Rachel will be in heaven. She's finished her speech, and the PB commentariat are signalling more indifference than "resign now" fury. Such commentary as there is is pretty evenly balanced.
Because no full detail has yet been released or looked at. How its viewed by lunchtime tomorrow will be more instructive
Review of Green Book: "No region will have Green Book guidance wielded against it" - that ... could be significant. Interesting and needs digging into.
A general degree of common sense; nothing magical. Of course the devil will be in the implementation.
"..Place-based business cases will make sure that the government properly assesses the complementarities between different projects, such as housing and transport..."
"..HM Treasury will commission an independent review of the Green Book discount rate to make sure that the government is taking a fair view of the long- term benefits that arise from transformational investments.."
"It will make clear that the Green Book does not endorse the use of arbitrary ‘BCR thresholds’. It will outline that a BCR of less than one does not automatically constitute poor value for money. HM Treasury does not simply rank different projects, with different objectives, by their BCRs as a means of allocating funding.."
"HM Treasury will radically simplify and shorten the Green Book and the accompanying business case guides, publishing an updated Green Book at the start of 2026. HM Treasury will make clear the level of detail that is proportionate for business cases of different levels of cost and complexity.."
"HM Treasury and the Welsh Government will reform the Better Business Cases training programme. The NWF is expanding its role to provide early-stage development support to local and regional government.."
"The government will publish business cases for major projects and programmes. This will ensure transparency of decision making, including the geographical distribution of projects.."
Rachel will be in heaven. She's finished her speech, and the PB commentariat are signalling more indifference than "resign now" fury. Such commentary as there is is pretty evenly balanced.
I'm certainly not indifferent! Both positives and negatives here. But given I am generally pretty negative on Rachel, well above par. Her presentation is awful and alienating, but on content there are positive elements (and negatives too, natch).
"It will make clear that the Green Book does not endorse the use of arbitrary ‘BCR thresholds’. It will outline that a BCR of less than one does not automatically constitute poor value for money".
In fact, that's exactly what a BCR of less than one indicates.
"HM Treasury does not simply rank different projects, with different objectives, by their BCRs as a means of allocating funding.."
In other words, the government will prioritise shovellling money towards politically favoured projects that make no economic sense.
Of course they do this already - see the disaster of HS2, or virtually all regional policy - but at least she's being more explicit about it I suppose.
In fact, in trying to prioritise political support over economic growth, she'll do it so incompetently that she'll probably end up with neither.
Rachel will be in heaven. She's finished her speech, and the PB commentariat are signalling more indifference than "resign now" fury. Such commentary as there is is pretty evenly balanced.
Because no full detail has yet been released or looked at. How its viewed by lunchtime tomorrow will be more instructive
I know. But I was just talking about the speech itself, which in Rachel's case often suffices to send some PBers over the edge. It doesn't appear to have done so on this occasion.
It's a political imperative, I think. Without noticeable improvements in the NHS a second term is unlikely.
The NHS is the real black hole in the budget, sucking in everything in its path and nothing ever escaping.
The only department not to have had any austerity, the only department to have had increases every single year, the entire country shutting down to 'protect' it, but still that's not 'enough', is it?
When do we ever say enough is enough?
When the public stop having it as their number one priority, I guess.
UK health spending is not out of line with other wealthy western democracies. If anything slightly on the low side. Though how effective the system is by comparison may be different.
Rachel will be in heaven. She's finished her speech, and the PB commentariat are signalling more indifference than "resign now" fury. Such commentary as there is is pretty evenly balanced.
And most of the negativity is about her voice. So if she can work on that, deliver her next budget sounding like Joanna Lumley, she'll be untouchable.
Rachel will be in heaven. She's finished her speech, and the PB commentariat are signalling more indifference than "resign now" fury. Such commentary as there is is pretty evenly balanced.
Because no full detail has yet been released or looked at. How its viewed by lunchtime tomorrow will be more instructive
I know. But I was just talking about the speech itself, which in Rachel's case often suffices to send some PBers over the edge. It doesn't appear to have done so on this occasion.
Yeah, much less tasty than a budget, there's no big ticket things to get exercised over
Rachel will be in heaven. She's finished her speech, and the PB commentariat are signalling more indifference than "resign now" fury. Such commentary as there is is pretty evenly balanced.
I would caution that the statement will take time to be assessed
Let's see where this pans out over the next few days
I remember when some Russian pranksters phoned up Ben Wallace to jokily demand more javelins for Ukraine and he responded that he couldn’t because we'd 'run out of our own'. Turns out those were halcyon days of someone actually giving half a shit.
It's a political imperative, I think. Without noticeable improvements in the NHS a second term is unlikely.
The NHS is the real black hole in the budget, sucking in everything in its path and nothing ever escaping.
The only department not to have had any austerity, the only department to have had increases every single year, the entire country shutting down to 'protect' it, but still that's not 'enough', is it?
When do we ever say enough is enough?
When the public stop having it as their number one priority, I guess.
UK health spending is not out of line with other wealthy western democracies. If anything slightly on the low side. Though how effective the system is by comparison may be different.
Indeed. And it is important, let's face it.
"So long as you've got your health" ... there's a reason for that old saying.
No way those spending plans for the non-core departments are sustainable for a Labour Gvt that wants to dodge the word “austerity”. Especially if we think NATO will force us to go further and faster on defence.
I would just suggest that with all this capital spending over the next 10 years then the benefits may actually be realised in the next parliament which may well not feature a Labour government
Rachel will be in heaven. She's finished her speech, and the PB commentariat are signalling more indifference than "resign now" fury. Such commentary as there is is pretty evenly balanced.
And most of the negativity is about her voice. So if she can work on that, deliver her next budget sounding like Joanna Lumley, she'll be untouchable.
Absolutely Fabulous! Or the New Avenger. I like it.
Average Annual Real Growth in Dept Spending Limits 2025/26-2028/29
Health +2.7% Education 0.8% Home Office -1.4% Defence 3.8% FCO -8.3% MHCLG -0.6 Culture, Media, Sport -1.4% Transport (ex-HS2) 0.5% HS2 - 9.3% Energy (ex Sizewell) 2.7% Work/Pensions -0.2%
"It will make clear that the Green Book does not endorse the use of arbitrary ‘BCR thresholds’. It will outline that a BCR of less than one does not automatically constitute poor value for money".
In fact, that's exactly what a BCR of less than one indicates.
"HM Treasury does not simply rank different projects, with different objectives, by their BCRs as a means of allocating funding.."
In other words, the government will prioritise shovellling money towards politically favoured projects that make no economic sense.
Of course they do this already - see the disaster of HS2, or virtually all regional policy - but at least she's being more explicit about it I suppose.
In fact, in trying to prioritise political support over economic growth, she'll do it so incompetently that she'll probably end up with neither.
That's incoherent - the BCR on HS2 was decent (over 2) and plenty of economists think that was far too pessimistic. Just look at the passenger numbers and business impact of Crossrail.
The problem with BCR is it steered lots of investment to the SE because spreadsheet wankers like me find it difficult to look past the opportunity cost of not chucking all our money at London. That's great for economic growth, but the gap with the rest of the country widens as a result.
I'm not sure what the change is but an adjusted BCR that takes account of different median real wages would be my preference. An extra weighting for the NE of England in particular.
It's a political imperative, I think. Without noticeable improvements in the NHS a second term is unlikely.
The NHS is the real black hole in the budget, sucking in everything in its path and nothing ever escaping.
The only department not to have had any austerity, the only department to have had increases every single year, the entire country shutting down to 'protect' it, but still that's not 'enough', is it?
When do we ever say enough is enough?
When the public stop having it as their number one priority, I guess.
UK health spending is not out of line with other wealthy western democracies. If anything slightly on the low side. Though how effective the system is by comparison may be different.
Quite - particularly when you take into account how grotesquely unhealthy we are.
But that's the issue - it's a brilliant life support system, not a health service.
I would just suggest that with all this capital spending over the next 10 years then the benefits may actually be realised in the next parliament which may well not feature a Labour government
And we should applaud that (while adjusting our bets...)
Rachel will be in heaven. She's finished her speech, and the PB commentariat are signalling more indifference than "resign now" fury. Such commentary as there is is pretty evenly balanced.
And most of the negativity is about her voice. So if she can work on that, deliver her next budget sounding like Joanna Lumley, she'll be untouchable.
Absolutely Fabulous! Or the New Avenger. I like it.
I remember when some Russian pranksters phoned up Ben Wallace to jokily demand more javelins for Ukraine and he responded that he couldn’t because we'd 'run out of our own'. Turns out those were halcyon days of someone actually giving half a shit.
That's precisely what they are for - smashing our enemies to bits.
It's a political imperative, I think. Without noticeable improvements in the NHS a second term is unlikely.
The NHS is the real black hole in the budget, sucking in everything in its path and nothing ever escaping.
The only department not to have had any austerity, the only department to have had increases every single year, the entire country shutting down to 'protect' it, but still that's not 'enough', is it?
When do we ever say enough is enough?
When the public stop having it as their number one priority, I guess.
Or stop growing older...
I suspect that if you adjusted that spending to the changes in the demographic age pyramid then it may well not be a real terms increase at all. The big users of the NHS are the over 65s, with the over 75s even greater still.
Rachel will be in heaven. She's finished her speech, and the PB commentariat are signalling more indifference than "resign now" fury. Such commentary as there is is pretty evenly balanced.
And most of the negativity is about her voice. So if she can work on that, deliver her next budget sounding like Joanna Lumley, she'll be untouchable.
Absolutely Fabulous! Or the New Avenger. I like it.
Rachel will be in heaven. She's finished her speech, and the PB commentariat are signalling more indifference than "resign now" fury. Such commentary as there is is pretty evenly balanced.
And most of the negativity is about her voice. So if she can work on that, deliver her next budget sounding like Joanna Lumley, she'll be untouchable.
It's a political imperative, I think. Without noticeable improvements in the NHS a second term is unlikely.
The NHS is the real black hole in the budget, sucking in everything in its path and nothing ever escaping.
The only department not to have had any austerity, the only department to have had increases every single year, the entire country shutting down to 'protect' it, but still that's not 'enough', is it?
When do we ever say enough is enough?
When the public stop having it as their number one priority, I guess.
OUR DEAL WITH CHINA IS DONE, SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL WITH PRESIDENT XI AND ME. FULL MAGNETS, AND ANY NECESSARY RARE EARTHS, WILL BE SUPPLIED, UP FRONT, BY CHINA. LIKEWISE, WE WILL PROVIDE TO CHINA WHAT WAS AGREED TO, INCLUDING CHINESE STUDENTS USING OUR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN GOOD WITH ME!). WE ARE GETTING A TOTAL OF 55% TARIFFS, CHINA IS GETTING 10%. RELATIONSHIP IS EXCELLENT! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
I remember when some Russian pranksters phoned up Ben Wallace to jokily demand more javelins for Ukraine and he responded that he couldn’t because we'd 'run out of our own'. Turns out those were halcyon days of someone actually giving half a shit.
Handing over weapons we're not using to kill our enemies and support our allies isn't being a "traitor", its smart.
I remember when some Russian pranksters phoned up Ben Wallace to jokily demand more javelins for Ukraine and he responded that he couldn’t because we'd 'run out of our own'. Turns out those were halcyon days of someone actually giving half a shit.
The number of restaurants in Poland recommended by Michelin has risen by 40% this year, with the city of Wrocław included in its prestigious guide for the first time.
I would just suggest that with all this capital spending over the next 10 years then the benefits may actually be realised in the next parliament which may well not feature a Labour government
If we actually get some capital spending, then yes, we should applaud that.
Though a lot seemed to be reannouncements of previously announced money. Actual spades in the ground needs to be a different matter.
I remember when some Russian pranksters phoned up Ben Wallace to jokily demand more javelins for Ukraine and he responded that he couldn’t because we'd 'run out of our own'. Turns out those were halcyon days of someone actually giving half a shit.
Handing over weapons we're not using to kill our enemies and support our allies isn't being a "traitor", its smart.
"It will make clear that the Green Book does not endorse the use of arbitrary ‘BCR thresholds’. It will outline that a BCR of less than one does not automatically constitute poor value for money".
In fact, that's exactly what a BCR of less than one indicates.
"HM Treasury does not simply rank different projects, with different objectives, by their BCRs as a means of allocating funding.."
In other words, the government will prioritise shovellling money towards politically favoured projects that make no economic sense.
Of course they do this already - see the disaster of HS2, or virtually all regional policy - but at least she's being more explicit about it I suppose.
In fact, in trying to prioritise political support over economic growth, she'll do it so incompetently that she'll probably end up with neither.
There's a bit more to it than that. Green Book rules are quite prescriptive on what benefits can be included in a BCR. Take HS2 - the explicit purpose of it is to provide more capacity and to bring about regeneration benefits - yet the former cannot be included at all in the benefits (because it is hard to quantify) and the latter hardly features because of Green Book rules. So the benefits end up being time saved*value of time*number of trips, for which there is a recognised approach. But it hardly scratches the surface of what the true benefits are.
I agree that we should not be doing something for which the costs exceed the benefits. But a BCR almost never considers the full range of benefits (particularly for rail schemes.)
TLDR: "The BCr" <> "a full assessment of costs and benefits." It's a blunt guide, nothing more.
Lol Rachel timed the speech well, just had a gander at the US 10 yr and it's dropped about 0.05% as well with their good cpi figures so that's probably why ours dropped too.
I would just suggest that with all this capital spending over the next 10 years then the benefits may actually be realised in the next parliament which may well not feature a Labour government
A case of 'country over party' then. What everyone says they want.
Rachel will be in heaven. She's finished her speech, and the PB commentariat are signalling more indifference than "resign now" fury. Such commentary as there is is pretty evenly balanced.
And most of the negativity is about her voice. So if she can work on that, deliver her next budget sounding like Joanna Lumley, she'll be untouchable.
No, she wouldn't.
Oh come on. If she could deliver a budget in Joanna Lumley's voice she could say we're going to spend 100% of our budget in Wick and we'd happily nod along.
I would just suggest that with all this capital spending over the next 10 years then the benefits may actually be realised in the next parliament which may well not feature a Labour government
If we actually get some capital spending, then yes, we should applaud that.
Though a lot seemed to be reannouncements of previously announced money. Actual spades in the ground needs to be a different matter.
It is a stronger prioritisation of capital (as opposed to revenue) spending than we've seen for some time.
"It will make clear that the Green Book does not endorse the use of arbitrary ‘BCR thresholds’. It will outline that a BCR of less than one does not automatically constitute poor value for money".
In fact, that's exactly what a BCR of less than one indicates.
"HM Treasury does not simply rank different projects, with different objectives, by their BCRs as a means of allocating funding.."
In other words, the government will prioritise shovellling money towards politically favoured projects that make no economic sense.
Of course they do this already - see the disaster of HS2, or virtually all regional policy - but at least she's being more explicit about it I suppose.
In fact, in trying to prioritise political support over economic growth, she'll do it so incompetently that she'll probably end up with neither.
There's a bit more to it than that. Green Book rules are quite prescriptive on what benefits can be included in a BCR. Take HS2 - the explicit purpose of it is to provide more capacity and to bring about regeneration benefits - yet the former cannot be included at all in the benefits (because it is hard to quantify) and the latter hardly features because of Green Book rules. So the benefits end up being time saved*value of time*number of trips, for which there is a recognised approach. But it hardly scratches the surface of what the true benefits are.
I agree that we should not be doing something for which the costs exceed the benefits. But a BCR almost never considers the full range of benefits (particularly for rail schemes.)
TLDR: "The BCr" <> "a full assessment of costs and benefits." It's a blunt guide, nothing more.
Which, reading the treasury paper in full, is the thrust of their changes. As noted, what will count is the execution of what are pretty general principles - but they make a lot more sense than the existing straightjacket.
It's a political imperative, I think. Without noticeable improvements in the NHS a second term is unlikely.
The NHS is the real black hole in the budget, sucking in everything in its path and nothing ever escaping.
The only department not to have had any austerity, the only department to have had increases every single year, the entire country shutting down to 'protect' it, but still that's not 'enough', is it?
When do we ever say enough is enough?
When the public stop having it as their number one priority, I guess.
Or stop growing older...
I suspect that if you adjusted that spending to the changes in the demographic age pyramid then it may well not be a real terms increase at all. The big users of the NHS are the over 65s, with the over 75s even greater still.
In terms of demand we have to run to stand still.
Googling that point brought up an IFS study from last year:
Every time Banksy does some graffiti, it’s a major boost to the GDP.
1) I don't think Banksy is typical. 2) Banksy is a vandal with the wit and insight of a smug 14year old, and if he attempted his shit on my wall it would get swiftly painted over and if I caught him at it he'd get a good kicking.
Surely you'd take the money, flog it to someone and run?
That would be stupid.
What you do is setup an NFT, crypto currency, AI, novel space launch, novel physics company using the Banksy as the basis.
Then sell meme coin based on that. From an no-tax-liability locality.
Rachel will be in heaven. She's finished her speech, and the PB commentariat are signalling more indifference than "resign now" fury. Such commentary as there is is pretty evenly balanced.
And most of the negativity is about her voice. So if she can work on that, deliver her next budget sounding like Joanna Lumley, she'll be untouchable.
No, she wouldn't.
Oh come on. If she could deliver a budget in Joanna Lumley's voice she could say we're going to spend 100% of our budget in Wick and we'd happily nod along.
I remember when some Russian pranksters phoned up Ben Wallace to jokily demand more javelins for Ukraine and he responded that he couldn’t because we'd 'run out of our own'. Turns out those were halcyon days of someone actually giving half a shit.
The AS-90s are out service anyway.
They are very old, and very broken. This is because the MOD has been stuck in circular development pattern.
This pattern is common in armoured vehicles
1) my vehicle is old 2) I need a new one 3) I need all these capabilities 4) I need it to be airmobile 5) it can’t survive a hit from X 6) it now weighs 120 tons 7) back to 2)
See “The Bradley and How It Got That Way: Technology, Institutions, and the Problem of Mechanized Infantry in the United States Army” - in the case of the Bradley an order was made at about 4.5 (above). So the Americans got a very good vehicle, almost by accident.
The AS-90s are junk, now.
We have got Archer as temporary replacement, until we get our deliveries of RCH-155
Both Archer and RCH-155 are vastly superior to AS-90. Archer is battle tested in Ukraine, incidentally.
I remember when some Russian pranksters phoned up Ben Wallace to jokily demand more javelins for Ukraine and he responded that he couldn’t because we'd 'run out of our own'. Turns out those were halcyon days of someone actually giving half a shit.
Handing over weapons we're not using to kill our enemies and support our allies isn't being a "traitor", its smart.
And which we have little conceivable use for.
AS-90 is ancient.
And has been replaced by Archer, in the U.K. army, until we get RCH 155 fully up to speed.
I remember when some Russian pranksters phoned up Ben Wallace to jokily demand more javelins for Ukraine and he responded that he couldn’t because we'd 'run out of our own'. Turns out those were halcyon days of someone actually giving half a shit.
The AS-90s are out service anyway.
They are very old, and very broken. This is because the MOD has been stuck in circular development pattern.
This pattern is common in armoured vehicles
1) my vehicle is old 2) I need a new one 3) I need all these capabilities 4) I need it to be airmobile 5) it can’t survive a hit from X 6) it now weighs 120 tons 7) back to 2)
See “The Bradley and How It Got That Way: Technology, Institutions, and the Problem of Mechanized Infantry in the United States Army” - in the case of the Bradley an order was made at about 4.5 (above). So the Americans got a very good vehicle, almost by accident.
The AS-90s are junk, now.
We have got Archer as temporary replacement, until we get our deliveries of RCH-155
Both Archer and RCH-155 are vastly superior to AS-90. Archer is battle tested in Ukraine, incidentally.
I remember when some Russian pranksters phoned up Ben Wallace to jokily demand more javelins for Ukraine and he responded that he couldn’t because we'd 'run out of our own'. Turns out those were halcyon days of someone actually giving half a shit.
The AS-90s are out service anyway.
They are very old, and very broken. This is because the MOD has been stuck in circular development pattern.
This pattern is common in armoured vehicles
1) my vehicle is old 2) I need a new one 3) I need all these capabilities 4) I need it to be airmobile 5) it can’t survive a hit from X 6) it now weighs 120 tons 7) back to 2)
See “The Bradley and How It Got That Way: Technology, Institutions, and the Problem of Mechanized Infantry in the United States Army” - in the case of the Bradley an order was made at about 4.5 (above). So the Americans got a very good vehicle, almost by accident.
The AS-90s are junk, now.
We have got Archer as temporary replacement, until we get our deliveries of RCH-155
Both Archer and RCH-155 are vastly superior to AS-90. Archer is battle tested in Ukraine, incidentally.
Switch on Radio 5 Live's phone-in programme and it's someone calling for higher taxes on the wealthy. Next caller: "There's plenty of money but it isn't being fairly distributed". Cakeism as usual.
That's not cakeism.
"My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it." - Boris, 2016.
Its the only sensible policy, other than the one of not having it and not eating it.
Was my daughters birthday last week. We gave her a cake and let her eat it. We didn't give her a choice of having it or eating it.
Of course you did. And she chose to eat it.
It’s remarkable how people fail to understand the meaning of that phrase.
Italians put it more directly, if less correctly, by saying that you can’t have a full bottle and a drunk wife.
Switch on Radio 5 Live's phone-in programme and it's someone calling for higher taxes on the wealthy. Next caller: "There's plenty of money but it isn't being fairly distributed". Cakeism as usual.
That's not cakeism.
"My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it." - Boris, 2016.
Its the only sensible policy, other than the one of not having it and not eating it.
Was my daughters birthday last week. We gave her a cake and let her eat it. We didn't give her a choice of having it or eating it.
Of course you did. And she chose to eat it.
It’s remarkable how people fail to understand the meaning of that phrase.
Italians put it more directly, if less correctly, by saying that you can’t have a full bottle and a drunk wife.
Switch on Radio 5 Live's phone-in programme and it's someone calling for higher taxes on the wealthy. Next caller: "There's plenty of money but it isn't being fairly distributed". Cakeism as usual.
That's not cakeism.
"My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it." - Boris, 2016.
Its the only sensible policy, other than the one of not having it and not eating it.
Was my daughters birthday last week. We gave her a cake and let her eat it. We didn't give her a choice of having it or eating it.
Of course you did. And she chose to eat it.
It’s remarkable how people fail to understand the meaning of that phrase.
Italians put it more directly, if less correctly, by saying that you can’t have a full bottle and a drunk wife.
I remember when some Russian pranksters phoned up Ben Wallace to jokily demand more javelins for Ukraine and he responded that he couldn’t because we'd 'run out of our own'. Turns out those were halcyon days of someone actually giving half a shit.
Handing over weapons we're not using to kill our enemies and support our allies isn't being a "traitor", its smart.
Comments
"I've got all the whole big heavy action fighter fleet in my box, and you've only got the cheaper ones, so Nerr ! "
In fact, that's exactly what a BCR of less than one indicates.
"HM Treasury does not simply rank different projects, with different objectives, by their BCRs as a means of allocating funding.."
In other words, the government will prioritise shovellling money towards politically favoured projects that make no economic sense.
Of course they do this already - see the disaster of HS2, or virtually all regional policy - but at least she's being more explicit about it I suppose.
In fact, in trying to prioritise political support over economic growth, she'll do it so incompetently that she'll probably end up with neither.
Let's see where this pans out over the next few days
I remember when some Russian pranksters phoned up Ben Wallace to jokily demand more javelins for Ukraine and he responded that he couldn’t because we'd 'run out of our own'. Turns out those were halcyon days of someone actually giving half a shit.
"So long as you've got your health" ... there's a reason for that old saying.
Something will need to give.
Health +2.7%
Education 0.8%
Home Office -1.4%
Defence 3.8%
FCO -8.3%
MHCLG -0.6
Culture, Media, Sport -1.4%
Transport (ex-HS2) 0.5%
HS2 - 9.3%
Energy (ex Sizewell) 2.7%
Work/Pensions -0.2%
The problem with BCR is it steered lots of investment to the SE because spreadsheet wankers like me find it difficult to look past the opportunity cost of not chucking all our money at London. That's great for economic growth, but the gap with the rest of the country widens as a result.
I'm not sure what the change is but an adjusted BCR that takes account of different median real wages would be my preference. An extra weighting for the NE of England in particular.
But that's the issue - it's a brilliant life support system, not a health service.
So is Joanna Lumley.
"Traitor" lol
I suspect that if you adjusted that spending to the changes in the demographic age pyramid then it may well not be a real terms increase at all. The big users of the NHS are the over 65s, with the over 75s even greater still.
In terms of demand we have to run to stand still.
The number of restaurants in Poland recommended by Michelin has risen by 40% this year, with the city of Wrocław included in its prestigious guide for the first time.
Meanwhile, the number of restaurants awarded Michelin stars has risen from six to seven.
https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1932755365663220125
Though a lot seemed to be reannouncements of previously announced money. Actual spades in the ground needs to be a different matter.
Green Book rules are quite prescriptive on what benefits can be included in a BCR.
Take HS2 - the explicit purpose of it is to provide more capacity and to bring about regeneration benefits - yet the former cannot be included at all in the benefits (because it is hard to quantify) and the latter hardly features because of Green Book rules. So the benefits end up being time saved*value of time*number of trips, for which there is a recognised approach. But it hardly scratches the surface of what the true benefits are.
I agree that we should not be doing something for which the costs exceed the benefits. But a BCR almost never considers the full range of benefits (particularly for rail schemes.)
TLDR: "The BCr" <> "a full assessment of costs and benefits." It's a blunt guide, nothing more.
As noted, what will count is the execution of what are pretty general principles - but they make a lot more sense than the existing straightjacket.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/past-and-future-uk-health-spending
What you do is setup an NFT, crypto currency, AI, novel space launch, novel physics company using the Banksy as the basis.
Then sell meme coin based on that. From an no-tax-liability locality.
They are very old, and very broken. This is because the MOD has been stuck in circular development pattern.
This pattern is common in armoured vehicles
1) my vehicle is old
2) I need a new one
3) I need all these capabilities
4) I need it to be airmobile
5) it can’t survive a hit from X
6) it now weighs 120 tons
7) back to 2)
See “The Bradley and How It Got That Way: Technology, Institutions, and the Problem of Mechanized Infantry in the United States Army” - in the case of the Bradley an order was made at about 4.5 (above). So the Americans got a very good vehicle, almost by accident.
The AS-90s are junk, now.
We have got Archer as temporary replacement, until we get our deliveries of RCH-155
Both Archer and RCH-155 are vastly superior to AS-90. Archer is battle tested in Ukraine, incidentally.
And has been replaced by Archer, in the U.K. army, until we get RCH 155 fully up to speed.
Her leitmotif is .. "and there's more...".
Still crap at politics, she's selling the cost, not the benefit.
I like it.
It’s remarkable how people fail to understand the meaning of that phrase.
Italians put it more directly, if less correctly, by saying that you can’t have a full bottle and a drunk wife.
NEW THREAD