 150 then even a Cameron does not put them in government, even in coalition, since at 250 it is very likely that the Tories will still be 300 +.
The consequence for Labour is that those in their ranks with ambition to actually do things are pretty much guaranteed that they are going to spend another decade out of power making futile gestures and noises off. That may suit the Corbyns of this world just fine but those with aspirations to actually achieve anything are going to wonder if there are better things to do with their prime years and look elsewhere.
Labour have already been out of power 7 years. Add a decade and we are looking at pretty much a repeat of the entire Thatcher/Major government. Who knows what sort of a country they would be trying to govern at the end of that. The extent of the defeat matters. And its not looking good.
Let's say that the Conservatives win well enough on June8th to guarantee them a full five years in office, but Labour do well enough for Corbyn and allies to hang on to power in the Labour Party. On current polling, these are both distinct possibilities. Let's say also that Brexit goes badly, another distinct possibility. The backlash is likely to be sufficient for them to be completely blown away in the 2022 election, and replaced by.....well, whoever is not contaminated by the Brexit fallout.
There's every likelihood this will be Jeremy Corbyn and Allies. Momentum will have succeeded.
Well?0 -
It's OK, you point at the list and say 'one of those please'.Nigelb said:
Life's way too short to waste time on drinks involving more than six syllables.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, I don't. That one is absolutely stunning. It's not even a named village wine, yet I think it's the finest white burgundy, outside the top appellations which cost an arm and a leg, that I've ever tasted. And I've tasted a lot.SeanT said:
Average user rating: 3 starsRichard_Nabavi said:
Absolutely PBers get a special rate. In fact, I don't charge at all, but obviously I wouldn't expect to have to pay my own bill as I explain quite why the Meo-Camuzet Bourgogne Hautes-Cotes-de-Nuits Blanc Clos Saint-Philibert Monopole 2014 goes so fantastically well with the bream.peter_from_putney said:
Do you charge and if so do PBers get special rates? Are you like Giles Coren and very seldom move out of the Capital?Richard_Nabavi said:
True, and even more so outside France.SeanT said:Michelin ratings in France are bollocks.
In France, you need to use Gault-Millau, even if it's not as good as it used to be.
In the UK, the Good Food Guide seems to have gone pretty bonkers. You're better off consulting, well, me.
http://www.wine-searcher.com/wine-35797-0001-meo-camuzet-bourgogne-hautes-cotes-de-nuits-blanc-clos-saint-philibert-monopole-burgundy-france
You overrate French wine, badly.
I wouldn't be want to be behind you at the bar ordering a round.....0 -
I don't think it's particularly unfair at all. Scottish Labour figures may have effected to care about devolution - just not enough to do it properly. What was the point in giving the Scottish Parliament huge power right at the outset, without the ability to pay for any of its responsibilities? If setting up a devolved means of revenue collection was impractical at the outset, then the Parliament should not have been set up until it was ready, or a far more circumspect assembly should've been established at first.Theuniondivvie said:
I think that's slightly unfair, Scottish Labour as was (Dewar, Cook, even Brown) genuinely believed in devo, Blair was mystified & bored by it and twats like Robertson thought it was a stroke of partisan strategic genius. Of course Dewar & Cook died early on and as you say the second & even third raters took over.Black_Rook said:
Labour made a total pigs' ear of devolution right from the outset. Governmental power should've been transferred in lockstep with the responsibility for raising revenues: funding virtually everything by bloc grant proved to be a catastrophic blunder. Filling their benches at Holyrood with mostly second-rate politicians, who got worn down and then blown away by the SNP's best troops, was another.Theuniondivvie said:I'm pretty sure mitigated at least.
The trouble was that they lost their nerve over their own creation, devolution, even before the SNP came to government. When it became evident that devolution hadn't killed the Nats stone dead, SLab ended up starting at shadows, fearful that any increase in devo would strengthen the SNP.
It should always be remembered that in the indy ref/vow aftermath, SLab's version of further devolution was the most pathetically constipated of those offered by the four parties involved.
Altogether the best thing about watching the SNP run riot these past few years has been the total humiliation and ruin of Scottish Labour - a fate thoroughly well-deserved.
Simply having an arrangement whereby all of Scotland's problems could be excused by pointing the accusing finger at Westminster - for keeping too tight a grasp on the purse strings - was an entirely avoidable disaster that was simply waiting to happen, and a key element in the SNP's ascent to dominance.0 -
On the subject of PB drinkies, I cannot make the London meet up owing to work commitments.
Any chance of one North of Watford, where the real folk live?0 -
Today's sub samples from Scotland seem to indicate SNP at 53% (Kantar) and 56% (Panelbase).
Of course doesn't tell you much but just saying!0 -
I love the way some people think - was trying to find out more about pensions costs to the Labour manifesto and got Steve Webb's claim that it could cost £300bn, and one person replies 'Well, at least they offer voters a REAL CHOICE - unlike Illiberal Traitorcrats who just want ministerial jags'.
Is offering a REAL CHOICE so great that its not worth even bothering to argue against or defend the £300bn figure? The fact of a having a REAL CHOICE is so inherently a good thing that the fact, or not, of statements are irrelevant?
Well, sure this policy might involve dumping raw sewage into children's breakfast cereals, but at least we're offered a real choice with it.0 -
-
No chance. Corbyn is simply unelectable. If May screwed up spectacularly, as opposed to just boring us all to tears, the Tories would replace her and still win. Labour must get rid and give the country a choice again. This is unhealthy.Peter_the_Punter said:
There's a flaw in your argument, David.DavidL said:It don't think it is penetrating insight on my part to point out that Corbyn has lost the 2017 election. The key for Labour is what next. If they go down to 200 and they somehow and slightly miraculously find a Cameron in their midst who can win 100 seats for them they form the next government in 2022. There are some big ifs there but it is possible. If they go down to 150 then even a Cameron does not put them in government, even in coalition, since at 250 it is very likely that the Tories will still be 300 +.
The consequence for Labour is that those in their ranks with ambition to actually do things are pretty much guaranteed that they are going to spend another decade out of power making futile gestures and noises off. That may suit the Corbyns of this world just fine but those with aspirations to actually achieve anything are going to wonder if there are better things to do with their prime years and look elsewhere.
Labour have already been out of power 7 years. Add a decade and we are looking at pretty much a repeat of the entire Thatcher/Major government. Who knows what sort of a country they would be trying to govern at the end of that. The extent of the defeat matters. And its not looking good.
Let's say that the Conservatives win well enough on June8th to guarantee them a full five years in office, but Labour do well enough for Corbyn and allies to hang on to power in the Labour Party. On current polling, these are both distinct possibilities. Let's say also that Brexit goes badly, another distinct possibility. The backlash is likely to be sufficient for them to be completely blown away in the 2022 election, and replaced by.....well, whoever is not contaminated by the Brexit fallout.
There's every likelihood this will be Jeremy Corbyn and Allies. Momentum will have succeeded.
Well?0 -
What is this "Twitter" of which I hear people speak?foxinsoxuk said:
Unfortunately his sleazy tales and love of a freebie are substantially true, just look at his twitter.franklyn said:It is important to remind PBers that Sean T is a professional purveyor of fiction. So his accounts of fine wines, expensive meals and encounters with the opposite sex are pure fiction, dreamed up from his squalid bed-sit in Neasden, while he microwaves a ready meal from Asda that has been reduced in price because it is getting to its sell by date; on special occasions he goes to Subways with a discount voucher.
His opinions on most subjects are risible
His "girlfriends" seem to move on quickly, so one wonders who is using whom. The relationships seem both transient and transactional.
0 -
It's like arguing with toddlers.kle4 said:I love the way some people think - was trying to find out more about pensions costs to the Labour manifesto and got Steve Webb's claim that it could cost £300bn, and one person replies 'Well, at least they offer voters a REAL CHOICE - unlike Illiberal Traitorcrats who just want ministerial jags'.
Is offering a REAL CHOICE so great that its not worth even bothering to argue against or defend the £300bn figure? The fact of a having a REAL CHOICE is so inherently a good thing that the fact, or not, of statements are irrelevant?
Well, sure this policy might involve dumping raw sewage into children's breakfast cereals, but at least we're offered a real choice with it.0 -
Apparently it was the Israelis intell that trumpster blurted out.0
-
I don't think even a hard Brexit would be bad enough to rebound that way, and the prospect of the City buggering off to the Continent may well make taxing the rich impossible.Peter_the_Punter said:
There's a flaw in your argument, David.DavidL said:It don't think it is penetrating insight on my part to point out that Corbyn has lost the 2017 election. The key for Labour is what next. If they go down to 200 and they somehow and slightly miraculously find a Cameron in their midst who can win 100 seats for them they form the next government in 2022. There are some big ifs there but it is possible. If they go down to 150 then even a Cameron does not put them in government, even in coalition, since at 250 it is very likely that the Tories will still be 300 +.
The consequence for Labour is that those in their ranks with ambition to actually do things are pretty much guaranteed that they are going to spend another decade out of power making futile gestures and noises off. That may suit the Corbyns of this world just fine but those with aspirations to actually achieve anything are going to wonder if there are better things to do with their prime years and look elsewhere.
Labour have already been out of power 7 years. Add a decade and we are looking at pretty much a repeat of the entire Thatcher/Major government. Who knows what sort of a country they would be trying to govern at the end of that. The extent of the defeat matters. And its not looking good.
Let's say that the Conservatives win well enough on June8th to guarantee them a full five years in office, but Labour do well enough for Corbyn and allies to hang on to power in the Labour Party. On current polling, these are both distinct possibilities. Let's say also that Brexit goes badly, another distinct possibility. The backlash is likely to be sufficient for them to be completely blown away in the 2022 election, and replaced by.....well, whoever is not contaminated by the Brexit fallout.
There's every likelihood this will be Jeremy Corbyn and Allies. Momentum will have succeeded.
Well?
The surest way to fix the issue of immigration is to crash the economy, and the net outflow will be seen as a benefit by Leaverstan, as it is the young well educated cosmopolitans that move on. A win win as far as they are concerned.0 -
The backlash being sufficient to overturn what seems probable to be a very large Tory majority, would be dependent on how bad Brexit goes. Things can go bad, very bad, without things reversing 180 degrees, and if they have a very large buffer, the chances of a Brexit backlash being so severe as take the Tories down next time diminishes. No it isn't impossible, but I think assuming Brexit going badly means the Tories to be blown away in 2022 is 'likely' ignores the critical fact of how bad we are talking here.Peter_the_Punter said:
There's a flaw in your argument, David.DavidL said:It don't think it is penetrating insight on my part to point out that Corbyn has lost the 2017 election. The key for Labour is what next. If they go down to 200 and they somehow and slightly miraculously find a Cameron in their midst who can win 100 seats for them they form the next government in 2022. There are some big ifs there but it is possible. If they go down to 150 then even a Cameron does not put them in government, even in coalition, since at 250 it is very likely that the Tories will still be 300 +.
The consequence for Labour is that those in their ranks with ambition to actually do things are pretty much guaranteed that they are going to spend another decade out of power making futile gestures and noises off. That may suit the Corbyns of this world just fine but those with aspirations to actually achieve anything are going to wonder if there are better things to do with their prime years and look elsewhere.
Labour have already been out of power 7 years. Add a decade and we are looking at pretty much a repeat of the entire Thatcher/Major government. Who knows what sort of a country they would be trying to govern at the end of that. The extent of the defeat matters. And its not looking good.
Let's say that the Conservatives win well enough on June8th to guarantee them a full five years in office, but Labour do well enough for Corbyn and allies to hang on to power in the Labour Party. On current polling, these are both distinct possibilities. Let's say also that Brexit goes badly, another distinct possibility. The backlash is likely to be sufficient for them to be completely blown away in the 2022 election, and replaced by.....well, whoever is not contaminated by the Brexit fallout.
There's every likelihood this will be Jeremy Corbyn and Allies. Momentum will have succeeded.
Well?0 -
Except part of the collapse of UKIP has gone to Labour.
Except the polls show them failing to match Miliband.
Except they're supposed to be a government in waiting.
Except that Miliband did so badly he had to go.
It'd be like David Cameron setting out his ambition to match William Hague's performance.0 -
It is closely related to Twattery.franklyn said:
What is this "Twitter" of which I hear people speak?foxinsoxuk said:
Unfortunately his sleazy tales and love of a freebie are substantially true, just look at his twitter.franklyn said:It is important to remind PBers that Sean T is a professional purveyor of fiction. So his accounts of fine wines, expensive meals and encounters with the opposite sex are pure fiction, dreamed up from his squalid bed-sit in Neasden, while he microwaves a ready meal from Asda that has been reduced in price because it is getting to its sell by date; on special occasions he goes to Subways with a discount voucher.
His opinions on most subjects are risible
His "girlfriends" seem to move on quickly, so one wonders who is using whom. The relationships seem both transient and transactional.0 -
As a doctor Foxinsox can help with that.SeanT said:
Feel the burn. lolfoxinsoxuk said:
Unfortunately his sleazy tales and love of a freebie are substantially true, just look at his twitter.franklyn said:It is important to remind PBers that Sean T is a professional purveyor of fiction. So his accounts of fine wines, expensive meals and encounters with the opposite sex are pure fiction, dreamed up from his squalid bed-sit in Neasden, while he microwaves a ready meal from Asda that has been reduced in price because it is getting to its sell by date; on special occasions he goes to Subways with a discount voucher.
His opinions on most subjects are risible
His "girlfriends" seem to move on quickly, so one wonders who is using whom. The relationships seem both transient and transactional.0 -
-
Not right away, necessarily.Philip_Thompson said:
Except that Miliband did so badly he had to go.0 -
I wish you joy with your success but I regret to say your wine recommendations have passed beyond the useful to the fantastical.SeanT said:
Who gives a fuck about the real world?? I'm a professional travel writer and a millionaire thriller writer. I sell fantasies and nightmares for a living. I don't live in Aldi-land, I live in the world you dreamed of when you were 16.DavidL said:
£32 a bottle? My champagne to celebrate the Tory victory on 8th June will cost less than that. You're losing touch with the real world Sean.SeanT said:
Hmm.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, I don't. That one is absolutely stunning. It's not even a named village wine, yet I think it's the finest white burgundy, outside the top appellations which cost an arm and a leg, that I've ever tasted. And I've tasted a lot.SeanT said:
Average user rating: 3 starsRichard_Nabavi said:
Absolutely PBers get a special rate. In fact, I don't charge at all, but obviously I wouldn't expect to have to pay my own bill as I explain quite why the Meo-Camuzet Bourgogne Hautes-Cotes-de-Nuits Blanc Clos Saint-Philibert Monopole 2014 goes so fantastically well with the bream.peter_from_putney said:
Do you charge and if so do PBers get special rates? Are you like Giles Coren and very seldom move out of the Capital?Richard_Nabavi said:
True, and even more so outside France.SeanT said:Michelin ratings in France are bollocks.
In France, you need to use Gault-Millau, even if it's not as good as it used to be.
In the UK, the Good Food Guide seems to have gone pretty bonkers. You're better off consulting, well, me.
http://www.wine-searcher.com/wine-35797-0001-meo-camuzet-bourgogne-hautes-cotes-de-nuits-blanc-clos-saint-philibert-monopole-burgundy-france
You overrate French wine, badly.
The Pantellerian sweet wine, Passito, is just fucking mindblowing when it comes from Donnafugata. And I get given a lot of free wine. This is wow. Try.
https://www.vivino.com/wineries/donnafugata/wines/sicilia-ben-rye-passito-di-pantelleria-9999
And my latest girlfriend is stunning - and 21. And funny. And smart. And did I mention she is very beautiful?
Worst of all: all this is true.
In about 3 years I will have some weird, fast, terminal cancer that simultaneously destroys my brain and my penis, and I will ask for PB-ers to visit me in my hospice, bringing smuggled jam-jars of own-brand Asda gin.
But for now: CHORTLE. I have lived the life.0 -
But it's not the same as Britain.foxinsoxuk said:
It is closely related to Twattery.franklyn said:
What is this "Twitter" of which I hear people speak?foxinsoxuk said:
Unfortunately his sleazy tales and love of a freebie are substantially true, just look at his twitter.franklyn said:It is important to remind PBers that Sean T is a professional purveyor of fiction. So his accounts of fine wines, expensive meals and encounters with the opposite sex are pure fiction, dreamed up from his squalid bed-sit in Neasden, while he microwaves a ready meal from Asda that has been reduced in price because it is getting to its sell by date; on special occasions he goes to Subways with a discount voucher.
His opinions on most subjects are risible
His "girlfriends" seem to move on quickly, so one wonders who is using whom. The relationships seem both transient and transactional.0
