FPT. This kind of meal is standard for certain classes. For your average punter it is astronomical. That's fine when the economy is doing well and folk can aspire to it. It is what people expect. It looks different when heating costs are through the roof and pay isn't keeping up. Looks like troughing and fits with the prevailing narrative I'm afraid.
But it wasn't an average day to day dinner, was it? She was entertaining important diplomatic contacts wasn't she? What is she supposed to do instead? Tell then they can't order two g&ts each?
"Fancy a Macky D? Or perhaps a greasy spoon? Sorry we are not allowed to showcase our best gastronomy. Far too upper class."
Well exactly. There is a golden rule when eating out with clients – you have to take them somewhere nice and you never place limits on what they can order. Most make reasonable choices, and actually this doesn't seem outrageous for such a dinner to me.
Stupid non-story.
In parts of the private sector taking potential clients out for this kind of lunch would be seen as corruption.
Which parts ? We work with so many companies who have an anti bribery policy then completely ignore it when it comes to corporate at football, nights out, free boilers in their home etc etc.
It’s a good point, that this meal under discussion wasn’t close to the price of entertaining at a sporting event.
It would have been quite justifiable IMHO, to take a visiting American trade delegation to a Premier League match, to show them one of our largest cultural exports up close.
FPT. This kind of meal is standard for certain classes. For your average punter it is astronomical. That's fine when the economy is doing well and folk can aspire to it. It is what people expect. It looks different when heating costs are through the roof and pay isn't keeping up. Looks like troughing and fits with the prevailing narrative I'm afraid.
But it wasn't an average day to day dinner, was it? She was entertaining important diplomatic contacts wasn't she? What is she supposed to do instead? Tell then they can't order two g&ts each?
"Fancy a Macky D? Or perhaps a greasy spoon? Sorry we are not allowed to showcase our best gastronomy. Far too upper class."
Well exactly. There is a golden rule when eating out with clients – you have to take them somewhere nice and you never place limits on what they can order. Most make reasonable choices, and actually this doesn't seem outrageous for such a dinner to me.
Stupid non-story.
In parts of the private sector taking potential clients out for this kind of lunch would be seen as corruption.
Which parts ? We work with so many companies who have an anti bribery policy then completely ignore it when it comes to corporate at football, nights out, free boilers in their home etc etc.
How do you show you are safeguarding the vulnerable adequately? Why, by presenting a superb Safeguarding Policy document for inspection, of course.
FPT. This kind of meal is standard for certain classes. For your average punter it is astronomical. That's fine when the economy is doing well and folk can aspire to it. It is what people expect. It looks different when heating costs are through the roof and pay isn't keeping up. Looks like troughing and fits with the prevailing narrative I'm afraid.
But it wasn't an average day to day dinner, was it? She was entertaining important diplomatic contacts wasn't she? What is she supposed to do instead? Tell then they can't order two g&ts each?
"Fancy a Macky D? Or perhaps a greasy spoon? Sorry we are not allowed to showcase our best gastronomy. Far too upper class."
Well exactly. There is a golden rule when eating out with clients – you have to take them somewhere nice and you never place limits on what they can order. Most make reasonable choices, and actually this doesn't seem outrageous for such a dinner to me.
Stupid non-story.
In parts of the private sector taking potential clients out for this kind of lunch would be seen as corruption.
Which parts ? We work with so many companies who have an anti bribery policy then completely ignore it when it comes to corporate at football, nights out, free boilers in their home etc etc.
It’s a good point, that this meal under discussion wasn’t close to the price of entertaining at a sporting event.
It would have been quite justifiable IMHO, to take a visiting American trade delegation to a Premier League match, to show them one of our largest cultural exports up close.
We treated ourselves to The Ivy on NYD. Quite posh (and a bit overpriced for what it is), by my standards. The bill for two was £97 for starters, mains, coffee for one and a bottle of perfectly acceptable red wine (for £29). So £50 a head; if we'd had desserts, £60 a head presumably.
So it strikes me that one can entertain pretty well for a lot less than many of the affluent on here are suggesting. But only if you're not a wine snob, I guess.
Wish Keir would actually come out with some policies, or at least policy themes, rather than vacuous statements like "security, prosperity and respect".
Reveal actual policies and the Tories have time to move things in a way that makes them impossible or attack them.
we are a year or so away from needing policies to be revealed.
I'm sure it can be done for £50-70 per head without wine by going for a lunch sitting and specifically picking cheaper menu items but that's not what happens at client meetings. Let's be realistic about how those operate.
FPT. This kind of meal is standard for certain classes. For your average punter it is astronomical. That's fine when the economy is doing well and folk can aspire to it. It is what people expect. It looks different when heating costs are through the roof and pay isn't keeping up. Looks like troughing and fits with the prevailing narrative I'm afraid.
But it wasn't an average day to day dinner, was it? She was entertaining important diplomatic contacts wasn't she? What is she supposed to do instead? Tell then they can't order two g&ts each?
"Fancy a Macky D? Or perhaps a greasy spoon? Sorry we are not allowed to showcase our best gastronomy. Far too upper class."
Well exactly. There is a golden rule when eating out with clients – you have to take them somewhere nice and you never place limits on what they can order. Most make reasonable choices, and actually this doesn't seem outrageous for such a dinner to me.
Stupid non-story.
In parts of the private sector taking potential clients out for this kind of lunch would be seen as corruption.
Which parts ? We work with so many companies who have an anti bribery policy then completely ignore it when it comes to corporate at football, nights out, free boilers in their home etc etc.
It’s a good point, that this meal under discussion wasn’t close to the price of entertaining at a sporting event.
It would have been quite justifiable IMHO, to take a visiting American trade delegation to a Premier League match, to show them one of our largest cultural exports up close.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
I agree but lest we forget in 1979 the SNP helped oust a Labour government and usher in 18 years of magnificent Tory rule led by Margaret Thatcher (pbuh).
Wish Keir would actually come out with some policies, or at least policy themes, rather than vacuous statements like "security, prosperity and respect".
I caught a small bit of his speech on the news, and I'm sure he said that one of the challenges for 2022 was something to do with rebuilding "after the pandemic", which implies he thinks COVID is done by the end of the year at the latest.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
FPT. This kind of meal is standard for certain classes. For your average punter it is astronomical. That's fine when the economy is doing well and folk can aspire to it. It is what people expect. It looks different when heating costs are through the roof and pay isn't keeping up. Looks like troughing and fits with the prevailing narrative I'm afraid.
But it wasn't an average day to day dinner, was it? She was entertaining important diplomatic contacts wasn't she? What is she supposed to do instead? Tell then they can't order two g&ts each?
"Fancy a Macky D? Or perhaps a greasy spoon? Sorry we are not allowed to showcase our best gastronomy. Far too upper class."
Well exactly. There is a golden rule when eating out with clients – you have to take them somewhere nice and you never place limits on what they can order. Most make reasonable choices, and actually this doesn't seem outrageous for such a dinner to me.
Stupid non-story.
In parts of the private sector taking potential clients out for this kind of lunch would be seen as corruption.
Which parts ? We work with so many companies who have an anti bribery policy then completely ignore it when it comes to corporate at football, nights out, free boilers in their home etc etc.
How do you show you are safeguarding the vulnerable adequately? Why, by presenting a superb Safeguarding Policy document for inspection, of course.
Reminds me of the anguished interview on R4 from one of the "leadership team" for child safeguarding in Rotherham. Apparently it was indefensible to attack them for what had happened, since they followed the proper policies and had always acted in what they thought was the best interests of the children.
Using actual outcomes as a metric is rude or something.
if you are happy to eat early you can grab two courses for as little as £25. Dishes include things like butter chicken or pork cheek vindaloo. If you book a table between 5-6pm Monday-Saturday you can take advantage of the deal, and even with the two-course option you’ll get a selection of pappadums plus sides that include saag makai and dal plus bread or rice.
FPT. This kind of meal is standard for certain classes. For your average punter it is astronomical. That's fine when the economy is doing well and folk can aspire to it. It is what people expect. It looks different when heating costs are through the roof and pay isn't keeping up. Looks like troughing and fits with the prevailing narrative I'm afraid.
But it wasn't an average day to day dinner, was it? She was entertaining important diplomatic contacts wasn't she? What is she supposed to do instead? Tell then they can't order two g&ts each?
"Fancy a Macky D? Or perhaps a greasy spoon? Sorry we are not allowed to showcase our best gastronomy. Far too upper class."
Well exactly. There is a golden rule when eating out with clients – you have to take them somewhere nice and you never place limits on what they can order. Most make reasonable choices, and actually this doesn't seem outrageous for such a dinner to me.
Stupid non-story.
In parts of the private sector taking potential clients out for this kind of lunch would be seen as corruption.
Which parts ? We work with so many companies who have an anti bribery policy then completely ignore it when it comes to corporate at football, nights out, free boilers in their home etc etc.
It’s a good point, that this meal under discussion wasn’t close to the price of entertaining at a sporting event.
It would have been quite justifiable IMHO, to take a visiting American trade delegation to a Premier League match, to show them one of our largest cultural exports up close.
£10 a ticket to watch the Toon play Cambridge.
I remember having to declare gifts to me from pupils parents which were worth more than 25 pounds. Not normally a problem but I got a harrods hamper one year which was a lot more expensive
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
I agree but lest we forget in 1979 the SNP helped out a Labour government and usher in 18 years of magnificent Tory rule led by Margaret Thatcher (pbuh).
I think you'll find it was the people of the UK who elected Thatcher. I wonder what Labour's strategy was for winning over the voters in the 5 months extra they could have had.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
The fear for the SNP there is that he would win a few Scottish SNP seats...
A short lived Labour minority Government (due to very few Scottish seats) seeking a majority could / would be the worst possible outcome for the SNP
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
I agree but lest we forget in 1979 the SNP helped out a Labour government and usher in 18 years of magnificent Tory rule led by Margaret Thatcher (pbuh).
You mean usher in the midwife of a devolved parliament governed by the SNP for 15 years and counting? Pbuh indeed, far seeing and wise those 1979 mps.
FPT. This kind of meal is standard for certain classes. For your average punter it is astronomical. That's fine when the economy is doing well and folk can aspire to it. It is what people expect. It looks different when heating costs are through the roof and pay isn't keeping up. Looks like troughing and fits with the prevailing narrative I'm afraid.
But it wasn't an average day to day dinner, was it? She was entertaining important diplomatic contacts wasn't she? What is she supposed to do instead? Tell then they can't order two g&ts each?
"Fancy a Macky D? Or perhaps a greasy spoon? Sorry we are not allowed to showcase our best gastronomy. Far too upper class."
Well exactly. There is a golden rule when eating out with clients – you have to take them somewhere nice and you never place limits on what they can order. Most make reasonable choices, and actually this doesn't seem outrageous for such a dinner to me.
Stupid non-story.
In parts of the private sector taking potential clients out for this kind of lunch would be seen as corruption.
Which parts ? We work with so many companies who have an anti bribery policy then completely ignore it when it comes to corporate at football, nights out, free boilers in their home etc etc.
How do you show you are safeguarding the vulnerable adequately? Why, by presenting a superb Safeguarding Policy document for inspection, of course.
Reminds me of the anguished interview on R4 from one of the "leadership team" for child safeguarding in Rotherham. Apparently it was indefensible to attack them for what had happened, since they followed the proper policies and had always acted in what they thought was the best interests of the children.
Using actual outcomes as a metric is rude or something.
Ticking the boxes, and feeling they were doing a good job, that’s what’s important.
I'm sure it can be done for £50-70 per head without wine by going for a lunch sitting and specifically picking cheaper menu items but that's not what happens at client meetings. Let's be realistic about how those operate.
Indeed, as I said in my OP, it's perfectly possible to do it by oneself in order to prove a point, but you have to do some or all of the below:
a) choose from the cheapest roster b) eat during deal times c) choose the cheapest, unmatched, wine d) deny yourself several choices that you would otherwise have selected
If you adhere to any of the above, I would contend that there is no point going to a Mich star place, you might as well go somewhere cheaper – and still very good – yet enjoy the run of the menu.
FPT. This kind of meal is standard for certain classes. For your average punter it is astronomical. That's fine when the economy is doing well and folk can aspire to it. It is what people expect. It looks different when heating costs are through the roof and pay isn't keeping up. Looks like troughing and fits with the prevailing narrative I'm afraid.
But it wasn't an average day to day dinner, was it? She was entertaining important diplomatic contacts wasn't she? What is she supposed to do instead? Tell then they can't order two g&ts each?
"Fancy a Macky D? Or perhaps a greasy spoon? Sorry we are not allowed to showcase our best gastronomy. Far too upper class."
Well exactly. There is a golden rule when eating out with clients – you have to take them somewhere nice and you never place limits on what they can order. Most make reasonable choices, and actually this doesn't seem outrageous for such a dinner to me.
Stupid non-story.
In parts of the private sector taking potential clients out for this kind of lunch would be seen as corruption.
Which parts ? We work with so many companies who have an anti bribery policy then completely ignore it when it comes to corporate at football, nights out, free boilers in their home etc etc.
It’s a good point, that this meal under discussion wasn’t close to the price of entertaining at a sporting event.
It would have been quite justifiable IMHO, to take a visiting American trade delegation to a Premier League match, to show them one of our largest cultural exports up close.
£10 a ticket to watch the Toon play Cambridge.
Don't you get the emails offering drinks in the XYZ lounge for £40-50 a head?
Edit to add - not seen them for a while but that's because I no longer work at the firms where I used to get them..
Nah, we need to get away from handing out baubles just because you've had a certain job and more than likely earned a fortune doing it. All this "convention" bollocks needs binning.
We've already binned the most decorative convention by withholding earldoms from past PMs. Stockton was the last, preceded by Avon, Dwyfor, Bewdley ... all the way back to Beaconsfield - a useful geography lesson, if nothing else. Sir Alec had, of course, already given one up, whereas Churchill and Gladstone were content to do without. The blessed Clement Attlee took a viscountcy as well, just in case.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
I agree but lest we forget in 1979 the SNP helped out a Labour government and usher in 18 years of magnificent Tory rule led by Margaret Thatcher (pbuh).
You mean usher in the midwife of a devolved parliament governed by the SNP for 15 years and counting? Pbuh indeed, far seeing and wise those 1979 mps.
Not least because the Callaghan admin had done the dirty over the devolution referendum. (As Mr Blair tried to do, with his 2nd tax question, it should be said.)
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
"Hitler was the most successful German leader ever."
Discuss.
Ruled most of Western Europe.
But for two avoidable blunders (declaring war on America and Russia) he may have been the greatest strategist since Caesar.
By the end of 1940, he had re-fought and *won* WWI
This is why the German General Staff really started to lick his boots (plus the massive bribes, of course) - he had wiped out their fuckups in the Great War....
On topic - I'm not convinced by Liz Truss either. She's trying far too hard to be the next Mrs Thatcher. Too many photo ops and set pieces. If that comparison was forthcoming people would make it without "friends of Liz" going around telling everyone just how much like Maggie she is.
On the wider next leaders market, I think the party will want a palate cleanser after Boris so I'm not sure than any of the current Cabinet will get the nod. Of the cabinet Rishi probably has the best chance with a short coronation ceremony but I'm not sure he's got the support with MPs to pull it off and there's too many rival factions. He'd have to unite the ERG/CRG behind him (which is doable) rather than their own man (likely Steve Baker or Mark Harper).
Boris has probably seen off the near term threat to his leadership by not locking down, I think the next big threat will be renewal of plan B measures towards the end of this month but I'm not sure they'll depose him for renewing something that already exists with Labour support.
The biggest threat to Boris is if we get to May/June and Labour still has a big lead and the Boris 2019 voter coalition looks fractured. Like it or not (from a Tory perspective) in 2019 they got ~25% of all remainers to vote for them alongside their more leave coalition, that was the difference between the 80 seat majority and a much smaller one. These are the key swing voters in the next election and Boris is going to struggle to keep them in the tent, the next leader will have to come up with a platform of competence and some kind of "open Britain" type of policy to get them back on board. I don't know who does that.
Those 25% remain supporters want a Government that doesn't spend money up North.
The red wall seats want a chance of levelling up actually levelling things up and that means spending money.
I can't see how you square that circle and the Tories do need to to keep both sides on side.
On the latest RedfieldWilton poll the redwall is largely gone anyway but the Tories still have a big lead in the South and East and there has even been a swing to the Tories since 2019 in Scotland and London, likely as Boris has not imposed extra Covid restrictions unlike Sturgeon and Khan.
Already the Conservative coalition is looking more Southern and less Northern than it was last time.
Huh? A swing to the Tories in London and Scotland? Based on one sub-sample? I don’t think you are all there.
And if this amazing pro-Boris swing among Cockneys and Jocks is due to fewer restrictions in England, why isn’t the Welsh Labour vote collapsing?
FPT. This kind of meal is standard for certain classes. For your average punter it is astronomical. That's fine when the economy is doing well and folk can aspire to it. It is what people expect. It looks different when heating costs are through the roof and pay isn't keeping up. Looks like troughing and fits with the prevailing narrative I'm afraid.
But it wasn't an average day to day dinner, was it? She was entertaining important diplomatic contacts wasn't she? What is she supposed to do instead? Tell then they can't order two g&ts each?
"Fancy a Macky D? Or perhaps a greasy spoon? Sorry we are not allowed to showcase our best gastronomy. Far too upper class."
Well exactly. There is a golden rule when eating out with clients – you have to take them somewhere nice and you never place limits on what they can order. Most make reasonable choices, and actually this doesn't seem outrageous for such a dinner to me.
Stupid non-story.
In parts of the private sector taking potential clients out for this kind of lunch would be seen as corruption.
Which parts ? We work with so many companies who have an anti bribery policy then completely ignore it when it comes to corporate at football, nights out, free boilers in their home etc etc.
How do you show you are safeguarding the vulnerable adequately? Why, by presenting a superb Safeguarding Policy document for inspection, of course.
Reminds me of the anguished interview on R4 from one of the "leadership team" for child safeguarding in Rotherham. Apparently it was indefensible to attack them for what had happened, since they followed the proper policies and had always acted in what they thought was the best interests of the children.
Using actual outcomes as a metric is rude or something.
Ticking the boxes, and feeling they were doing a good job, that’s what’s important.
Just ignore all the rape.
"The operation was a complete success. The patient died, however."
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
Nevertheless TUD makes the point that Labour ight find itself supported by the Tories in some votes vs SNP plus LDs plus Green.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
I agree but lest we forget in 1979 the SNP helped out a Labour government and usher in 18 years of magnificent Tory rule led by Margaret Thatcher (pbuh).
You mean usher in the midwife of a devolved parliament governed by the SNP for 15 years and counting? Pbuh indeed, far seeing and wise those 1979 mps.
Missing out the Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, they were indeed visionaries, I salute them.
On topic - I'm not convinced by Liz Truss either. She's trying far too hard to be the next Mrs Thatcher. Too many photo ops and set pieces. If that comparison was forthcoming people would make it without "friends of Liz" going around telling everyone just how much like Maggie she is.
On the wider next leaders market, I think the party will want a palate cleanser after Boris so I'm not sure than any of the current Cabinet will get the nod. Of the cabinet Rishi probably has the best chance with a short coronation ceremony but I'm not sure he's got the support with MPs to pull it off and there's too many rival factions. He'd have to unite the ERG/CRG behind him (which is doable) rather than their own man (likely Steve Baker or Mark Harper).
Boris has probably seen off the near term threat to his leadership by not locking down, I think the next big threat will be renewal of plan B measures towards the end of this month but I'm not sure they'll depose him for renewing something that already exists with Labour support.
The biggest threat to Boris is if we get to May/June and Labour still has a big lead and the Boris 2019 voter coalition looks fractured. Like it or not (from a Tory perspective) in 2019 they got ~25% of all remainers to vote for them alongside their more leave coalition, that was the difference between the 80 seat majority and a much smaller one. These are the key swing voters in the next election and Boris is going to struggle to keep them in the tent, the next leader will have to come up with a platform of competence and some kind of "open Britain" type of policy to get them back on board. I don't know who does that.
Those 25% remain supporters want a Government that doesn't spend money up North.
The red wall seats want a chance of levelling up actually levelling things up and that means spending money.
I can't see how you square that circle and the Tories do need to to keep both sides on side.
On the latest RedfieldWilton poll the redwall is largely gone anyway but the Tories still have a big lead in the South and East and there has even been a swing to the Tories since 2019 in Scotland and London, likely as Boris has not imposed extra Covid restrictions unlike Sturgeon and Khan.
Already the Conservative coalition is looking more Southern and less Northern than it was last time.
Huh? A swing to the Tories in London and Scotland? Based on one sub-sample? I don’t think you are all there.
And if this amazing pro-Boris swing among Cockneys and Jocks is due to fewer restrictions in England, why isn’t the Welsh Labour vote collapsing?
I thought we used to ban people for using data from Scottish subsamples to make categorical statements?
Nah, we need to get away from handing out baubles just because you've had a certain job and more than likely earned a fortune doing it. All this "convention" bollocks needs binning.
You need to have a word with the Palace
Liz ain't taking my calls. Maybe I need to go to fancy restaurants so I can mingle with the movers and shakers. Or perhaps @Charles can have a word for me?
I dropped into Windsor for lunch yesterday. Very nice pizza
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
Nevertheless TUD makes the point that Labour ight find itself supported by the Tories in some votes vs SNP plus LDs plus Green.
That's certainly very possible regarding the SNP and Green and could happen with the LDs, albeit less likely.
On topic - I'm not convinced by Liz Truss either. She's trying far too hard to be the next Mrs Thatcher. Too many photo ops and set pieces. If that comparison was forthcoming people would make it without "friends of Liz" going around telling everyone just how much like Maggie she is.
On the wider next leaders market, I think the party will want a palate cleanser after Boris so I'm not sure than any of the current Cabinet will get the nod. Of the cabinet Rishi probably has the best chance with a short coronation ceremony but I'm not sure he's got the support with MPs to pull it off and there's too many rival factions. He'd have to unite the ERG/CRG behind him (which is doable) rather than their own man (likely Steve Baker or Mark Harper).
Boris has probably seen off the near term threat to his leadership by not locking down, I think the next big threat will be renewal of plan B measures towards the end of this month but I'm not sure they'll depose him for renewing something that already exists with Labour support.
The biggest threat to Boris is if we get to May/June and Labour still has a big lead and the Boris 2019 voter coalition looks fractured. Like it or not (from a Tory perspective) in 2019 they got ~25% of all remainers to vote for them alongside their more leave coalition, that was the difference between the 80 seat majority and a much smaller one. These are the key swing voters in the next election and Boris is going to struggle to keep them in the tent, the next leader will have to come up with a platform of competence and some kind of "open Britain" type of policy to get them back on board. I don't know who does that.
Those 25% remain supporters want a Government that doesn't spend money up North.
The red wall seats want a chance of levelling up actually levelling things up and that means spending money.
I can't see how you square that circle and the Tories do need to to keep both sides on side.
On the latest RedfieldWilton poll the redwall is largely gone anyway but the Tories still have a big lead in the South and East and there has even been a swing to the Tories since 2019 in Scotland and London, likely as Boris has not imposed extra Covid restrictions unlike Sturgeon and Khan.
Already the Conservative coalition is looking more Southern and less Northern than it was last time.
Huh? A swing to the Tories in London and Scotland? Based on one sub-sample? I don’t think you are all there.
And if this amazing pro-Boris swing among Cockneys and Jocks is due to fewer restrictions in England, why isn’t the Welsh Labour vote collapsing?
I thought we used to ban people for using data from Scottish subsamples to make categorical statements?
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
If we end up with a hung parliament but with Tories having most seats but not enough for a majority even with the DUP but still more MPs than Labour + LDs + Green, then Starmer would likely end up PM.
However he would find it near impossible to get any legislation on English domestic legislation through as there may still be a majority of Tory MPs in England and the SNP would abstain if Starmer did not give them indyref2 + devomax.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
I don't think any of those 'several here' are supporters of the SNP, just people restricted to seeing things in clichéd and binary terms. I don't believe a formal deal would be particular helpful to the SNP in any case (except for 'we will provide c&s for x period in return for a referendum within y period' which is unlikely to happen), and to be seen holding NewOldNew Labour's feet to a progressive fire seems a perfectly acceptable strategy to me.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
If we end up with a hung parliament but with Tories having most seats but not enough for a majority even with the DUP, then Starmer would likely end up PM.
However he would find it near impossible to get any legislation on English domestic legislation through as there may still be a majority of Tory MPs in England and the SNP would abstain if Starmer did not give them indyref2 + devomax.
Hardly
Labour loses an English Domestic legislation vote - new election with Labour now having a message to convince SNP voters to vote Labour....
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
I agree but lest we forget in 1979 the SNP helped out a Labour government and usher in 18 years of magnificent Tory rule led by Margaret Thatcher (pbuh).
You mean usher in the midwife of a devolved parliament governed by the SNP for 15 years and counting? Pbuh indeed, far seeing and wise those 1979 mps.
Missing out the Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, they were indeed visionaries, I salute them.
EUrophile Magrit would be gratified that Scotland also voted to stay part of the EU, mad old EUrophobe M. less so.
On topic - I'm not convinced by Liz Truss either. She's trying far too hard to be the next Mrs Thatcher. Too many photo ops and set pieces. If that comparison was forthcoming people would make it without "friends of Liz" going around telling everyone just how much like Maggie she is.
On the wider next leaders market, I think the party will want a palate cleanser after Boris so I'm not sure than any of the current Cabinet will get the nod. Of the cabinet Rishi probably has the best chance with a short coronation ceremony but I'm not sure he's got the support with MPs to pull it off and there's too many rival factions. He'd have to unite the ERG/CRG behind him (which is doable) rather than their own man (likely Steve Baker or Mark Harper).
Boris has probably seen off the near term threat to his leadership by not locking down, I think the next big threat will be renewal of plan B measures towards the end of this month but I'm not sure they'll depose him for renewing something that already exists with Labour support.
The biggest threat to Boris is if we get to May/June and Labour still has a big lead and the Boris 2019 voter coalition looks fractured. Like it or not (from a Tory perspective) in 2019 they got ~25% of all remainers to vote for them alongside their more leave coalition, that was the difference between the 80 seat majority and a much smaller one. These are the key swing voters in the next election and Boris is going to struggle to keep them in the tent, the next leader will have to come up with a platform of competence and some kind of "open Britain" type of policy to get them back on board. I don't know who does that.
Those 25% remain supporters want a Government that doesn't spend money up North.
The red wall seats want a chance of levelling up actually levelling things up and that means spending money.
I can't see how you square that circle and the Tories do need to to keep both sides on side.
On the latest RedfieldWilton poll the redwall is largely gone anyway but the Tories still have a big lead in the South and East and there has even been a swing to the Tories since 2019 in Scotland and London, likely as Boris has not imposed extra Covid restrictions unlike Sturgeon and Khan.
Already the Conservative coalition is looking more Southern and less Northern than it was last time.
Huh? A swing to the Tories in London and Scotland? Based on one sub-sample? I don’t think you are all there.
And if this amazing pro-Boris swing among Cockneys and Jocks is due to fewer restrictions in England, why isn’t the Welsh Labour vote collapsing?
I thought we used to ban people for using data from Scottish subsamples to make categorical statements?
Yes and No.
PB myth and PB reality are two different things.
Weren't you yourself banned for a prolonged period for citing, ahem, Caledonian cross-sections...?
I'm sure it can be done for £50-70 per head without wine by going for a lunch sitting and specifically picking cheaper menu items but that's not what happens at client meetings. Let's be realistic about how those operate.
Indeed, as I said in my OP, it's perfectly possible to do it by oneself in order to prove a point, but you have to do some or all of the below:
a) choose from the cheapest roster b) eat during deal times c) choose the cheapest, unmatched, wine d) deny yourself several choices that you would otherwise have selected
If you adhere to any of the above, I would contend that there is no point going to a Mich star place, you might as well go somewhere cheaper – and still very good – yet enjoy the run of the menu.
Do something properly, or do something else.
At Chez Bruce (and the sister restaurants) there is only one menu, with 8 or so choices each, for starter and main course and a few less for dessert.
I actually knew one of the owners, slightly, and he said that this was to make life simpler for the chefs and staff, stop people trying to do "I want the set menu plus x" etc....
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
If we end up with a hung parliament but with Tories having most seats but not enough for a majority even with the DUP, then Starmer would likely end up PM.
However he would find it near impossible to get any legislation on English domestic legislation through as there may still be a majority of Tory MPs in England and the SNP would abstain if Starmer did not give them indyref2 + devomax.
Hardly
Labour loses an English Domestic legislation vote - new election with Labour now having a message to convince SNP voters to vote Labour....
Why SNP voters? They wouldn't dream of interfering in English domestic legislation. No skin off their nose.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
I don't think any of those 'several here' are supporters of the SNP, just people restricted to seeing things in clichéd and binary terms. I don't think a formal deal would be particular helpful to the SNP in any case (except for 'we will provide c&s for x period in return for a referendum within y period' which is unlikely to happen), and to be seen holding NewOldNew Labour's feet to a progressive fire seems a perfectly acceptable strategy to me.
What should/would the SNP do if there's another pro-indy majority after the 2026 Holyrood elections, and a Starmer minority government says no to Indyref2? Do you think the SNP would put forward or support a no confidence motion against Labour in those circumstances? I certainly think the hardliners would want to...
Welsh reported figure (2 days worth) is the equivalent of 478,000 UK Cases.
The extra restrictions are working !
What exactly are the extra restrictions? I know The Drake pops up every so often with some authoritarian nonsense, but I stopped listening to the detail long ago.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
If we end up with a hung parliament but with Tories having most seats but not enough for a majority even with the DUP, then Starmer would likely end up PM.
However he would find it near impossible to get any legislation on English domestic legislation through as there may still be a majority of Tory MPs in England and the SNP would abstain if Starmer did not give them indyref2 + devomax.
Hardly
Labour loses an English Domestic legislation vote - new election with Labour now having a message to convince SNP voters to vote Labour....
Why SNP voters? They wouldn't dream of interfering in English domestic legislation. No skin off their nose.
This election was created by the SNP not supporting something - vote Labour or look forward to continual elections.
The entire point of the October 74 election was to get a Labour Majority. This would be an almost identical election.
Wish Keir would actually come out with some policies, or at least policy themes, rather than vacuous statements like "security, prosperity and respect".
I'm sure it can be done for £50-70 per head without wine by going for a lunch sitting and specifically picking cheaper menu items but that's not what happens at client meetings. Let's be realistic about how those operate.
Indeed, as I said in my OP, it's perfectly possible to do it by oneself in order to prove a point, but you have to do some or all of the below:
a) choose from the cheapest roster b) eat during deal times c) choose the cheapest, unmatched, wine d) deny yourself several choices that you would otherwise have selected
If you adhere to any of the above, I would contend that there is no point going to a Mich star place, you might as well go somewhere cheaper – and still very good – yet enjoy the run of the menu.
Do something properly, or do something else.
At Chez Bruce (and the sister restaurants) there is only one menu, with 8 or so choices each, for starter and main course and a few less for dessert.
I actually knew one of the owners, slightly, and he said that this was to make life simpler for the chefs and staff, stop people trying to do "I want the set menu plus x" etc....
Yes, my local fancy restaurant has the same system – although it does not (yet) have a star.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
I don't think any of those 'several here' are supporters of the SNP, just people restricted to seeing things in clichéd and binary terms. I don't think a formal deal would be particular helpful to the SNP in any case (except for 'we will provide c&s for x period in return for a referendum within y period' which is unlikely to happen), and to be seen holding NewOldNew Labour's feet to a progressive fire seems a perfectly acceptable strategy to me.
What should/would the SNP do if there's another pro-indy majority after the 2026 Holyrood elections, and a Starmer minority government says no to Indyref2? Do you think the SNP would put forward or support a no confidence motion against Labour in those circumstances? I certainly think the hardliners would want to...
Dunno is the short answer. The hardliners seem to have Albanised, how much influence they'll have in 4+ years is moot. I'm pretty sure they won't have any Westminster representation after another GE, unless Cherry and MacNeil carry the torch forward.
At Suntory (sadly no longer with us) on St.James's you could pay £150 for prawn tempura.
Not that I ever did, mind. I was taken there, though and bonkers isn't the word for the prices and this was a couple of decades ago.
Anyway, TB yes of course he should have (had ages ago) a knighthood and probably more than that.
What on earth did they do? Take you down in a Roller to Essex to choose your prawn before it was seined?
A Russian (v rich, you know the profile type) friend said let's go. To me and a friend. We gulped because it had a reputation for being fiendishly expensive. The menu bore this out. Cheapest set menu which was six pieces of sushi = £87. My friend, thinking oh god, ordered that. I ordered the next one up - some sushi IIRC and some tempura = £147. Expensive but I thought sod it I'll never come here again. No way were these full meals just the very cheapest two things on the menu. My Russian friend ordered food at around £500 and very kindly shared it with us. There was then a tense wait as the bill arrived at which point the Russian friend paused, smiled, and then said - here I'll settle it.
Welsh reported figure (2 days worth) is the equivalent of 478,000 UK Cases.
The extra restrictions are working !
What exactly are the extra restrictions? I know The Drake pops up every so often with some authoritarian nonsense, but I stopped listening to the detail long ago.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
The fear for the SNP there is that he would win a few Scottish SNP seats...
A short lived Labour minority Government (due to very few Scottish seats) seeking a majority could / would be the worst possible outcome for the SNP
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
If we end up with a hung parliament but with Tories having most seats but not enough for a majority even with the DUP, then Starmer would likely end up PM.
However he would find it near impossible to get any legislation on English domestic legislation through as there may still be a majority of Tory MPs in England and the SNP would abstain if Starmer did not give them indyref2 + devomax.
Hardly
Labour loses an English Domestic legislation vote - new election with Labour now having a message to convince SNP voters to vote Labour....
Why SNP voters? They wouldn't dream of interfering in English domestic legislation. No skin off their nose.
This election was created by the SNP not supporting something - vote Labour or look forward to continual elections.
The entire point of the October 74 election was to get a Labour Majority. This would be an almost identical election.
FPT. This kind of meal is standard for certain classes. For your average punter it is astronomical. That's fine when the economy is doing well and folk can aspire to it. It is what people expect. It looks different when heating costs are through the roof and pay isn't keeping up. Looks like troughing and fits with the prevailing narrative I'm afraid.
But it wasn't an average day to day dinner, was it? She was entertaining important diplomatic contacts wasn't she? What is she supposed to do instead? Tell then they can't order two g&ts each?
Well quite. It wasn’t the departmental Friday lunch party, it was a meal for a visiting foreign trade delegation. Of course you’re going to look after them.
If Pizza Express is good enough for our royal family, it is good enough for a bunch of American suits.
"Hitler was the most successful German leader ever."
Discuss.
Ruled most of Western Europe.
But for two avoidable blunders (declaring war on America and Russia) he may have been the greatest strategist since Caesar.
He only "ruled over" Austria and Czechoslovakia for about 18 months before the war. Occupying land during a war "doesn't count" if it's being fought over as part of a major war and you don't keep hold of it at the war's end. As a direct result of Hitler's strategies Germany lost a lot of it's own territory and the country was split in two for the following forty five years.
Anyway, if you are playing German Leader Top Trumps I reckon Bismarck would win over Hitler in most categories.
I'm sure it can be done for £50-70 per head without wine by going for a lunch sitting and specifically picking cheaper menu items but that's not what happens at client meetings. Let's be realistic about how those operate.
Indeed, as I said in my OP, it's perfectly possible to do it by oneself in order to prove a point, but you have to do some or all of the below:
a) choose from the cheapest roster b) eat during deal times c) choose the cheapest, unmatched, wine d) deny yourself several choices that you would otherwise have selected
If you adhere to any of the above, I would contend that there is no point going to a Mich star place, you might as well go somewhere cheaper – and still very good – yet enjoy the run of the menu.
Do something properly, or do something else.
At Chez Bruce (and the sister restaurants) there is only one menu, with 8 or so choices each, for starter and main course and a few less for dessert.
I actually knew one of the owners, slightly, and he said that this was to make life simpler for the chefs and staff, stop people trying to do "I want the set menu plus x" etc....
Yes, my local fancy restaurant has the same system – although it does not (yet) have a star.
It's the principle that Gordon Ramsey among others) has been pushing for years - short, simple menus are cheaper, easier to get the chefs expert in all the dishes and actually are preferred by the diners.
The bit at the start of the meal where everyone is asking "Should we go for the set menu 1, 2, 3, 4.... or order off the main menu or the special menu or the specially special menu or...." , just shortens my life for no added value.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
If we end up with a hung parliament but with Tories having most seats but not enough for a majority even with the DUP, then Starmer would likely end up PM.
However he would find it near impossible to get any legislation on English domestic legislation through as there may still be a majority of Tory MPs in England and the SNP would abstain if Starmer did not give them indyref2 + devomax.
Hardly
Labour loses an English Domestic legislation vote - new election with Labour now having a message to convince SNP voters to vote Labour....
Why SNP voters? They wouldn't dream of interfering in English domestic legislation. No skin off their nose.
This election was created by the SNP not supporting something - vote Labour or look forward to continual elections.
The entire point of the October 74 election was to get a Labour Majority. This would be an almost identical election.
more bollox
And your reasons for calling it bollox? Oh you don't have any because you've pickled your brain.
At Suntory (sadly no longer with us) on St.James's you could pay £150 for prawn tempura.
Not that I ever did, mind. I was taken there, though and bonkers isn't the word for the prices and this was a couple of decades ago.
Anyway, TB yes of course he should have (had ages ago) a knighthood and probably more than that.
What on earth did they do? Take you down in a Roller to Essex to choose your prawn before it was seined?
A Russian (v rich, you know the profile type) friend said let's go. To me and a friend. We gulped because it had a reputation for being fiendishly expensive. The menu bore this out. Cheapest set menu which was six pieces of sushi = £87. My friend, thinking oh god, ordered that. I ordered the next one up - some sushi IIRC and some tempura = £147. Expensive but I thought sod it I'll never come here again. No way were these full meals just the very cheapest two things on the menu. My Russian friend ordered food at around £500 and very kindly shared it with us. There was then a tense wait as the bill arrived at which point the Russian friend paused, smiled, and then said - here I'll settle it.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
If we end up with a hung parliament but with Tories having most seats but not enough for a majority even with the DUP but still more MPs than Labour + LDs + Green, then Starmer would likely end up PM.
However he would find it near impossible to get any legislation on English domestic legislation through as there may still be a majority of Tory MPs in England and the SNP would abstain if Starmer did not give them indyref2 + devomax.
The 1974 experience showed the minority Labour government did suffer a number of Commons defeats and doubtless the same would happen again. But their opinion poll ratings soared and everyone knew that another election would happen very soon.
Starmer's problem, as it was for Wilson, would be if a second election did not give Labour a solid majority. But my guess is that this would be more like 64-66, not Feb-October 1974.
At Suntory (sadly no longer with us) on St.James's you could pay £150 for prawn tempura.
Not that I ever did, mind. I was taken there, though and bonkers isn't the word for the prices and this was a couple of decades ago.
Anyway, TB yes of course he should have (had ages ago) a knighthood and probably more than that.
What on earth did they do? Take you down in a Roller to Essex to choose your prawn before it was seined?
A Russian (v rich, you know the profile type) friend said let's go. To me and a friend. We gulped because it had a reputation for being fiendishly expensive. The menu bore this out. Cheapest set menu which was six pieces of sushi = £87. My friend, thinking oh god, ordered that. I ordered the next one up - some sushi IIRC and some tempura = £147. Expensive but I thought sod it I'll never come here again. No way were these full meals just the very cheapest two things on the menu. My Russian friend ordered food at around £500 and very kindly shared it with us. There was then a tense wait as the bill arrived at which point the Russian friend paused, smiled, and then said - here I'll settle it.
Mega rich friend of mine took me to Kaspar’s at the Savoy for a Xmas lunch about four/five years ago
He dropped £1000+. On lunch. For 2
And the thing is, apart from the oysters and caviar (which are quite hard to get wrong, you just have to serve them) it wasn’t very good. Totally unmemorable
We then jumped in his chauffeured and armoured Bentley, went to the Ivy, where he dropped another £3k buying everyone champagne and martinis and the like
FPT. This kind of meal is standard for certain classes. For your average punter it is astronomical. That's fine when the economy is doing well and folk can aspire to it. It is what people expect. It looks different when heating costs are through the roof and pay isn't keeping up. Looks like troughing and fits with the prevailing narrative I'm afraid.
But it wasn't an average day to day dinner, was it? She was entertaining important diplomatic contacts wasn't she? What is she supposed to do instead? Tell then they can't order two g&ts each?
Well quite. It wasn’t the departmental Friday lunch party, it was a meal for a visiting foreign trade delegation. Of course you’re going to look after them.
If Pizza Express is good enough for our royal family, it is good enough for a bunch of American suits.
As I mentioned below, a few years back the Head of the British Armed forces took SACEUR to Ask, a Pizza Express level chain restaurant.....
On topic, of course Tony Blair should get his knighthood, the same as previous PMs have all been eventually honoured (or offered it). The fact he has had to wait I presume is the equivalent of some time out on the naughty step. Perhaps until now he turned it down, but I doubt it, I think Liz might have said make that man wait.
If Tone had to wait 14 years, Boris could be waiting 40.
On topic, of course Tony Blair should get his knighthood, the same as previous PMs have all been eventually honoured (or offered it). The fact he has had to wait I presume is the equivalent of some time out on the naughty step. Perhaps until now he turned it down, but I doubt it, I think Liz might have said make that horrid man wait.
If Tone had to wait 14 years, Boris could be waiting 40.
I believe the issue was the Duke of Edinburgh - the timing does seem to point to him being the blocker.
At Suntory (sadly no longer with us) on St.James's you could pay £150 for prawn tempura.
Not that I ever did, mind. I was taken there, though and bonkers isn't the word for the prices and this was a couple of decades ago.
Anyway, TB yes of course he should have (had ages ago) a knighthood and probably more than that.
What on earth did they do? Take you down in a Roller to Essex to choose your prawn before it was seined?
A Russian (v rich, you know the profile type) friend said let's go. To me and a friend. We gulped because it had a reputation for being fiendishly expensive. The menu bore this out. Cheapest set menu which was six pieces of sushi = £87. My friend, thinking oh god, ordered that. I ordered the next one up - some sushi IIRC and some tempura = £147. Expensive but I thought sod it I'll never come here again. No way were these full meals just the very cheapest two things on the menu. My Russian friend ordered food at around £500 and very kindly shared it with us. There was then a tense wait as the bill arrived at which point the Russian friend paused, smiled, and then said - here I'll settle it.
Mega rich friend of mine took me to Kaspar’s at the Savoy for a Xmas lunch about four/five years ago
He dropped £1000+. On lunch. For 2
And the thing is, apart from the oysters and caviar (which are quite hard to get wrong, you just have to serve them) it wasn’t very good. Totally unmemorable
We then jumped in his chauffeured and armoured Bentley, went to the Ivy, where he dropped another £3k buying everyone champagne and martinis and the like
Unfortunately (for me) he’s now completely sober
The Ivy is now like Pattiserie Valerie. They have diluted the sh&t out of an original and stuck it everywhere. No idea if the food is any good. Or whether the relocated "original" is still special.
On topic, of course Tony Blair should get his knighthood, the same as previous PMs have all been eventually honoured (or offered it). The fact he has had to wait I presume is the equivalent of some time out on the naughty step. Perhaps until now he turned it down, but I doubt it, I think Liz might have said make that horrid man wait.
If Tone had to wait 14 years, Boris could be waiting 40.
I believe the issue was the Duke of Edinburgh - the timing does seem to point to him being the blocker.
At Suntory (sadly no longer with us) on St.James's you could pay £150 for prawn tempura.
Not that I ever did, mind. I was taken there, though and bonkers isn't the word for the prices and this was a couple of decades ago.
Anyway, TB yes of course he should have (had ages ago) a knighthood and probably more than that.
What on earth did they do? Take you down in a Roller to Essex to choose your prawn before it was seined?
A Russian (v rich, you know the profile type) friend said let's go. To me and a friend. We gulped because it had a reputation for being fiendishly expensive. The menu bore this out. Cheapest set menu which was six pieces of sushi = £87. My friend, thinking oh god, ordered that. I ordered the next one up - some sushi IIRC and some tempura = £147. Expensive but I thought sod it I'll never come here again. No way were these full meals just the very cheapest two things on the menu. My Russian friend ordered food at around £500 and very kindly shared it with us. There was then a tense wait as the bill arrived at which point the Russian friend paused, smiled, and then said - here I'll settle it.
Mega rich friend of mine took me to Kaspar’s at the Savoy for a Xmas lunch about four/five years ago
He dropped £1000+. On lunch. For 2
And the thing is, apart from the oysters and caviar (which are quite hard to get wrong, you just have to serve them) it wasn’t very good. Totally unmemorable
We then jumped in his chauffeured and armoured Bentley, went to the Ivy, where he dropped another £3k buying everyone champagne and martinis and the like
Unfortunately (for me) he’s now completely sober
The Ivy is now like Pattiserie Valerie. They have diluted the sh&t out of an original and stuck it everywhere. No idea if the food is any good. Or whether the relocated "original" is still special.
The Ivy was the classic of build a brand, then flog it and run like hell with the money.
The various branches of it are okish mid range places, but somewhat overpriced. Unsurprisingly.
I believe Keir Starmer. If the Tories are not able to form a Government (ie they have fewer than, say, 305-10 seats), then Starmer will become PM. He needs no deals with the SNP in particular (he might certainly reach some sort of accommodation with the LibDems).
Are the Nats really going to vote with the opposition Tories to bring down his new administration and risk a second immediate election (the FTPA will have been repealed by then) at which they will be pilloried? I don't think so.
The nearest equivalent is February 1974, when it was the Conservatives, terrified of another election, who abstained and let Harold Wilson form a minority administration.
I imagine that is what will happen again. So Starmer governs for several months - no deals with anyone - and goes to the country a few months later to secure a majority. Which he will likely obtain.
Which sort of Lab policies do you think the SNP might oppose? Lovely, progressive cuddly owls for everyone, or gulags for scroungers and red, white & blue flag waving to show Johnny EU that SKS is as tough as BJ.
Dunno. You're a Nat - you tell us. All I'm saying is that Starmer will not need to do any deals with the SNP (contrary to the view by several here that he will be compelled to reach an accommodation which might include a second independence referendum).
If we end up with a hung parliament but with Tories having most seats but not enough for a majority even with the DUP but still more MPs than Labour + LDs + Green, then Starmer would likely end up PM.
However he would find it near impossible to get any legislation on English domestic legislation through as there may still be a majority of Tory MPs in England and the SNP would abstain if Starmer did not give them indyref2 + devomax.
The 1974 experience showed the minority Labour government did suffer a number of Commons defeats and doubtless the same would happen again. But their opinion poll ratings soared and everyone knew that another election would happen very soon.
Starmer's problem, as it was for Wilson, would be if a second election did not give Labour a solid majority. But my guess is that this would be more like 64-66, not Feb-October 1974.
I would not be so sure, if the Tories had a majority in England but there was no Tory majority UK wide, as was the case in 1964 and February 1974 then there would be little change in Scotland. Why would SNP voters care as Carnyx correctly states, if Starmer cannot get votes on English laws through given they have an SNP FM and UK Labour PM anyway but Starmer refuses to give them indyref2?
The most Starmer could hope for is to make enough gains for a majority in England too, which as you correctly state Wilson finally got in 1966.
I thought we'd all agreed that it wasn't a hugely expensive lunch?
Only to the hooray Tories on here, to any normal person it is a fortune to be swilling at lunch time just to benefit a donor. Another £5 off UC Rishi please , we need better lunches
Yeah, it's one of those ones where I think it depends on how wealthy you are. I've never spent that much per person on a meal and I imagine the same is true for most of the country.
I think it’s more people who are familiar with London prices vs not
I lived in London for 5 years. There are Michelin star restaurants that cost less than £140 a head. You're a bit out of touch on this one.
Inclusive of wine? Which ones? Would love to go!
Realistically in a nice but not upscale restaurant you can get a veggie MWI course for £20, with fish & meat at around £25. Once you add a side dish then you are likely to be a £30+. Add in a starter or main you are probably at £40-45 for food with an additional £2-3 for half a bottle of water. Let’s say £50-60 including a tip.
That’s before wine and/or dessert.
Prices may be ludicrous but that’s what they are. And this is not dining at the Ritz or anywhere like that.
Indeed. I notice that @rkrkrk claims he knows several Michelin starred restaurants in central London where one can dine for less than £140 per head. Can he list them? Note that the price must include three courses and wine, and not be subject to daft special offers like you have to have a fixed menu at 6pm on a Monday night.
I'm not saying he is wrong but I've lived here for more than two decades and can't think of any that are much below that. I got close in Hakkasan once, but it was still a bust.
All fall foul of the restricted menu trap – you can't take clients out for lunch and insist that they only order from the bargain basement menu. See my original criteria!
I said you can eat out at a Michelin star restaurant for less than £140 per head. That's obviously true. Now apparently, and I'm not sure why I don't let this go, I need to respond to your criteria. Obviously you could spend £500 on a bottle of wine wherever you go.
"Hitler was the most successful German leader ever."
Discuss.
Hmmm. Hitler -
1) Killed Hitler 2) Implemented policies that resulted in the complete destruction of Fascism in Germany. And most of the rest of the world.
3) successfully shifted the focus of the next generation of Germans' energy from militarism to economic performance, thus making Germany the powerhouse and political leader of Europe. {he was clearly playing the long game, sacrificing his personal image for the good of the German people 50 years hence)
At Suntory (sadly no longer with us) on St.James's you could pay £150 for prawn tempura.
Not that I ever did, mind. I was taken there, though and bonkers isn't the word for the prices and this was a couple of decades ago.
Anyway, TB yes of course he should have (had ages ago) a knighthood and probably more than that.
What on earth did they do? Take you down in a Roller to Essex to choose your prawn before it was seined?
A Russian (v rich, you know the profile type) friend said let's go. To me and a friend. We gulped because it had a reputation for being fiendishly expensive. The menu bore this out. Cheapest set menu which was six pieces of sushi = £87. My friend, thinking oh god, ordered that. I ordered the next one up - some sushi IIRC and some tempura = £147. Expensive but I thought sod it I'll never come here again. No way were these full meals just the very cheapest two things on the menu. My Russian friend ordered food at around £500 and very kindly shared it with us. There was then a tense wait as the bill arrived at which point the Russian friend paused, smiled, and then said - here I'll settle it.
Mega rich friend of mine took me to Kaspar’s at the Savoy for a Xmas lunch about four/five years ago
He dropped £1000+. On lunch. For 2
And the thing is, apart from the oysters and caviar (which are quite hard to get wrong, you just have to serve them) it wasn’t very good. Totally unmemorable
We then jumped in his chauffeured and armoured Bentley, went to the Ivy, where he dropped another £3k buying everyone champagne and martinis and the like
Unfortunately (for me) he’s now completely sober
The Ivy is now like Pattiserie Valerie. They have diluted the sh&t out of an original and stuck it everywhere. No idea if the food is any good. Or whether the relocated "original" is still special.
The Ivy was the classic of build a brand, then flog it and run like hell with the money.
The various branches of it are okish mid range places, but somewhat overpriced. Unsurprisingly.
I still mourn Le Caprice but perhaps it's best that there isn't a Caprice on every street just by the Pret. Then again don't give Caring ideas....
At Suntory (sadly no longer with us) on St.James's you could pay £150 for prawn tempura.
Not that I ever did, mind. I was taken there, though and bonkers isn't the word for the prices and this was a couple of decades ago.
Anyway, TB yes of course he should have (had ages ago) a knighthood and probably more than that.
What on earth did they do? Take you down in a Roller to Essex to choose your prawn before it was seined?
A Russian (v rich, you know the profile type) friend said let's go. To me and a friend. We gulped because it had a reputation for being fiendishly expensive. The menu bore this out. Cheapest set menu which was six pieces of sushi = £87. My friend, thinking oh god, ordered that. I ordered the next one up - some sushi IIRC and some tempura = £147. Expensive but I thought sod it I'll never come here again. No way were these full meals just the very cheapest two things on the menu. My Russian friend ordered food at around £500 and very kindly shared it with us. There was then a tense wait as the bill arrived at which point the Russian friend paused, smiled, and then said - here I'll settle it.
Mega rich friend of mine took me to Kaspar’s at the Savoy for a Xmas lunch about four/five years ago
He dropped £1000+. On lunch. For 2
And the thing is, apart from the oysters and caviar (which are quite hard to get wrong, you just have to serve them) it wasn’t very good. Totally unmemorable
We then jumped in his chauffeured and armoured Bentley, went to the Ivy, where he dropped another £3k buying everyone champagne and martinis and the like
Unfortunately (for me) he’s now completely sober
The Ivy is now like Pattiserie Valerie. They have diluted the sh&t out of an original and stuck it everywhere. No idea if the food is any good. Or whether the relocated "original" is still special.
The original hasn't been relocated AFAIK – last time I visited it was still on West Street, WC2, where it has always been?
I like the Ivy diaspora (within London) for entertaining as they have a full-strength vegetarian menu (rather than a few choices) and 99% of the time at least one of my clients is veggie.
Comments
It would have been quite justifiable IMHO, to take a visiting American trade delegation to a Premier League match, to show them one of our largest cultural exports up close.
Why, by presenting a superb Safeguarding Policy document for inspection, of course.
Source:https://www.squaremeal.co.uk/restaurants/best-for/cheapest-michelin-starred-restaurants-london_9943
He lead the country for X years - that is by itself reason enough.
So it strikes me that one can entertain pretty well for a lot less than many of the affluent on here are suggesting. But only if you're not a wine snob, I guess.
we are a year or so away from needing policies to be revealed.
Discuss.
*well, I paid to have it done
Using actual outcomes as a metric is rude or something.
Deal pricing – very limited choice.
Therefore doesn't qualify.
Next!
1) Killed Hitler
2) Implemented policies that resulted in the complete destruction of Fascism in Germany. And most of the rest of the world.
But for two avoidable blunders (declaring war on America and Russia) he may have been the greatest strategist since Caesar.
A short lived Labour minority Government (due to very few Scottish seats) seeking a majority could / would be the worst possible outcome for the SNP
Just ignore all the rape.
a) choose from the cheapest roster
b) eat during deal times
c) choose the cheapest, unmatched, wine
d) deny yourself several choices that you would otherwise have selected
If you adhere to any of the above, I would contend that there is no point going to a Mich star place, you might as well go somewhere cheaper – and still very good – yet enjoy the run of the menu.
Do something properly, or do something else.
Edit to add - not seen them for a while but that's because I no longer work at the firms where I used to get them..
This is why the German General Staff really started to lick his boots (plus the massive bribes, of course) - he had wiped out their fuckups in the Great War....
And if this amazing pro-Boris swing among Cockneys and Jocks is due to fewer restrictions in England, why isn’t the Welsh Labour vote collapsing?
PB myth and PB reality are two different things.
However he would find it near impossible to get any legislation on English domestic legislation through as there may still be a majority of Tory MPs in England and the SNP would abstain if Starmer did not give them indyref2 + devomax.
Labour loses an English Domestic legislation vote - new election with Labour now having a message to convince SNP voters to vote Labour....
I actually knew one of the owners, slightly, and he said that this was to make life simpler for the chefs and staff, stop people trying to do "I want the set menu plus x" etc....
Edited extra bit: for the avoidance of doubt, I am not citing this as evidence of being a good leader...
At Suntory (sadly no longer with us) on St.James's you could pay £150 for prawn tempura.
Not that I ever did, mind. I was taken there, though and bonkers isn't the word for the prices and this was a couple of decades ago.
Anyway, TB yes of course he should have (had ages ago) a knighthood and probably more than that.
The entire point of the October 74 election was to get a Labour Majority. This would be an almost identical election.
The hardliners seem to have Albanised, how much influence they'll have in 4+ years is moot. I'm pretty sure they won't have any Westminster representation after another GE, unless Cherry and MacNeil carry the torch forward.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59867536
With Delta still around and a lot of unvaxxed, could be a troubling winter there
Anyway, if you are playing German Leader Top Trumps I reckon Bismarck would win over Hitler in most categories.
Harry and Paul - Panel Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCbD6MZqQWM&t=1s
The bit at the start of the meal where everyone is asking "Should we go for the set menu 1, 2, 3, 4.... or order off the main menu or the special menu or the specially special menu or...." , just shortens my life for no added value.
Starmer's problem, as it was for Wilson, would be if a second election did not give Labour a solid majority. But my guess is that this would be more like 64-66, not Feb-October 1974.
He dropped £1000+. On lunch. For 2
And the thing is, apart from the oysters and caviar (which are quite hard to get wrong, you just have to serve them) it wasn’t very good. Totally unmemorable
We then jumped in his chauffeured and armoured Bentley, went to the Ivy, where he dropped another £3k buying everyone champagne and martinis and the like
Unfortunately (for me) he’s now completely sober
If Tone had to wait 14 years, Boris could be waiting 40.
The various branches of it are okish mid range places, but somewhat overpriced. Unsurprisingly.
The most Starmer could hope for is to make enough gains for a majority in England too, which as you correctly state Wilson finally got in 1966.
Now apparently, and I'm not sure why I don't let this go, I need to respond to your criteria. Obviously you could spend £500 on a bottle of wine wherever you go.
Well even by your new criteria you are wrong.
https://www.muranolondon.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/A-La-Carte-Menu-01.12.pdf
A la carte any 3 courses = £80. Mayfair.
https://galvinrestaurants.com/restaurant/galvin-la-chapelle-the-city-michelin-star/
most expensive starter, main, dessert + 15% tip = £100. Spitalfields.
https://www.trishnalondon.com/menus/?mainsite=yes
Most expensive main is £26.50. Tricky to work out what sides etc. you'd order with Indian food, but doubt you'll get to £100. Marylebone.
https://www.kitchenw8.com/wp-content/uploads/ALC-Menu-31.12.21.pdf
Most expensive of starter, main, dessert + 15% tip <£75. Kensington.
I like the Ivy diaspora (within London) for entertaining as they have a full-strength vegetarian menu (rather than a few choices) and 99% of the time at least one of my clients is veggie.