I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
Yet if we'd been quicker about renewables, the government and our economy more widely would have saved billions in costs when gas prices soared in 2022.
I think the biggest source of our current predicament is we have been largely protected during recent crises - e.g. household savings were 5x higher than normal during COVID, £80 billion on energy cost support during Ukraine. These kinds of events should hurt and yet we've just borrowed to support it all.
The energy picture in the UK is worsening, not getting better. The removal of VAT is a tacit admission of this. It follows that the further down the current trajectory we were at the time of the energy crisis, the more screwed we'd have been.
That's just wrong. The CfD contracts we have on renewables were at a strike prices miles below what equivalent gas prices were during the whole of 2022 and the start of 2023. Saved us billions during that period and significantly reduced the damage the twat Putin could do to our economy.
Overall, those contracts are adding a small amount to bills. But that the security they provide during a period like that is of enormous value. The quicker we reduce our exposure the better - and credit where credit is due, the Conservatives did a brilliant job of that during their time in office.
Oh if the Tories could pick up a few more and somehow come fourth with Labour fifth, I will laugh so much I might actually cause a small earthquake.
I am quite happy with the projection as it is. I don't see Labour or the Conservatives need any favours. I don't particularly want anymore seats than is necessary for the RefCon alliance either in Government or opposition.
I think Reform have suffered by not taking part in recent Radio Wales debate...they let all of the other parties take a free shot at them - and highlighting they have no Welsh leader or and Welsh policies.
I am sure they will recover a bit from this - and expect final result will be nearer Plaid 33-35% and Reform 25-27%. I think Labour will also recover a little to say 12%...
To play the devil’s advocate, as someone who gives the. US president more credit than most on this forum, could the Iran situation be one in which a totally crazy and unpredictable Trump might actually be a positive? The ayatollas have no idea what may or may not be coming their way.
No.
But do they care?
And also, I think it unlikely Trump will be shooting at them directly for all his bluster. He may greenlight Israel to strike instead.
But then, as I said, logic and Mr Trump parted company many years ago.
I think Reform have suffered by not taking part in recent Radio Wales debate...they let all of the other parties take a free shot at them - and highlighting they have no Welsh leader or and Welsh policies.
I am sure they will recover a bit from this - and expect final result will be nearer Plaid 33-35% and Reform 25-27%. I think Labour will also recover a little to say 12%...
I thought they did have a leader, he was just otherwise engaged?
To play the devil’s advocate, as someone who gives the. US president more credit than most on this forum, could the Iran situation be one in which a totally crazy and unpredictable Trump might actually be a positive? The ayatollas have no idea what may or may not be coming their way.
No.
But do they care?
And also, I think it unlikely Trump will be shooting at them directly for all his bluster. He may greenlight Israel to strike instead.
But then, as I said, logic and Mr Trump parted company many years ago.
He's certainly building up the expectations.
"Hold on, I'm coming"
That's quite a promise.
Stormy said he didn't follow through last time, why should this be different?
I think Reform have suffered by not taking part in recent Radio Wales debate...they let all of the other parties take a free shot at them - and highlighting they have no Welsh leader or and Welsh policies.
I am sure they will recover a bit from this - and expect final result will be nearer Plaid 33-35% and Reform 25-27%. I think Labour will also recover a little to say 12%...
One lives in hope that Nathan Gill's Russian adjacency might have gained some traction.
I don't see even the most minor of Labour revivals.
I think Reform have suffered by not taking part in recent Radio Wales debate...they let all of the other parties take a free shot at them - and highlighting they have no Welsh leader or and Welsh policies.
I am sure they will recover a bit from this - and expect final result will be nearer Plaid 33-35% and Reform 25-27%. I think Labour will also recover a little to say 12%...
Dreadful poll for Reform and Labour with the numbers suggesting Plaid are very close to taking majority control of the Senedd.
The Westminster numbers are (changes on the July 2024 GE):
Plaid 29 (+14) Reform 25 (+8) Lab 13 (-24) Con 12 (-6) Green 12 (+7) Lib Dem 6 (-0.5) Other 2 (-0.5)
Astonishing numbers...
Much as I predicted this morning [11.32] and not a surprise for me
Plaid Green will be very interesting but as for labour, a disaster
I confess to considerable ignorance in Welsh politics but the Senedd projection looks remarkable - Labour down to 8, the Conservatives to 6, the LDs to 3.
Could a Plaid-Green coalition work? The numbers suggest a healthy majority and were this to happen it would be a huge personal triumph for Rhun ap Iorwerth and a significant shift in Welsh politics.
Efforts to focus that opposition more effectively are underway as well. To take just one small private-sector example: Senior executives at major tech companies including Meta, Google, Amazon, OpenAI, TikTok, Spotify, and Salesforce have been circulating a letter this week calling on their companies to break ties with the White House’s immigration enforcement. The Bulwark has learned that the letter has garnered more than 150 signatures in the days after Renee Good’s shooting.
Dreadful poll for Reform and Labour with the numbers suggesting Plaid are very close to taking majority control of the Senedd.
The Westminster numbers are (changes on the July 2024 GE):
Plaid 29 (+14) Reform 25 (+8) Lab 13 (-24) Con 12 (-6) Green 12 (+7) Lib Dem 6 (-0.5) Other 2 (-0.5)
Astonishing numbers...
Much as I predicted this morning [11.32] and not a surprise for me
Plaid Green will be very interesting but as for labour, a disaster
I confess to considerable ignorance in Welsh politics but the Senedd projection looks remarkable - Labour down to 8, the Conservatives to 6, the LDs to 3.
Could a Plaid-Green coalition work? The numbers suggest a healthy majority and were this to happen it would be a huge personal triumph for Rhun ap Iorwerth and a significant shift in Welsh politics.
I have no idea how Plaid Green would work out but the state of labour in Wales is deserved with decades of their arrogant entitlement to rule
The LD are not nearly as popular as years ago and 3 seats is very possible as are 6 conservatives
Dreadful poll for Reform and Labour with the numbers suggesting Plaid are very close to taking majority control of the Senedd.
The Westminster numbers are (changes on the July 2024 GE):
Plaid 29 (+14) Reform 25 (+8) Lab 13 (-24) Con 12 (-6) Green 12 (+7) Lib Dem 6 (-0.5) Other 2 (-0.5)
Astonishing numbers...
Much as I predicted this morning [11.32] and not a surprise for me
Plaid Green will be very interesting but as for labour, a disaster
I confess to considerable ignorance in Welsh politics but the Senedd projection looks remarkable - Labour down to 8, the Conservatives to 6, the LDs to 3.
Could a Plaid-Green coalition work? The numbers suggest a healthy majority and were this to happen it would be a huge personal triumph for Rhun ap Iorwerth and a significant shift in Welsh politics.
I have no idea how Plaid Green would work out but the state of labour in Wales is deserved with decades of their arrogant entitlement to rule
The LD are not nearly as popular as years ago and 3 seats is very possible as are 6 conservatives
As a libdem I would be very pleased with 3. We are more likely to end up with 1 or 2.
I think Reform have suffered by not taking part in recent Radio Wales debate...they let all of the other parties take a free shot at them - and highlighting they have no Welsh leader or and Welsh policies.
I am sure they will recover a bit from this - and expect final result will be nearer Plaid 33-35% and Reform 25-27%. I think Labour will also recover a little to say 12%...
Recover from 13% to 12%?
Senedd data... not interested in WM predictions this far out
@Taz and other whovians, I saw this unpickedup pilot from 1972 and thought of you. It's an example of "folk horror" and written by Terry Nation. It features the Incredible Robert Baldick, a character known as "Doctor", who is enamoured of science and travels in an infeasible machine whilst solving dark and mysterious crimes in the 19th century. The analogy is obvious, the star is Robert Hardy, the link is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_LCu33HoJM&list=PLzTcE9dkDHw9wivVF8UaPxRJ5Jy0VjIEq&index=26
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
Why? Doesn't the MOT mainly check wear parts? Tyres, brakes, steering components, suspension components, boots, bushes, dampers, springs, drop links, ball joints, track rod ends and structural corrosion? All susceptible to wear on your electric vehicle.
Cars are far more robust than, say, the 1980s when they were rust buckets after 18 months.
It's not essential to MoT after 3 years. They are usually still on finance then, on low mileage and as good as new. But it is an example of our ultra-conservative risk culture.
No-one wants to make the call, and bank the savings but risk even one single newspaper headline in a few years time saying, probably inaccurately, that a 4.5 year car just crashed and a fault 'might' have been spotted if it'd had an MoT sooner (which it almost never does).
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
(MOTs are a weird one because very few collisions are caused by mechanical faults, yet they must cost drivers billions in costs each year. Compared with something like a 20mph limit the cost-benefit is completely out of whack.)
It'd probably save all motorists about £250 million a year, across all new cars. You could add in some faff factor in booking the car in and shuttling in/out. Probably some downside cost in a bit less work for garages, but not much.
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
(MOTs are a weird one because very few collisions are caused by mechanical faults, yet they must cost drivers billions in costs each year. Compared with something like a 20mph limit the cost-benefit is completely out of whack.)
It'd probably save all motorists about £250 million a year, across all new cars. You could add in some faff factor in booking the car in and shuttling in/out. Probably some downside cost in a bit less work for garages, but not much.
It'll never happen though.
If you made MoTs 2y or 20k miles for the first 10 years, it would make a huge difference to the cost of motoring but almost no difference to the cost of accidents.
Dreadful poll for Reform and Labour with the numbers suggesting Plaid are very close to taking majority control of the Senedd.
The Westminster numbers are (changes on the July 2024 GE):
Plaid 29 (+14) Reform 25 (+8) Lab 13 (-24) Con 12 (-6) Green 12 (+7) Lib Dem 6 (-0.5) Other 2 (-0.5)
Astonishing numbers...
Much as I predicted this morning [11.32] and not a surprise for me
Plaid Green will be very interesting but as for labour, a disaster
I confess to considerable ignorance in Welsh politics but the Senedd projection looks remarkable - Labour down to 8, the Conservatives to 6, the LDs to 3.
Could a Plaid-Green coalition work? The numbers suggest a healthy majority and were this to happen it would be a huge personal triumph for Rhun ap Iorwerth and a significant shift in Welsh politics.
I have no idea how Plaid Green would work out but the state of labour in Wales is deserved with decades of their arrogant entitlement to rule
The LD are not nearly as popular as years ago and 3 seats is very possible as are 6 conservatives
So this is more than anything else a repudiation of Labour and the fact the Conservatives will likely be caught in the backwash of this not a matter of consequence?
IF these numbers are anywhere near correct, Plaid will achieve their best election result ever by quite some way - I wonder whether their inexperience of Government will be a problem though the fact they will be a breath of fresh air after years of Labour's "arrogent entitlement to rule" (as you rightly put it) will give him a fair bit of leeway in the first few months.
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
(MOTs are a weird one because very few collisions are caused by mechanical faults, yet they must cost drivers billions in costs each year. Compared with something like a 20mph limit the cost-benefit is completely out of whack.)
It'd probably save all motorists about £250 million a year, across all new cars. You could add in some faff factor in booking the car in and shuttling in/out. Probably some downside cost in a bit less work for garages, but not much.
It'll never happen though.
But think of the £250m hit to the economy of all that elimination of paper pushing.
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
(MOTs are a weird one because very few collisions are caused by mechanical faults, yet they must cost drivers billions in costs each year. Compared with something like a 20mph limit the cost-benefit is completely out of whack.)
It'd probably save all motorists about £250 million a year, across all new cars. You could add in some faff factor in booking the car in and shuttling in/out. Probably some downside cost in a bit less work for garages, but not much.
It'll never happen though.
If you made MoTs 2y or 20k miles for the first 10 years, it would make a huge difference to the cost of motoring but almost no difference to the cost of accidents.
You could tighten the rules/enforcement up a bit to compensate - in particular tyres, with the difference between 3mm and 1.6mm making a massive difference and most people not keeping an eye on them between MOTs - but yes, I agree.
Dreadful poll for Reform and Labour with the numbers suggesting Plaid are very close to taking majority control of the Senedd.
The Westminster numbers are (changes on the July 2024 GE):
Plaid 29 (+14) Reform 25 (+8) Lab 13 (-24) Con 12 (-6) Green 12 (+7) Lib Dem 6 (-0.5) Other 2 (-0.5)
Astonishing numbers...
Much as I predicted this morning [11.32] and not a surprise for me
Plaid Green will be very interesting but as for labour, a disaster
I confess to considerable ignorance in Welsh politics but the Senedd projection looks remarkable - Labour down to 8, the Conservatives to 6, the LDs to 3.
Could a Plaid-Green coalition work? The numbers suggest a healthy majority and were this to happen it would be a huge personal triumph for Rhun ap Iorwerth and a significant shift in Welsh politics.
I have no idea how Plaid Green would work out but the state of labour in Wales is deserved with decades of their arrogant entitlement to rule
The LD are not nearly as popular as years ago and 3 seats is very possible as are 6 conservatives
So this is more than anything else a repudiation of Labour and the fact the Conservatives will likely be caught in the backwash of this not a matter of consequence?
IF these numbers are anywhere near correct, Plaid will achieve their best election result ever by quite some way - I wonder whether their inexperience of Government will be a problem though the fact they will be a breath of fresh air after years of Labour's "arrogent entitlement to rule" (as you rightly put it) will give him a fair bit of leeway in the first few months.
I think you are spot on
Shades of SNP in Scotland
Unless something changes very quickly and dramatically
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
Yet if we'd been quicker about renewables, the government and our economy more widely would have saved billions in costs when gas prices soared in 2022.
I think the biggest source of our current predicament is we have been largely protected during recent crises - e.g. household savings were 5x higher than normal during COVID, £80 billion on energy cost support during Ukraine. These kinds of events should hurt and yet we've just borrowed to support it all. Our fiscal position doesn't actually look so bad if you strip those two out.
(MOTs are a weird one because very few collisions are caused by mechanical faults, yet they must cost drivers billions in costs each year. Compared with something like a 20mph limit the cost-benefit is completely out of whack.)
I wonder what planet you inhabit. My electricity/gas is 3 times what is was a few years ago , where the f**k have they subsidised anything. They have crap system that allows their pals to make a fortune , no matter what happens the useless watchdog increases prices every quarter. Protected my ARSE.
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
(MOTs are a weird one because very few collisions are caused by mechanical faults, yet they must cost drivers billions in costs each year. Compared with something like a 20mph limit the cost-benefit is completely out of whack.)
It'd probably save all motorists about £250 million a year, across all new cars. You could add in some faff factor in booking the car in and shuttling in/out. Probably some downside cost in a bit less work for garages, but not much.
It'll never happen though.
If you made MoTs 2y or 20k miles for the first 10 years, it would make a huge difference to the cost of motoring but almost no difference to the cost of accidents.
You could tighten the rules/enforcement up a bit to compensate - in particular tyres, with the difference between 3mm and 1.6mm making a massive difference and most people not keeping an eye on them between MOTs - but yes, I agree.
We can both agree on the need to replace tyres. I think that there should probably be a law of all-weather tyres in the winter.
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
Yet if we'd been quicker about renewables, the government and our economy more widely would have saved billions in costs when gas prices soared in 2022.
I think the biggest source of our current predicament is we have been largely protected during recent crises - e.g. household savings were 5x higher than normal during COVID, £80 billion on energy cost support during Ukraine. These kinds of events should hurt and yet we've just borrowed to support it all. Our fiscal position doesn't actually look so bad if you strip those two out.
(MOTs are a weird one because very few collisions are caused by mechanical faults, yet they must cost drivers billions in costs each year. Compared with something like a 20mph limit the cost-benefit is completely out of whack.)
I wonder what planet you inhabit. My electricity/gas is 3 times what is was a few years ago , where the f**k have they subsidised anything. They have crap system that allows their pals to make a fortune , no matter what happens the useless watchdog increases prices every quarter. Protected my ARSE.
The high marginal cost of electricity, based on the spot gas price, is specifically designed to try and hide the subsidies from governments to renewables.
Reducing costs is best here, the other options are more inflationary... I think.
Easiest way to do that is public sector pay freezes and recruitment freezes.
Why shouldn’t the private sector also suffer pay freezes and recruitment freezes. Most public sector workers are performing a valuable public service. Many private sector workers are salesmen, lawyers, call centre operatives or other equally useless wasters.
Red , difference is if private sector are not efficient then people get sacked, in public sector they can do nothing , have job for life and the magic money tree funds more and more people. It cannot go on , you cannot tax people 100% to cover inefficiency.
Reducing costs is best here, the other options are more inflationary... I think.
Easiest way to do that is public sector pay freezes and recruitment freezes.
Why shouldn’t the private sector also suffer pay freezes and recruitment freezes. Most public sector workers are performing a valuable public service. Many private sector workers are salesmen, lawyers, call centre operatives or other equally useless wasters.
Red , difference is if private sector are not efficient then people get sacked, in public sector they can do nothing , have job for life and the magic money tree funds more and more people. It cannot go on , you cannot tax people 100% to cover inefficiency.
Although that said, how many senior managers or board members have you ever known be sacked for incompetence?
"99% of Britain’s data transmission relies on 60 major subsea cables, including 45 providing international links. Approximately £1.15 trillion in financial transactions are facilitated globally via these networks daily, with British and American cable links not only fusing the City of London and Wall Street, but also major European financial houses and markets to their North American counterparts."
Reducing costs is best here, the other options are more inflationary... I think.
Easiest way to do that is public sector pay freezes and recruitment freezes.
Why shouldn’t the private sector also suffer pay freezes and recruitment freezes. Most public sector workers are performing a valuable public service. Many private sector workers are salesmen, lawyers, call centre operatives or other equally useless wasters.
Red , difference is if private sector are not efficient then people get sacked, in public sector they can do nothing , have job for life and the magic money tree funds more and more people. It cannot go on , you cannot tax people 100% to cover inefficiency.
Although that said, how many senior managers or board members have you ever known be sacked for incompetence?
very true, but does happen. At some point they have to call a halt , they are running out of things they can tax.
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
Yet if we'd been quicker about renewables, the government and our economy more widely would have saved billions in costs when gas prices soared in 2022.
I think the biggest source of our current predicament is we have been largely protected during recent crises - e.g. household savings were 5x higher than normal during COVID, £80 billion on energy cost support during Ukraine. These kinds of events should hurt and yet we've just borrowed to support it all. Our fiscal position doesn't actually look so bad if you strip those two out.
(MOTs are a weird one because very few collisions are caused by mechanical faults, yet they must cost drivers billions in costs each year. Compared with something like a 20mph limit the cost-benefit is completely out of whack.)
I wonder what planet you inhabit. My electricity/gas is 3 times what is was a few years ago , where the f**k have they subsidised anything. They have crap system that allows their pals to make a fortune , no matter what happens the useless watchdog increases prices every quarter. Protected my ARSE.
The high marginal cost of electricity, based on the spot gas price, is specifically designed to try and hide the subsidies from governments to renewables.
I don't it's a big conspiracy to "hide the cost". It just happens to be the case that gas got really expensive for a period and made renewables look cheap in comparison. The value of the renewables contracts comes from the fact they are fixed, which reduces the uncertainty for both consumers and generators.
"99% of Britain’s data transmission relies on 60 major subsea cables, including 45 providing international links. Approximately £1.15 trillion in financial transactions are facilitated globally via these networks daily, with British and American cable links not only fusing the City of London and Wall Street, but also major European financial houses and markets to their North American counterparts."
Starlink for the game-changing win.
Their NYLON latency is already better than most broadband, and a city-based connection is going to be really expensive, but even so, as a backup…
Iran are having to deploy military-grade RF jammers in their own cities, and still can’t block it.
"99% of Britain’s data transmission relies on 60 major subsea cables, including 45 providing international links. Approximately £1.15 trillion in financial transactions are facilitated globally via these networks daily, with British and American cable links not only fusing the City of London and Wall Street, but also major European financial houses and markets to their North American counterparts."
Reducing costs is best here, the other options are more inflationary... I think.
Easiest way to do that is public sector pay freezes and recruitment freezes.
Why shouldn’t the private sector also suffer pay freezes and recruitment freezes. Most public sector workers are performing a valuable public service. Many private sector workers are salesmen, lawyers, call centre operatives or other equally useless wasters.
Red , difference is if private sector are not efficient then people get sacked, in public sector they can do nothing , have job for life and the magic money tree funds more and more people. It cannot go on , you cannot tax people 100% to cover inefficiency.
Not quite.
You are correct inasmuch as it's very hard to sack anyone in the public sector. I was once told you could urinate in the Council Leader's coffee while he was drinking it and probably not be dismissed but the slightest hint of bullying or sexual harrassment and you were out.
For most, though, sacking was never the problem - the problem was being "restructured" out of a job. Your "role" would be deleted, you would be "invited" to apply for a similar role and then be unsuccessful and that would be that.
There was very little job security and as soon as the "r" word was mentioned, everyone was worried (except the HR people organising the restructuring - quis custodiet ipsos custodes?).
Actually investigate hard and prosecute it, unless you want to see Nigel win a landslide.
Fraud is going to be the single biggest story in the US Mid-Terms.
Elon Musk came in promising to find massive amounts of fraud in Social Security, and actually found... errr... basically none. Federal government spending has risen 6% in the last year, which means it hasn't just risen more than inflation, it's risen more than nominal economic growth. The budget deficit, thanks to tax cuts, has also risen.
Well they got Tim Walz already, and there appears to be a concerted effort to get Mr Newsom on a similar scandal, although he’s as slippery as an eel.
Yes, there’s also a concerted effort to get primary challenges against the Republican Senators who didn’t want to codify a lot of Musk’s spending cuts the other night. https://x.com/nedryun/status/2011044812741562475
oh you talking about orange and his cronies making up stuff, rather than genuine fraud
Donald Trump was found personally guilty of multiple counts of fraud. The Trump Foundation was forcibly wound up because of fraud. His companies have been found guilty of fraud. It’s easy to find fraud in the US: start in the White House.
Trump isn’t on the ballot, and good luck convincing any of his supporters that his legal problems of the last few years haven’t been politically motivated.
Trump isn’t on the ballot, but I’m pretty certain Trump will be one of the biggest stories of the midterms, probably the biggest.
Fortunately, the number of his supporters is trending downwards. I’m not certain the Republicans talking about fraud is going to save them when it’s so easy to start talking about Republican fraud, but we’ll see. There are still plenty of gullible people who believe everything they read in their MAGA social media bubble.
"99% of Britain’s data transmission relies on 60 major subsea cables, including 45 providing international links. Approximately £1.15 trillion in financial transactions are facilitated globally via these networks daily, with British and American cable links not only fusing the City of London and Wall Street, but also major European financial houses and markets to their North American counterparts."
I believe we arrested a Russian tanker dragging its anchor over a cable in the North Sea last year. I’ve not heard anything since
"99% of Britain’s data transmission relies on 60 major subsea cables, including 45 providing international links. Approximately £1.15 trillion in financial transactions are facilitated globally via these networks daily, with British and American cable links not only fusing the City of London and Wall Street, but also major European financial houses and markets to their North American counterparts."
Little known, but one reason that Starlink is sold out in London, and there are bandwidth caps for domestic for domestic users, is the number of banks and financial orgs that have contracts for guaranteed high capacity connections. Basically all of them.
Actually investigate hard and prosecute it, unless you want to see Nigel win a landslide.
Fraud is going to be the single biggest story in the US Mid-Terms.
Elon Musk came in promising to find massive amounts of fraud in Social Security, and actually found... errr... basically none. Federal government spending has risen 6% in the last year, which means it hasn't just risen more than inflation, it's risen more than nominal economic growth. The budget deficit, thanks to tax cuts, has also risen.
Well they got Tim Walz already, and there appears to be a concerted effort to get Mr Newsom on a similar scandal, although he’s as slippery as an eel.
Yes, there’s also a concerted effort to get primary challenges against the Republican Senators who didn’t want to codify a lot of Musk’s spending cuts the other night. https://x.com/nedryun/status/2011044812741562475
oh you talking about orange and his cronies making up stuff, rather than genuine fraud
Donald Trump was found personally guilty of multiple counts of fraud. The Trump Foundation was forcibly wound up because of fraud. His companies have been found guilty of fraud. It’s easy to find fraud in the US: start in the White House.
Trump isn’t on the ballot, and good luck convincing any of his supporters that his legal problems of the last few years haven’t been politically motivated.
Trump isn’t on the ballot, but I’m pretty certain Trump will be one of the biggest stories of the midterms, probably the biggest.
Fortunately, the number of his supporters is trending downwards. I’m not certain the Republicans talking about fraud is going to save them when it’s so easy to start talking about Republican fraud, but we’ll see. There are still plenty of gullible people who believe everything they read in their MAGA social media bubble.
Just as there are many who start from OranageManBad and work backwards, through their own media ecosphere.
Reducing costs is best here, the other options are more inflationary... I think.
Easiest way to do that is public sector pay freezes and recruitment freezes.
Why shouldn’t the private sector also suffer pay freezes and recruitment freezes. Most public sector workers are performing a valuable public service. Many private sector workers are salesmen, lawyers, call centre operatives or other equally useless wasters.
Red , difference is if private sector are not efficient then people get sacked, in public sector they can do nothing , have job for life and the magic money tree funds more and more people. It cannot go on , you cannot tax people 100% to cover inefficiency.
You don’t appear to know anyone in the private or public sector! I know plenty of people with no job security in the public sector. NHS England are looking to cut 50% of their staff as they merge into the DHSC, and that’s after even larger cuts in recent years. Meanwhile, I’ve met plenty of no-hopers, or worse, in private sector jobs.
"99% of Britain’s data transmission relies on 60 major subsea cables, including 45 providing international links. Approximately £1.15 trillion in financial transactions are facilitated globally via these networks daily, with British and American cable links not only fusing the City of London and Wall Street, but also major European financial houses and markets to their North American counterparts."
60 is more than I would have guessed! I’m actually feeling marginally more secure now.
"99% of Britain’s data transmission relies on 60 major subsea cables, including 45 providing international links. Approximately £1.15 trillion in financial transactions are facilitated globally via these networks daily, with British and American cable links not only fusing the City of London and Wall Street, but also major European financial houses and markets to their North American counterparts."
60 is more than I would have guessed! I’m actually feeling marginally more secure now.
Depends if they're all mutually independent and widely dispersed for resilience, or many are bunched together and can be all severed at once with a few snips.
Actually investigate hard and prosecute it, unless you want to see Nigel win a landslide.
Fraud is going to be the single biggest story in the US Mid-Terms.
Elon Musk came in promising to find massive amounts of fraud in Social Security, and actually found... errr... basically none. Federal government spending has risen 6% in the last year, which means it hasn't just risen more than inflation, it's risen more than nominal economic growth. The budget deficit, thanks to tax cuts, has also risen.
Well they got Tim Walz already, and there appears to be a concerted effort to get Mr Newsom on a similar scandal, although he’s as slippery as an eel.
Yes, there’s also a concerted effort to get primary challenges against the Republican Senators who didn’t want to codify a lot of Musk’s spending cuts the other night. https://x.com/nedryun/status/2011044812741562475
oh you talking about orange and his cronies making up stuff, rather than genuine fraud
Donald Trump was found personally guilty of multiple counts of fraud. The Trump Foundation was forcibly wound up because of fraud. His companies have been found guilty of fraud. It’s easy to find fraud in the US: start in the White House.
Trump isn’t on the ballot, and good luck convincing any of his supporters that his legal problems of the last few years haven’t been politically motivated.
Trump isn’t on the ballot, but I’m pretty certain Trump will be one of the biggest stories of the midterms, probably the biggest.
Fortunately, the number of his supporters is trending downwards. I’m not certain the Republicans talking about fraud is going to save them when it’s so easy to start talking about Republican fraud, but we’ll see. There are still plenty of gullible people who believe everything they read in their MAGA social media bubble.
Just as there are many who start from OranageManBad and work backwards, through their own media ecosphere.
We actually agree on more than which we disagree.
I think Trump is an existential threat to Western civilisation. You appear to think he was a better choice than Kamala Harris. I’m not seeing much agreement on this topic.
Uk banks hold a lot of uk debt (20%?) after the quantitative easing spree a while back. We are also paying those banks interest on that debt. ~~ £20bn.
That easing was to iirc, increase the velocity of money. I was reminded by the above post from Casino.
I’m not sure why we are paying the banks that £20bn? Are we paying them to hold gilts we pretty much gave them? Is that a very expensive bung obviously better spent on re-arming and security.
Surely the banks would prefer a safer country. A deal should be done.
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
Yet if we'd been quicker about renewables, the government and our economy more widely would have saved billions in costs when gas prices soared in 2022.
I think the biggest source of our current predicament is we have been largely protected during recent crises - e.g. household savings were 5x higher than normal during COVID, £80 billion on energy cost support during Ukraine. These kinds of events should hurt and yet we've just borrowed to support it all. Our fiscal position doesn't actually look so bad if you strip those two out.
(MOTs are a weird one because very few collisions are caused by mechanical faults, yet they must cost drivers billions in costs each year. Compared with something like a 20mph limit the cost-benefit is completely out of whack.)
I wonder what planet you inhabit. My electricity/gas is 3 times what is was a few years ago , where the f**k have they subsidised anything. They have crap system that allows their pals to make a fortune , no matter what happens the useless watchdog increases prices every quarter. Protected my ARSE.
The high marginal cost of electricity, based on the spot gas price, is specifically designed to try and hide the subsidies from governments to renewables.
If Trump's allies do end by getting Bill Clinton imprisoned, and Hilary Clinton locked up for reasons unrelated to her emails, will people still argue America is not a fascist state?
Actually investigate hard and prosecute it, unless you want to see Nigel win a landslide.
Fraud is going to be the single biggest story in the US Mid-Terms.
Elon Musk came in promising to find massive amounts of fraud in Social Security, and actually found... errr... basically none. Federal government spending has risen 6% in the last year, which means it hasn't just risen more than inflation, it's risen more than nominal economic growth. The budget deficit, thanks to tax cuts, has also risen.
Well they got Tim Walz already, and there appears to be a concerted effort to get Mr Newsom on a similar scandal, although he’s as slippery as an eel.
Yes, there’s also a concerted effort to get primary challenges against the Republican Senators who didn’t want to codify a lot of Musk’s spending cuts the other night. https://x.com/nedryun/status/2011044812741562475
oh you talking about orange and his cronies making up stuff, rather than genuine fraud
Donald Trump was found personally guilty of multiple counts of fraud. The Trump Foundation was forcibly wound up because of fraud. His companies have been found guilty of fraud. It’s easy to find fraud in the US: start in the White House.
Trump isn’t on the ballot, and good luck convincing any of his supporters that his legal problems of the last few years haven’t been politically motivated.
Trump isn’t on the ballot, but I’m pretty certain Trump will be one of the biggest stories of the midterms, probably the biggest.
Fortunately, the number of his supporters is trending downwards. I’m not certain the Republicans talking about fraud is going to save them when it’s so easy to start talking about Republican fraud, but we’ll see. There are still plenty of gullible people who believe everything they read in their MAGA social media bubble.
Just as there are many who start from OranageManBad and work backwards, through their own media ecosphere.
We actually agree on more than which we disagree.
The President is always going to be a factor or an issue in every mid term election whether it's their character or the effectiveness of their policies - that's how it always has been and it's no different with Trump.
Quite rightly, the Federal Government can be held to account or scrutiny for those policies which it controls just as the State legislatures are held to account for State mandated policies and programmes.
This notion somehow the mid term election won't be or can't be about Trump is ridiculous but it will be the policies he has enacted and the degree to which Americans think those policies are working which will be important.
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
(MOTs are a weird one because very few collisions are caused by mechanical faults, yet they must cost drivers billions in costs each year. Compared with something like a 20mph limit the cost-benefit is completely out of whack.)
It'd probably save all motorists about £250 million a year, across all new cars. You could add in some faff factor in booking the car in and shuttling in/out. Probably some downside cost in a bit less work for garages, but not much.
It'll never happen though.
But think of the £250m hit to the economy of all that elimination of paper pushing.
You're assuming those 3-5 year old cars will be kept at the same standard without an MOT requirement. Doesn’t take many accidents to top £250 mill in damages.
Uk banks hold a lot of uk debt (20%?) after the quantitative easing spree a while back. We are also paying those banks interest on that debt. ~~ £20bn.
That easing was to iirc, increase the velocity of money. I was reminded by the above post from Casino.
I’m not sure why we are paying the banks that £20bn? Are we paying them to hold gilts we pretty much gave them? Is that a very expensive bung obviously better spent on re-arming and security.
Surely the banks would prefer a safer country. A deal should be done.
If banks are going to face strong-arm tactics, then the financial sector will decamp to somewhere else. (By which I mean, forcing re-negotiating of terms after the event.)
Meanwhile the SNP government freeze the income tax thresholds and thus increase tax in real terms for those on above average incomes and follow Labour with a mansion tax, though at an even lower threshold of £1 million
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
Yet if we'd been quicker about renewables, the government and our economy more widely would have saved billions in costs when gas prices soared in 2022.
I think the biggest source of our current predicament is we have been largely protected during recent crises - e.g. household savings were 5x higher than normal during COVID, £80 billion on energy cost support during Ukraine. These kinds of events should hurt and yet we've just borrowed to support it all. Our fiscal position doesn't actually look so bad if you strip those two out.
(MOTs are a weird one because very few collisions are caused by mechanical faults, yet they must cost drivers billions in costs each year. Compared with something like a 20mph limit the cost-benefit is completely out of whack.)
Are you sure its not the other way around? Is it because we have annual MOTs that we have few collisions due to mechanical failure.
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
Why? Doesn't the MOT mainly check wear parts? Tyres, brakes, steering components, suspension components, boots, bushes, dampers, springs, drop links, ball joints, track rod ends and structural corrosion? All susceptible to wear on your electric vehicle.
Cars are far more robust than, say, the 1980s when they were rust buckets after 18 months.
It's not essential to MoT after 3 years. They are usually still on finance then, on low mileage and as good as new. But it is an example of our ultra-conservative risk culture.
No-one wants to make the call, and bank the savings but risk even one single newspaper headline in a few years time saying, probably inaccurately, that a 4.5 year car just crashed and a fault 'might' have been spotted if it'd had an MoT sooner (which it almost never does).
Actually investigate hard and prosecute it, unless you want to see Nigel win a landslide.
Fraud is going to be the single biggest story in the US Mid-Terms.
Elon Musk came in promising to find massive amounts of fraud in Social Security, and actually found... errr... basically none. Federal government spending has risen 6% in the last year, which means it hasn't just risen more than inflation, it's risen more than nominal economic growth. The budget deficit, thanks to tax cuts, has also risen.
These are the numbers and forecast as % of GDP from 2000 to 2030 (Claude).
Is Claude reliable with this sort of thing?
The US budget deficit this year is going to be a little worse than 6% of GDP, and in dollar terms it's quite a bit bigger than last year. Which is actually quite incredible when one considers the impact of tariffs on tax collection.
If Trump does enact his promised 50% increase in US defence spending next year, then (combined with the natural growth of spending coming through an ageing population) I don't see how it doesn't end up at 6.5% or so. Which is an astonishingly high level considering that the US is not battling a recession.
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
Yet if we'd been quicker about renewables, the government and our economy more widely would have saved billions in costs when gas prices soared in 2022.
I think the biggest source of our current predicament is we have been largely protected during recent crises - e.g. household savings were 5x higher than normal during COVID, £80 billion on energy cost support during Ukraine. These kinds of events should hurt and yet we've just borrowed to support it all. Our fiscal position doesn't actually look so bad if you strip those two out.
(MOTs are a weird one because very few collisions are caused by mechanical faults, yet they must cost drivers billions in costs each year. Compared with something like a 20mph limit the cost-benefit is completely out of whack.)
I wonder what planet you inhabit. My electricity/gas is 3 times what is was a few years ago , where the f**k have they subsidised anything. They have crap system that allows their pals to make a fortune , no matter what happens the useless watchdog increases prices every quarter. Protected my ARSE.
The high marginal cost of electricity, based on the spot gas price, is specifically designed to try and hide the subsidies from governments to renewables.
So who's making the profits from energy, then.
Mostly the companies supplying materials to the renewables industry, and the retail energy companies making their margin on an increased bill.
If Trump's allies do end by getting Bill Clinton imprisoned, and Hilary Clinton locked up for reasons unrelated to her emails, will people still argue America is not a fascist state?
Depends what the charges are and turns up in the Epstein emails or over Whitewater or Vince Foster for example. However it would have to have been after a full criminal trial before a jury and no sign yet of enough evidence to charge either.
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
(MOTs are a weird one because very few collisions are caused by mechanical faults, yet they must cost drivers billions in costs each year. Compared with something like a 20mph limit the cost-benefit is completely out of whack.)
It'd probably save all motorists about £250 million a year, across all new cars. You could add in some faff factor in booking the car in and shuttling in/out. Probably some downside cost in a bit less work for garages, but not much.
It'll never happen though.
But think of the £250m hit to the economy of all that elimination of paper pushing.
You're assuming those 3-5 year old cars will be kept at the same standard without an MOT requirement. Doesn’t take many accidents to top £250 mill in damages.
Again, should mileage not be a factor as well?
A three year old car used for driving five miles a day three days a week to the local station and twice a year for a visit to family will be in much better condition than a car used by the sales team of a firm selling industrial chemicals all across the country.
Does anyone genuinely believe that there isn’t now rampant fraud everywhere governments hand out money to NGOs?
My brother is now retired but when he was a senior Civil Servant he had to fight a Minister with the procedure book to prevent the minister bunging a contract worth 10's of millions to one of his mates and a party doner. My brother won in the end, and the project went to public tender, and a considerable saving.
I think this is known in Trussite circles as "The Blob".
Dreadful poll for Reform and Labour with the numbers suggesting Plaid are very close to taking majority control of the Senedd.
The Westminster numbers are (changes on the July 2024 GE):
Plaid 29 (+14) Reform 25 (+8) Lab 13 (-24) Con 12 (-6) Green 12 (+7) Lib Dem 6 (-0.5) Other 2 (-0.5)
Astonishing numbers...
Much as I predicted this morning [11.32] and not a surprise for me
Plaid Green will be very interesting but as for labour, a disaster
I confess to considerable ignorance in Welsh politics but the Senedd projection looks remarkable - Labour down to 8, the Conservatives to 6, the LDs to 3.
Could a Plaid-Green coalition work? The numbers suggest a healthy majority and were this to happen it would be a huge personal triumph for Rhun ap Iorwerth and a significant shift in Welsh politics.
I have no idea how Plaid Green would work out but the state of labour in Wales is deserved with decades of their arrogant entitlement to rule
The LD are not nearly as popular as years ago and 3 seats is very possible as are 6 conservatives
Plaid Green would be an utter disaster for Wales and probably send it near bankrupt
Dreadful poll for Reform and Labour with the numbers suggesting Plaid are very close to taking majority control of the Senedd.
The Westminster numbers are (changes on the July 2024 GE):
Plaid 29 (+14) Reform 25 (+8) Lab 13 (-24) Con 12 (-6) Green 12 (+7) Lib Dem 6 (-0.5) Other 2 (-0.5)
Astonishing numbers...
Much as I predicted this morning [11.32] and not a surprise for me
Plaid Green will be very interesting but as for labour, a disaster
I confess to considerable ignorance in Welsh politics but the Senedd projection looks remarkable - Labour down to 8, the Conservatives to 6, the LDs to 3.
Could a Plaid-Green coalition work? The numbers suggest a healthy majority and were this to happen it would be a huge personal triumph for Rhun ap Iorwerth and a significant shift in Welsh politics.
I have no idea how Plaid Green would work out but the state of labour in Wales is deserved with decades of their arrogant entitlement to rule
The LD are not nearly as popular as years ago and 3 seats is very possible as are 6 conservatives
Plaid Green would be an utter disaster for Wales and probably send it near bankrupt
And people would notice the difference, because...?
Actually investigate hard and prosecute it, unless you want to see Nigel win a landslide.
Fraud is going to be the single biggest story in the US Mid-Terms.
Elon Musk came in promising to find massive amounts of fraud in Social Security, and actually found... errr... basically none. Federal government spending has risen 6% in the last year, which means it hasn't just risen more than inflation, it's risen more than nominal economic growth. The budget deficit, thanks to tax cuts, has also risen.
Well they got Tim Walz already, and there appears to be a concerted effort to get Mr Newsom on a similar scandal, although he’s as slippery as an eel.
Yes, there’s also a concerted effort to get primary challenges against the Republican Senators who didn’t want to codify a lot of Musk’s spending cuts the other night. https://x.com/nedryun/status/2011044812741562475
oh you talking about orange and his cronies making up stuff, rather than genuine fraud
Donald Trump was found personally guilty of multiple counts of fraud. The Trump Foundation was forcibly wound up because of fraud. His companies have been found guilty of fraud. It’s easy to find fraud in the US: start in the White House.
Trump isn’t on the ballot, and good luck convincing any of his supporters that his legal problems of the last few years haven’t been politically motivated.
Trump isn’t on the ballot, but I’m pretty certain Trump will be one of the biggest stories of the midterms, probably the biggest.
Fortunately, the number of his supporters is trending downwards. I’m not certain the Republicans talking about fraud is going to save them when it’s so easy to start talking about Republican fraud, but we’ll see. There are still plenty of gullible people who believe everything they read in their MAGA social media bubble.
Just as there are many who start from OranageManBad and work backwards, through their own media ecosphere.
We actually agree on more than which we disagree.
The President is always going to be a factor or an issue in every mid term election whether it's their character or the effectiveness of their policies - that's how it always has been and it's no different with Trump.
Quite rightly, the Federal Government can be held to account or scrutiny for those policies which it controls just as the State legislatures are held to account for State mandated policies and programmes.
This notion somehow the mid term election won't be or can't be about Trump is ridiculous but it will be the policies he has enacted and the degree to which Americans think those policies are working which will be important.
Of course the Federal government plays a role in the mid-terms, and you’d expect a swing against an incumbent President, so for the Dems to take over the House. The Senate is more difficult for them, but they might get it to an annoying 51-49 that keeps VP Vance there all the time.
Either way, the problem is the Executive trying to codify their programme, as as been seen this week with two dozen Republicans Senators voting on a budget Bill that reinstates funding to a bunch of Dem NGOs on what’s clearly a behind-closed-doors reciprocal basis.
Elon Musk is again furious, he’s the guy who wants to see an actual cut in the budget! The rest of his party have jobs for life if they keep the budgets running though.
Actually investigate hard and prosecute it, unless you want to see Nigel win a landslide.
Fraud is going to be the single biggest story in the US Mid-Terms.
Elon Musk came in promising to find massive amounts of fraud in Social Security, and actually found... errr... basically none. Federal government spending has risen 6% in the last year, which means it hasn't just risen more than inflation, it's risen more than nominal economic growth. The budget deficit, thanks to tax cuts, has also risen.
These are the numbers and forecast as % of GDP from 2000 to 2030 (Claude).
Is Claude reliable with this sort of thing?
The US budget deficit this year is going to be a little worse than 6% of GDP, and in dollar terms it's quite a bit bigger than last year. Which is actually quite incredible when one considers the impact of tariffs on tax collection.
If Trump does enact his promised 50% increase in US defence spending next year, then (combined with the natural growth of spending coming through an ageing population) I don't see how it doesn't end up at 6.5% or so. Which is an astonishingly high level considering that the US is not battling a recession.
Is it astonishing?
Trump (and other Republicans before him) are great believers in deficit spending to create "growth".
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
Why? Doesn't the MOT mainly check wear parts? Tyres, brakes, steering components, suspension components, boots, bushes, dampers, springs, drop links, ball joints, track rod ends and structural corrosion? All susceptible to wear on your electric vehicle.
Cars are far more robust than, say, the 1980s when they were rust buckets after 18 months.
It's not essential to MoT after 3 years. They are usually still on finance then, on low mileage and as good as new. But it is an example of our ultra-conservative risk culture.
No-one wants to make the call, and bank the savings but risk even one single newspaper headline in a few years time saying, probably inaccurately, that a 4.5 year car just crashed and a fault 'might' have been spotted if it'd had an MoT sooner (which it almost never does).
MoTs are fucking mad when you think about it. The most common failure is lights/bulbs so the safety justification is spurious with modern cars.
The Australian system is the best. No MoT equivalent unless the car has been off road, unregistered then it needs an inspection before it can be re-registered. Combine that with roadside enforcement by the cops on the real shit heaps and that's all you need.
Dreadful poll for Reform and Labour with the numbers suggesting Plaid are very close to taking majority control of the Senedd.
The Westminster numbers are (changes on the July 2024 GE):
Plaid 29 (+14) Reform 25 (+8) Lab 13 (-24) Con 12 (-6) Green 12 (+7) Lib Dem 6 (-0.5) Other 2 (-0.5)
Astonishing numbers...
Much as I predicted this morning [11.32] and not a surprise for me
Plaid Green will be very interesting but as for labour, a disaster
I confess to considerable ignorance in Welsh politics but the Senedd projection looks remarkable - Labour down to 8, the Conservatives to 6, the LDs to 3.
Could a Plaid-Green coalition work? The numbers suggest a healthy majority and were this to happen it would be a huge personal triumph for Rhun ap Iorwerth and a significant shift in Welsh politics.
I have no idea how Plaid Green would work out but the state of labour in Wales is deserved with decades of their arrogant entitlement to rule
The LD are not nearly as popular as years ago and 3 seats is very possible as are 6 conservatives
Plaid Green would be an utter disaster for Wales and probably send it near bankrupt
And people would notice the difference, because...?
Even keeping Labour would be better than Plaid Green
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
Why? Doesn't the MOT mainly check wear parts? Tyres, brakes, steering components, suspension components, boots, bushes, dampers, springs, drop links, ball joints, track rod ends and structural corrosion? All susceptible to wear on your electric vehicle.
Cars are far more robust than, say, the 1980s when they were rust buckets after 18 months.
It's not essential to MoT after 3 years. They are usually still on finance then, on low mileage and as good as new. But it is an example of our ultra-conservative risk culture.
No-one wants to make the call, and bank the savings but risk even one single newspaper headline in a few years time saying, probably inaccurately, that a 4.5 year car just crashed and a fault 'might' have been spotted if it'd had an MoT sooner (which it almost never does).
MoTs are fucking mad when you think about it. The most common failure is lights/bulbs so the safety justification is spurious with modern cars.
The Australian system is the best. No MoT equivalent unless the car has been off road, unregistered then it needs an inspection before it can be re-registered. Combine that with roadside enforcement by the cops on the real shit heaps and that's all you need.
Actually investigate hard and prosecute it, unless you want to see Nigel win a landslide.
Fraud is going to be the single biggest story in the US Mid-Terms.
Elon Musk came in promising to find massive amounts of fraud in Social Security, and actually found... errr... basically none. Federal government spending has risen 6% in the last year, which means it hasn't just risen more than inflation, it's risen more than nominal economic growth. The budget deficit, thanks to tax cuts, has also risen.
Well they got Tim Walz already, and there appears to be a concerted effort to get Mr Newsom on a similar scandal, although he’s as slippery as an eel.
Yes, there’s also a concerted effort to get primary challenges against the Republican Senators who didn’t want to codify a lot of Musk’s spending cuts the other night. https://x.com/nedryun/status/2011044812741562475
oh you talking about orange and his cronies making up stuff, rather than genuine fraud
Donald Trump was found personally guilty of multiple counts of fraud. The Trump Foundation was forcibly wound up because of fraud. His companies have been found guilty of fraud. It’s easy to find fraud in the US: start in the White House.
Trump isn’t on the ballot, and good luck convincing any of his supporters that his legal problems of the last few years haven’t been politically motivated.
Trump isn’t on the ballot, but I’m pretty certain Trump will be one of the biggest stories of the midterms, probably the biggest.
Fortunately, the number of his supporters is trending downwards. I’m not certain the Republicans talking about fraud is going to save them when it’s so easy to start talking about Republican fraud, but we’ll see. There are still plenty of gullible people who believe everything they read in their MAGA social media bubble.
Just as there are many who start from OranageManBad and work backwards, through their own media ecosphere.
We actually agree on more than which we disagree.
The President is always going to be a factor or an issue in every mid term election whether it's their character or the effectiveness of their policies - that's how it always has been and it's no different with Trump.
Quite rightly, the Federal Government can be held to account or scrutiny for those policies which it controls just as the State legislatures are held to account for State mandated policies and programmes.
This notion somehow the mid term election won't be or can't be about Trump is ridiculous but it will be the policies he has enacted and the degree to which Americans think those policies are working which will be important.
Of course the Federal government plays a role in the mid-terms, and you’d expect a swing against an incumbent President, so for the Dems to take over the House. The Senate is more difficult for them, but they might get it to an annoying 51-49 that keeps VP Vance there all the time.
Either way, the problem is the Executive trying to codify their programme, as as been seen this week with two dozen Republicans Senators voting on a budget Bill that reinstates funding to a bunch of Dem NGOs on what’s clearly a behind-closed-doors reciprocal basis.
Elon Musk is again furious.
I'm intrigued. When did the smack addled old weirdo stop being furious?
BTW... I am intrigued by the Medicare fraud story from Minnesota. One would think that - on average - the amount of money paid per Medicare recipient would be roughly similar by State, given that what Medicare pays for each procedure and every drug is set our in legislation.
Now it is, of course, an utterly massive program, with money being sent (via the States) from the Federal government to private medical providers, and there's going to be a fair amount of people billing for things that didn't happen, and it is essential to have robust processes in places for identifying fraudulent claims.
The first place one would want to look, therefore, would be how much is being spent per old person by State.
And Minnesota doesn't stand out; it's amost exactly the same amount (within a dollar) as Mississippi. Which means either (a) old people in Minnesota are significantly healthier (possible); or (b) there is a similar amount of fraud in Mississippi. Indeed, one might expect that -due to lower wages and rents- that Mississippi costs might be lower.
Dreadful poll for Reform and Labour with the numbers suggesting Plaid are very close to taking majority control of the Senedd.
The Westminster numbers are (changes on the July 2024 GE):
Plaid 29 (+14) Reform 25 (+8) Lab 13 (-24) Con 12 (-6) Green 12 (+7) Lib Dem 6 (-0.5) Other 2 (-0.5)
Astonishing numbers...
Much as I predicted this morning [11.32] and not a surprise for me
Plaid Green will be very interesting but as for labour, a disaster
I confess to considerable ignorance in Welsh politics but the Senedd projection looks remarkable - Labour down to 8, the Conservatives to 6, the LDs to 3.
Could a Plaid-Green coalition work? The numbers suggest a healthy majority and were this to happen it would be a huge personal triumph for Rhun ap Iorwerth and a significant shift in Welsh politics.
I have no idea how Plaid Green would work out but the state of labour in Wales is deserved with decades of their arrogant entitlement to rule
The LD are not nearly as popular as years ago and 3 seats is very possible as are 6 conservatives
Plaid Green would be an utter disaster for Wales and probably send it near bankrupt
And people would notice the difference, because...?
Even keeping Labour would be better than Plaid Green
You know nothing about Wales to make such a statement
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
Why? Doesn't the MOT mainly check wear parts? Tyres, brakes, steering components, suspension components, boots, bushes, dampers, springs, drop links, ball joints, track rod ends and structural corrosion? All susceptible to wear on your electric vehicle.
Cars are far more robust than, say, the 1980s when they were rust buckets after 18 months.
It's not essential to MoT after 3 years. They are usually still on finance then, on low mileage and as good as new. But it is an example of our ultra-conservative risk culture.
No-one wants to make the call, and bank the savings but risk even one single newspaper headline in a few years time saying, probably inaccurately, that a 4.5 year car just crashed and a fault 'might' have been spotted if it'd had an MoT sooner (which it almost never does).
MoTs are fucking mad when you think about it. The most common failure is lights/bulbs so the safety justification is spurious with modern cars.
The Australian system is the best. No MoT equivalent unless the car has been off road, unregistered then it needs an inspection before it can be re-registered. Combine that with roadside enforcement by the cops on the real shit heaps and that's all you need.
These cops - they only stop Jaguars?
Already motionless under a cloud of steam and above a pool of oil.
BTW... I am intrigued by the Medicare fraud story from Minnesota. One would think that - on average - the amount of money paid per Medicare recipient would be roughly similar by State, given that what Medicare pays for each procedure and every drug is set our in legislation.
Now it is, of course, an utterly massive program, with money being sent (via the States) from the Federal government to private medical providers, and there's going to be a fair amount of people billing for things that didn't happen, and it is essential to have robust processes in places for identifying fraudulent claims.
The first place one would want to look, therefore, would be how much is being spent per old person by State.
And Minnesota doesn't stand out; it's amost exactly the same amount (within a dollar) as Mississippi. Which means either (a) old people in Minnesota are significantly healthier (possible); or (b) there is a similar amount of fraud in Mississippi. Indeed, one might expect that -due to lower wages and rents- that Mississippi costs might be lower.
People in Minnesota are healthier than people living in Mississippi. Here’s an AI summary:
“Health indices by U.S. state vary significantly, with states like Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Minnesota often ranking high for overall health (e.g., lower chronic disease, better access), while states in the South (e.g., Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama) frequently rank lower due to higher rates of obesity, smoking, and mortality”
I didn’t prompt it on specific states. It just picked Minnesota and Mississippi as examples there.
Do you know about US history and why Mississippi has terrible health indices?
Dreadful poll for Reform and Labour with the numbers suggesting Plaid are very close to taking majority control of the Senedd.
The Westminster numbers are (changes on the July 2024 GE):
Plaid 29 (+14) Reform 25 (+8) Lab 13 (-24) Con 12 (-6) Green 12 (+7) Lib Dem 6 (-0.5) Other 2 (-0.5)
Astonishing numbers...
Much as I predicted this morning [11.32] and not a surprise for me
Plaid Green will be very interesting but as for labour, a disaster
I confess to considerable ignorance in Welsh politics but the Senedd projection looks remarkable - Labour down to 8, the Conservatives to 6, the LDs to 3.
Could a Plaid-Green coalition work? The numbers suggest a healthy majority and were this to happen it would be a huge personal triumph for Rhun ap Iorwerth and a significant shift in Welsh politics.
I have no idea how Plaid Green would work out but the state of labour in Wales is deserved with decades of their arrogant entitlement to rule
The LD are not nearly as popular as years ago and 3 seats is very possible as are 6 conservatives
Plaid Green would be an utter disaster for Wales and probably send it near bankrupt
It could be substantially worse. Reform, or even worse Welsh Conservatives.
I don't see tackle the Budget Deficit of well over a hundred billion pounds per annum instead as an option?
We can't afford to do any of the above.
You might be able to do things that reduced people's costs by £1,000 a year that didn't involve the government spending any money.
For example, if competition rules were changed so that increased competition led to lower costs in a sector which currently has monopolistic profits. Or if rents were reduced as a result of increases in housing supply.
Net Zero rules changing would almost certainly lead to lower costs for energy because the subsidies for production and infrastructure would go, together with transition penalties, but at the cost of delays in reducing emissions.
We probably don't need MoTs on new cars until they are 5 years old now, not 3 years old.
Why? Doesn't the MOT mainly check wear parts? Tyres, brakes, steering components, suspension components, boots, bushes, dampers, springs, drop links, ball joints, track rod ends and structural corrosion? All susceptible to wear on your electric vehicle.
Cars are far more robust than, say, the 1980s when they were rust buckets after 18 months.
It's not essential to MoT after 3 years. They are usually still on finance then, on low mileage and as good as new. But it is an example of our ultra-conservative risk culture.
No-one wants to make the call, and bank the savings but risk even one single newspaper headline in a few years time saying, probably inaccurately, that a 4.5 year car just crashed and a fault 'might' have been spotted if it'd had an MoT sooner (which it almost never does).
Comments
Overall, those contracts are adding a small amount to bills. But that the security they provide during a period like that is of enormous value. The quicker we reduce our exposure the better - and credit where credit is due, the Conservatives did a brilliant job of that during their time in office.
I am sure they will recover a bit from this - and expect final result will be nearer Plaid 33-35% and Reform 25-27%. I think Labour will also recover a little to say 12%...
Plaid Green will be very interesting but as for labour, a disaster
"Hold on, I'm coming"
That's quite a promise.
I don't see even the most minor of Labour revivals.
Could a Plaid-Green coalition work? The numbers suggest a healthy majority and were this to happen it would be a huge personal triumph for Rhun ap Iorwerth and a significant shift in Welsh politics.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/send-it-in-jerome-powell-federal-reserve-trump-pushback-economy-mamdani?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
The LD are not nearly as popular as years ago and 3 seats is very possible as are 6 conservatives
Water supply crisis not good enough, watchdog says
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c150nxlwnqzo
*Or at least,be aware there may be issues with disposing it if there is.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kavehmadani/2025/12/03/6-big-questions-about-irans-water-crisis-and-tehrans-day-zero/
Just saying, like…
Is that number 13 U turn ?
Will no one rid us of this turbulent idiot ...
It's not essential to MoT after 3 years. They are usually still on finance then, on low mileage and as good as new. But it is an example of our ultra-conservative risk culture.
No-one wants to make the call, and bank the savings but risk even one single newspaper headline in a few years time saying, probably inaccurately, that a 4.5 year car just crashed and a fault 'might' have been spotted if it'd had an MoT sooner (which it almost never does).
Does anyone remember his distinctly Corbynite leadership "pledges"?
It'll never happen though.
IF these numbers are anywhere near correct, Plaid will achieve their best election result ever by quite some way - I wonder whether their inexperience of Government will be a problem though the fact they will be a breath of fresh air after years of Labour's "arrogent entitlement to rule" (as you rightly put it) will give him a fair bit of leeway in the first few months.
He’s wasted massive amounts of political capital in exchange for little actual capital receipts.
Shades of SNP in Scotland
Unless something changes very quickly and dramatically
https://www.geostrategy.org.uk/research/britains-world-the-strategy-of-security-in-twelve-geopolitical-maps/
"99% of Britain’s data transmission relies on 60 major subsea cables, including 45 providing international links. Approximately £1.15 trillion in financial transactions are facilitated globally via these networks daily, with British and American cable links not only fusing the City of London and Wall Street, but also major European financial houses and markets to their North American counterparts."
Their NYLON latency is already better than most broadband, and a city-based connection is going to be really expensive, but even so, as a backup…
Iran are having to deploy military-grade RF jammers in their own cities, and still can’t block it.
You are correct inasmuch as it's very hard to sack anyone in the public sector. I was once told you could urinate in the Council Leader's coffee while he was drinking it and probably not be dismissed but the slightest hint of bullying or sexual harrassment and you were out.
For most, though, sacking was never the problem - the problem was being "restructured" out of a job. Your "role" would be deleted, you would be "invited" to apply for a similar role and then be unsuccessful and that would be that.
There was very little job security and as soon as the "r" word was mentioned, everyone was worried (except the HR people organising the restructuring - quis custodiet ipsos custodes?).
Fortunately, the number of his supporters is trending downwards. I’m not certain the Republicans talking about fraud is going to save them when it’s so easy to start talking about Republican fraud, but we’ll see. There are still plenty of gullible people who believe everything they read in their MAGA social media bubble.
It’s there as a backup for the cables.
We actually agree on more than which we disagree.
https://x.com/BillClinton/status/2011098958236697021
I wonder if Trump and his mob are in danger of overreach.
Uk banks hold a lot of uk debt (20%?) after the quantitative easing spree a while back. We are also paying those banks interest on that debt. ~~ £20bn.
That easing was to iirc, increase the velocity of money. I was reminded by the above post from Casino.
I’m not sure why we are paying the banks that £20bn?
Are we paying them to hold gilts we pretty much gave them? Is that a very expensive bung obviously better spent on re-arming and security.
Surely the banks would prefer a safer country.
A deal should be done.
If it's going to be optional there really is no bloody point to continuing the programme.
Quite rightly, the Federal Government can be held to account or scrutiny for those policies which it controls just as the State legislatures are held to account for State mandated policies and programmes.
This notion somehow the mid term election won't be or can't be about Trump is ridiculous but it will be the policies he has enacted and the degree to which Americans think those policies are working which will be important.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/13/london-pride-boss-accused-contempt-of-court
Does anyone genuinely believe that there isn’t now rampant fraud everywhere governments hand out money to NGOs?
https://youtu.be/pTOQFzOIDkA?si=XIpiMUU3R74jmKro
If Trump does enact his promised 50% increase in US defence spending next year, then (combined with the natural growth of spending coming through an ageing population) I don't see how it doesn't end up at 6.5% or so. Which is an astonishingly high level considering that the US is not battling a recession.
"Labour scraps plans for compulsory digital ID"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/01/13/labour-scraps-plans-for-compulsory-digital-id-u-turn-uk/
A three year old car used for driving five miles a day three days a week to the local station and twice a year for a visit to family will be in much better condition than a car used by the sales team of a firm selling industrial chemicals all across the country.
I think this is known in Trussite circles as "The Blob".
Interesting times ahead.
If I wasn’t English I’d be avid for it.
I don’t believe it either. This country ain’t that bonkers. We get what we deserve and we don’t deserve that.
Either way, the problem is the Executive trying to codify their programme, as as been seen this week with two dozen Republicans Senators voting on a budget Bill that reinstates funding to a bunch of Dem NGOs on what’s clearly a behind-closed-doors reciprocal basis.
Elon Musk is again furious, he’s the guy who wants to see an actual cut in the budget! The rest of his party have jobs for life if they keep the budgets running though.
Trump (and other Republicans before him) are great believers in deficit spending to create "growth".
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_vipoll_20260113.html
The Australian system is the best. No MoT equivalent unless the car has been off road, unregistered then it needs an inspection before it can be re-registered. Combine that with roadside enforcement by the cops on the real shit heaps and that's all you need.
Now it is, of course, an utterly massive program, with money being sent (via the States) from the Federal government to private medical providers, and there's going to be a fair amount of people billing for things that didn't happen, and it is essential to have robust processes in places for identifying fraudulent claims.
The first place one would want to look, therefore, would be how much is being spent per old person by State.
Fortunately, that data exists: https://www.kff.org/medicare/state-indicator/per-beneficiary/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Medicare Part A and/or Part B Program Payments Per Traditional Medicare Enrollee","sort":"desc"}
And Minnesota doesn't stand out; it's amost exactly the same amount (within a dollar) as Mississippi. Which means either (a) old people in Minnesota are significantly healthier (possible); or (b) there is a similar amount of fraud in Mississippi. Indeed, one might expect that -due to lower wages and rents- that Mississippi costs might be lower.
It doesn't bother me, but then I am entitled to be here.
Labours arrogant entitled rule has to end
“Health indices by U.S. state vary significantly, with states like Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Minnesota often ranking high for overall health (e.g., lower chronic disease, better access), while states in the South (e.g., Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama) frequently rank lower due to higher rates of obesity, smoking, and mortality”
I didn’t prompt it on specific states. It just picked Minnesota and Mississippi as examples there.
Do you know about US history and why Mississippi has terrible health indices?
Blackfriars Tavern, Great Yarmouth.
Pelican Inn, Gloucester.
Tamworth Tap, Tamworth.
Volunteer Arms, Musselburgh.