So am at my mum’s and I found a charity cookbook she co-edited in 1989 (in aid of the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford). Most of the contributors were local but they also approached some distinguished figures of the time and… well, here is haute cuisine a la Ken Clarke.
And, in something of a coup, courgettes a la Maggie.
The book - ‘Friendly Food’ - is now out of print. But it’s a reminder of how late the culinary revolution came to the country - and indeed how long the spirit of deference lingered…
Another coup - a recipe from one of the Royals
Gravlax from Blenheim
The Speaker’s nut roast - I love his explanation for being vegetarian…
Beans on toast and an egg cocktail from Tony Baldry - the ‘salmonella-free!’ is a lovely period detail…
Raymond Blanc went a bit OTT for the target market, but as my mum says they couldn’t exactly turn him down…
And a contribution from a Mr Richard Stein of Padstow
Mrs Archbishop
And a few other highlights to finish
I should stress - the bulk of this is useful local recipes. But I found it a fascinating insight into how quickly tastes and attitudes have changed - and am pretty impressed with my mum for pulling it together.
Have written my column on one of the most interesting political essays I've ever read, because it argues that essentially everything modern British politicians think about political and economic strategy is completely wrong. (1/?)
The full thing doesn't seem to be available online, but its core argument over 35 pages is, essentially, that voters are not idiots - that if you do tough, necessary stuff and explain it, you will end up in a better place than via relentless short-term pandering.
Douglas - Labour finance minister in NZ in the 1980s - basically out-Thatchered Thatcher. He argues that the stuff voters ended up hating was always where the govt chickened out - and that sweeping action is actually safer than small steps, because it outflanks vested interests.
Striking findings from @NatCen on migration. View that it is a cultural/economic negative has risen sharply post-Boriswave, but overall levels still not as negative as pre-Brexit. But there has also been huge polarisation... (1/3)
As @Sirjohncurtice says (this is screenshot from Zoom), those on right are even more -ve about migration than previously - but those on left still think it's broadly a good thing.
@Sirjohncurtice Obviously overall all the polling shows people think migration has been way too high - and as @Dominic2306 says don't even realise how high it's been - but what is new is this wide and widening gap b/t left on right on whether migration is a good thing full stop.
Last week, the price of natural gas dipped below 72p/therm. It was a significant moment. Why? Because according to Ed Miliband's maths, it's impossible. (1/?)
Ed has said, again and again, that swapping gas for wind is not just greener but cheaper. It's at the heart of his promise to lower bills. But as I argue in @thetimes today, it's built on a lie.
When Ed came to power, he commissioned NESO to show that his plans would save money. He claimed the resulting report proved it. It didn't.
A friend points out a £1bn problem with the Budget measures on employee ownership trusts. It's a bad idea anyway - employee share ownership is good! - but it's made worse by a very basic error in the way they've structured it. (1/?)
Under an EOT, a founder sells all or some of their shares to a trust, which passes them on to the workers. They pay no tax on the sale. But they don't get the money straight off - the new trust pays for the shares *from the profits in future years*.
Under the new plan, the govt will restrict the tax relief to half of the shares handed over, meaning the rest will be liable to CGT - so working out to 12% of the value. But it will charge that CGT *straight away*.
On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves is going to stand up and lie to the public. She's not unique. Every Chancellor does. That's because, as a new @CPSThinkTank report shows, our Budget system is fundamentally broken. (1/?)
Every Chancellor claims they'll balance the books by the end of 'the forecast period' or 'the economic cycle'. Every Chancellor, at every Budget, meets their fiscal rules. And yet the debt grows and grows. What's happening?
As I pointed out in my column yesterday, there are all sorts of problems with our five-year forecasts - in the words of Simon Case to @ShippersUnbound, you're trying to land a jumbo jet on a postage stamp. Here for example are OBR predictions vs eventual reality.
As the country prepares for Budget-geddon, there is one precedent that the govt is desperately clinging on to: 2002, when a Labour government raised income taxes - and shot up in the polls. How did they do it? (1/?)
In 2002, Gordon Brown raised NI by 1p to fund a historic expansion in NHS spending - in pursuit of Tony Blair's (impromptu) commitment to match European health spending. It was, as the then health secretary said, 'overwhelmingly popular'.
Today, things are v different. But polling by @SteveAkehurst suggests that voters in general - and Labour 2024 voters in particular - might be happier about the govt getting waiting lists down than they would be angry about taxes going up, esp if those taxes are on 'the rich'.