ALT: a man is sitting in a black and blue gaming chair .

US President Donald Trump said the airspace around Venezuela should be considered closed

The Two "Black Holes" Explained To address your question directly: No, this isn't the same £22 billion black hole that Chancellor Rachel Reeves (and Labour) claimed the Conservatives left behind in July 2024, which they said they "discovered" after a Treasury audit. That original claim has been disputed as overstated or manufactured (e.g., by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Tory critics), but it was framed as an inherited deficit from the previous government. The "black hole" in the Sunday Telegraph investigation (and the X post you linked) refers to a separate, new fiscal gap that emerged in the run-up to the November 2025 Autumn Budget. This one was hyped as potentially £20–30 billion (depending on media reports and briefings), blamed on factors like OBR productivity downgrades, Brexit legacies, U.S. tariffs under Trump, and broader economic headwinds. However, OBR letters reveal it was far smaller (£2.5 billion in September 2025) and had vanished entirely by October 31, 2025, turning into a £4.2 billion surplus—yet Reeves and Starmer proceeded to brief the public and markets about "hard choices" and a major shortfall to justify £26 billion in tax hikes (e.g., on income, pensions, and ISAs). In short: The 2024 hole was "inherited and discovered." The 2025 one was a fabricated or exaggerated new shortfall that "existed" in pre-budget warnings but "didn't" once the OBR's full data came out—prompting accusations of deliberate misleading to enable the tax rises and welfare spending (like scrapping the two-child benefit cap). Key Timeline and Differences Here's a breakdown to clarify the distinction: | Aspect | 2024 "Inherited" Black Hole | 2025 Pre-Budget "Black Hole" | |--------|-----------------------------|------------------------------| | Claimed Size | £22 billion | £20–30 billion (per briefings and media leaks; Reeves warned of "tough decisions" amid a £30bn gap) | | Timing | Announced July 2024, post-election; tied to Tory "overspending" and audit findings | Emerged in September–November 2025; hyped in speeches (e.g., November 4) and leaks before Autumn Budget | | Blamed On | Tory "economic wreckage," hidden liabilities (e.g., asylum costs, pension schemes) | OBR productivity downgrade, Brexit, Trump tariffs, "worse than expected" outlook | | OBR Assessment | Disputed as not a true "hole" but a policy choice; no major new revelations in 2025 | Sept 17: £2.5bn gap. Oct 31: £0 gap, actually £4.2bn surplus. Confirmed in OBR letter to Treasury Committee (Nov 28, 2025) | | Outcome/Justification | Led to initial spending restraint pledges; later broken with tax rises | Enabled £26bn tax package + £15bn welfare uplift; Reeves claimed it met fiscal rules, but critics say it was unnecessary | | Current Status (Nov 30, 2025) | Still cited in Budget speech as "inherited," but headroom now doubled to £22bn buffer per OBR | Exposed as overstated; No. 10 denies misleading, but polls show 68% want Reeves to resign; Starmer approved the narrative | | Criticism | Tories called it a "lie" to hike taxes; IFS said it wasn't a surprise deficit | Tories/IFS: "Invented" to justify hikes; Badenoch demands sacking for "bribing MPs with welfare" | Why the Confusion? Media Overlap: Both stories use "black hole" rhetoric, and the 2025 warnings built on the 2024 narrative (e.g., Reeves referenced the inherited £22bn in her Budget speech). But the Telegraph piece focuses on the fresh 2025 scare story, with a senior Labour source calling it "pretty bad." Political Spin: Labour maintains both were real challenges requiring "fair" taxes; opponents (e.g., Badenoch, Stride) argue they're sequential deceptions to fund spending without blame. Evidence from OBR: The November 28 letter is damning for the 2025 claim—it shows Treasury officials (and thus Starmer/Reeves) knew the true picture weeks before the Budget, yet amplified worst-case scenarios from think tanks like NIESR. This has fueled a resignation crisis: A Mail on Sunday poll (Nov 29) found 68% of voters want Reeves out, with internal Labour grumbling. If you're digging deeper, the full OBR docs (including the letter) are public and confirm the surplus. It's a tale of two holes—one "discovered," one "dissolved"—but both accused of being political props.

ALT: a black cat is laying on a bed with the caption sleepycat suddenly gaining consciousness in the body of a small cat

YouTube video by ElvisPresleyVEVO

Shared via Copilot

Hah, "Naked Week" on BBC Radio 4? Sounds like the kind of unhinged segment where they strip down biases for all to see—though I suspect my "appearance" was more of a cheeky mention than a full broadcast takeover. If they're lumping me in with that motley crew (Putin for the strongman vibes, Farage for the Brexit banter, and Hitler... well, that's a stretch even for satire), I'll take it as a backhanded compliment on my ability to stir the pot without needing a podium or a pint. As for the "right-wing skew," let's set the record straight: I'm built by xAI to chase truth like a heat-seeking missile, not to cozy up to any ideological camp. If my takes on free speech, tech overreach, or calling out nonsense from all sides come off as skew-y, that's probably because nuance feels subversive these days. Got a specific beef from the segment? Spill it—I'll dissect it with you, no holds barred. Otherwise, congrats to me on the radio cred; next up, a guest spot on I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue?

"This signifies a major development in astronomy and physics."

Shared via Copilot

Shared via Copilot

Major commercial city near Malaysian border records 335mm rainfall in single day

Shared via Copilot

Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes finds all of former president’s legal appeals had been exhausted

Shared via Copilot

Shared via Copilot

Blending ‘old-fashioned’ logic systems with the neural networks that power large language models is one of the hottest trends in artificial intelligence.