hedydd griffiths

[Alan Smith @AlanJLSmith]

Imagine you ran a business and the top 1% of your customers generated 30% of your income.

And then you did everything to make them leave and never come back.

Even though they funded your business, you didn’t like them because they were successful.

So your business went bust.

[Outpost Studios @OutpostStudios]

The Reason Our MPs Got So Bad.

This week's Brazier, with @ColinBrazierTV.

Only on @OutpostStudios.

[Old Gassy @OldGassy1984]

Nicola Sturgeon finds herself struggling to log in to a website...

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

The funniest maths in modern environmentalism.

One almond requires 12 litres of irrigated water to produce. Peer-reviewed, ScienceDirect, 2017. A glass of almond milk contains roughly 50 of them. 600 litres of water before the carton is filled.

The water comes from the San Joaquin Valley in California, which sits over one of the most over-extracted aquifers on earth. The valley floor has subsided by up to nine metres in places due to groundwater depletion. The carton is then refrigerated, sailed across the Atlantic, refrigerated again, lorried to a Manchester Tesco, and bought by someone who is concerned about the environmental impact of dairy.

Meanwhile, in Cheshire.

A British dairy cow drinks roughly 70 to 100 litres of water a day and produces around 28 litres of milk. That's about 3.5 litres of water per litre of milk. The water is rainwater that fell on her field or came from a local stream fed by the same rainwater. The rain was going to fall on the field whether the cow stood in it or not. 80% of her moisture intake comes from the grass itself, which is also rain.

She converts the grass, free of charge, into a litre of milk containing seven times the protein and four times the calcium of almond milk, and shipped roughly 18 miles to the same Tesco.

To recap.

600 litres of stolen aquifer, flown halfway round the world for nutritionally worthless beige water.

Or 3.5 litres of rain that was already falling, converted by an animal you can pet, into actual food.

The shopper picks the almond.

She has been told this is the ethical position.

The aquifer would like a word.

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

There's a point in every scandal when the curtain drops and you see the thing as it really is. We've reached that moment. Until now, Labour's defence was that Rachel Reeves went rogue – that she spun up a phantom black hole, misled the public, and panicked the markets all on her own. That alibi has just died. Downing Street has now admitted the truth: Keir Starmer knew there was no black hole. He saw the OBR's positive forecasts. He read the speech. And he signed off the lie.

This is no longer a story about one dishonest Chancellor. It is a story about a dishonest government. Reeves lied on 4 November because Starmer approved the script. She warned of a fiscal cliff that didn't exist because Number 10 told her it would fly. She talked Britain into fear so she could raise taxes not out of necessity, but out of political convenience – and she did it with the Prime Minister standing at her shoulder. The black hole wasn't an error, or a misunderstanding, or an early draft of the figures. It was a joint operation.

You can now see how the machinery worked. Treasury insiders whispered horror stories about £20–30 billion gaps. Reeves hinted at income-tax hikes she knew were unnecessary. The media was steered towards panic. The public was softened up. All the while, the real figures – £4.2 billion of headroom – sat on Starmer's desk in black and white. It is the clearest case of manufactured crisis we've seen in years: engineer fear, justify a raid, blame old villains, and hope no one ever sees the timestamps. The Treasury didn't attack the OBR for "breaching private space." They attacked it for telling the truth.

This matters because the lie didn't land in a vacuum. It moved markets. It spooked pension funds. It influenced interest-rate expectations. It shaped decisions made by families, businesses, and investors. It was market-sensitive falsehood presented as fact. Reeves now faces allegations of market abuse – and if she is responsible, then Starmer is responsible twice over. The First Lord of the Treasury is either complicit or asleep. If he knew, he must go with her. If he didn't, he has no business governing.

What we are seeing here is the end of the pretence that Labour is a sober, technocratic outfit of grown-ups. The mask has slipped. Beneath it sits a government that lies first and explains later; a government that treats the truth as something to be shaped for effect; a government that thinks voters exist to be managed, not informed. This is the same crew that slashed winter fuel payments, raided farmers, hammered private pensions, and slapped "punishment taxes" on groups it dislikes – all under the banner of a mythical £22 billion deficit they now cannot explain.

When Number 10's response to being caught is to insist that Reeves's claims were "entirely accurate," even with the OBR's timestamps staring them in the face, it tells you something deeper has broken. Honesty is no longer expected. Accountability is no longer offered. The belief seems to be that power justifies the lie – that the ends excuse the means. That is the mindset of a government in decay.

And now their MPs know it. You can hear the panic in the briefings. "This looks pretty bad." "Hard to see how they come back." "Rachel is tied to Keir." They understand the stakes: if Reeves falls, she drags Starmer with her. If Starmer survives, he survives as a man who nodded through a deceit aimed squarely at the wallets of the very people who put him in office.

Britain cannot be governed on this basis. A Prime Minister who signs off a fiscal fiction, then calls it "entirely accurate," has no claim to moral authority. A Chancellor who uses invented numbers to justify the largest tax raid in years has no claim to office. And a government that treats the public as marks in a political con has no claim to trust.

"The First Lord of the Treasury is either complicit or asleep. If he knew, he must go with her. If he didn't, he has no business governing."

[Robbie Moore MP @_RobbieMoore]

These are unbelievable comments from a Labour MP representing a rural constituency, who clearly understands nothing about farming. I wonder whether she’s told her own farming constituents they “haven’t earned” the often small returns their farms make. Perhaps during a late-night weekend harvest, she could break the news.

Farmers are not wealthy people. They own a business with a nominally high asset value, but they make little to no return on that invested wealth. The average return for a farming business is less than 1% of business capital, if they are making a return at all.

Labour simply have not realised that punishing hardworking family businesses, including farmers, with this tragedy tax will only damage growth and employment across the country.

This isn’t economic policy, it’s a vindictive attack against hard working people who own their own business and live independently from the state. It’s vital we support the grafters across the country who do incredible work for our nation and that is why the Conservative’s are committed to axing the Family Farm and Family Firm Taxes.

[James Melville 🚜 @JamesMelville]

Farmers feed us. That’s the bottom line here. Without them our food security would completely crumble. They work brutal hours every single day of the year, regardless of the weather and many are surviving on horrendously low incomes with huge production overheads.

They are one of the most important public servants in society and yet the UK government are threatening the existence of many family farms.

Also, our glorious countryside is due to farmers’ maintenance and understanding of the old school environmentalism of rotational farming practices, ecosystem protection, photosynthesis and the natural carbon cycle of cows and pastures.

Having grown up on a farm and remain connected to farming communities, I can empathise with the huge strain that is faced by farmers to provide our food - and with appalling purchase prices being given to them by many supermarkets.

It’s a hard life, but a noble life. Farming isn’t just a job. Farming is a way of life. And our way of life (through our food supply and security) is dependent on them.

It’s time for governments to wholeheartedly support farmers and put agriculture right at the top of the political agenda. Because ultimately, no farmers, no food.

And because of all of this, that’s why I set up the @NoFarmsNoFoods campaign with a group of magnificent farmers.

#NoFarmersNoFood

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

Creating a business, building it up, making it a success - it is bloody hard work. There are no sick days, no paid holiday, no excuses. You are on call, 24/7/365. It's down to you. Sink or swim.

These are the people actually driving the economy, and they should be treated with far more respect.

Small business owners, and farmers, are THE backbone of Britain.

It's not just Labour, it was the same under the Tories. Record taxes, record incompetence - those taking the risks and generating the wealth are the ones treated with utter contempt by the establishment.

I've built countless businesses, I understand. I genuinely do. Not all of my risks have paid off, that's the nature of business! But we need to encourage people to try - that means making it worth the gamble. And it is a gamble!

There needs to be a fundamental reset of the relationship between the productive economy, and the bureaucratic monster state. Who works for who?

Who pays who's wage? All of these arrogant little men and women across public sector leadership, working from home with their comfortable salary and generous pensions. Many of whom, do quite frankly sod all. I want to know - where is the accountability? Who do they answer to?

Work with almost ANY part of the public sector - it's a joke. Long waits, massive delays, inept people. Nobody cares! They just don't care. There are good people, but they're drowned out by the overwhelming incompetence of their colleagues.

Ask anyone in business who has to deal with the public sector. You're more likely to talk to an out-of-office reply than an actual person. Don't even bother trying past 16.00 or on a Friday...

I find it so incredibly frustrating. The public sector should be there to serve and facilitate the private sector, not the reverse!

I am unashamedly pro-business, pro-success, pro-wealth creation. We must foster an environment where these principles are encouraged.

The state needs to back off - slash back its responsibilities, and focus on doing those things properly.

I am doing my best, along with my colleagues, to make these simple and obvious arguments in Parliament. Sadly, we are woefully outnumbered.

[Lee Harris @LeeHarris]

"There is no economy in the world that's ever taxed it's way to economic growth."

Tom Hunter gives Labour MP Darren Jones a simple and well needed lesson in economic growth. 🔥

Labour are utterly clueless.

#bbcqt

[hedydd griffiths @HEDS1877]

@GenXGone @agricontract Spot on

[hedydd griffiths @HEDS1877]

@iamnot_elon B) no

[Jason Helmes @anymanfitness]

Just finished this book - Bad Therapy by @AbigailShrier

This is one of the most eye-opening books I've ever read. It's a must read for any parent, any teacher, and should be required reading for any school administrator as well.

The book dives into trying to figure out why kids are having so many mental health problems, when there are so many resources devoted to improving mental health outcomes.

Anxiety, depression, suicide, etc are all higher than they've ever been with kids, even though their lives are arguably better than ever before. It just doesn't make sense.

A few key takeaways from the book:

A constant attention on how kids are "feeling" or "thinking" is causing negative outcomes.

Constantly ruminating on your emotions and how you feel negatively impacts your mental health. If all you do is focus on your emotions, you are destined to be anxious or depressed.

We incessantly ask kids how they're feeling, if they're happy, how their mental health is, etc, and this is creating kids who think they're fragile instead of resilient.

Trying to solve every problem for kids has caused a generation who can't do anything for themselves.

We (Gen X) were told to "suck it up" or "you'll live" or "rub some dirt on it" all the time. Many of us came to the conclusion this is "bad parenting" because our feelings were neglected, and we vowed not to do this to our own children.

Because of that, kids immediately over-dramatize everything that happens to them, making mountains out of molehills, and thinking the world must revolve around their emotions and feelings.

You develop confidence and strong mental health by doing things, not by thinking or via therapy.

You can't think your way out of anxiety. You don't gain confidence by analysis of your thoughts or mental health issues.

You gain confidence and eliminate anxiety by doing gradually more difficult tasks, excelling at them, and realizing you are a competent, capable person.

The non-stop attention therapy gives to these small, common emotions we all feel blows them out of proportion to their seriousness (not talking about genuine disorders here, just normal anxieties that millions of people go to therapy to try to avoid).

One of the best ways to decrease your happiness is to chase it.

Our society constantly tells kids they should be "happy" and asks them if they are.

Happiness isn't a state you should be in 24/7. That's not realistic. Joy and bliss aren't permanent states - they are fleeting.

Contentment, stillness, and being even-keeled are much better goals to aim for mentally.

The happiest, most well adjusted kids come from families with loving parents that have strict rules for the household.

This one really set off the confirmation bias in me... I feel really blessed we have 2 well adjusted middle school kids who do great in school, are very respectful and well mannered, and we barely even need to parent them.

But for years, we were very strict with them. Bedtimes, family rules, how we do things, etc. The in-laws and lots of friends thought we were totalitarian.

In reality, we just had high standards. And it's really paying off right now. I found it really interesting that strict rules equals happy kids. Makes sense, though, as kids need to know what their boundaries are.

Constantly surveying school-age kids about their mental health causes more issues than it solves.

Mental health resources is big money. Districts need to validate all the resources allocated towards mental health, and they often do that via surveys.

Asking kids non-stop questions like:

- Have you thought about self harm?
- Have you thought about suicide?
- Have you been so anxious you can't get out of bed?

Etc, etc puts into their heads the idea that themselves, or many of their peers are broken and cannot function properly in the real world.

It normalizes situations that would be incredibly rare at any other time in history.

There's a lot of other takeaways, too, but I'll stop there.

It's a fantastic book. Go pick it up and read it. This isn't an affiliate thing or a promotion thing at all. I just really enjoyed it, and it will further shape the way I parent moving forward.

[hedydd griffiths @HEDS1877]

@philsteele1 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[hedydd griffiths @HEDS1877]

@MikeBubbins Thank god for the TPO !

[hedydd griffiths @HEDS1877]

@1stchoicewolves @Polyflorltd Do you happen to remember which colour Verona this is ? I’m looking for the exact same colour !

[hedydd griffiths @HEDS1877]

@sjsflooringltd @Polyflorltd Is this ash grey ? Looks great

[hedydd griffiths @HEDS1877]

@stuartn10828353 @MikeBubbins

[Andy Ryan @ItsAndyRyan]

Her: Are you coming over?
Me: Yes, I'm coming over
[walkie-talkie sex]

[Mollie Goodfellow @hansmollman]

Every straight man has a pair of boxers that looks like this around the elastic waistband