budget

SACRAMENTO — California has a huge deficit, a looming cash crisis, an angry public and pressure to raise taxes — and in this dismal state of affairs, the state’s minority Republicans see opportunity.

GOP lawmakers hope to use their leverage over the state budget, which cannot pass without some of their votes, to roll back landmark policies implemented by Democrats and the governor. Among them are curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, regulations banning the dirtiest diesel engines and rules dictating when employers must provide lunch breaks for workers.

None of those laws has any direct connection to the state budget; changing them will do nothing to close California’s $15.2-billion deficit. And the Democrats who control the Legislature already have rejected Republican proposals to delay or eliminate the laws through the regular legislative process.

But as pressure mounts on lawmakers to resolve the budget crisis, the GOP’s renewed requests could get some traction. Republican clout grows along with the state’s financial problems — at least during the summer budget season.

“We think the budget is an appropriate place to talk about these issues,” said Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster). “We are setting them on the table for discussion.”

Runner acknowledges that the proposals won’t help balance the books in the coming fiscal year, but he argues that they would stimulate the economy and thus generate cash for the state over time.

“They are reasonable issues to bring up” now, he said.

Lawmakers are making little progress in those negotiations. Legislators did not meet their June 15 constitutional deadline for passing a budget, and they are saying publicly that a spending plan is unlikely to be in place by the July 1 start of the fiscal year.

The state will run out of cash in September, according to the state treasurer, and finance officials say that borrowing to remain solvent will be extremely tough without a budget in place by July. Securing a loan takes time, and lenders look for an enacted budget as assurance that the state will have enough cash to repay them.

Democrats, meanwhile, are calling for as much as $11.5 billion in new taxes — though they have not specified what they want to tax.

Republicans say cuts in government services and programs are the way to go — though they, too, mostly demur when it comes to specifics.

Republicans have made clear, however, that relaxing the environmental and labor laws would put them in more of a mood to compromise. That position has drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats and activists.

“Using a fiscal crisis to delay and roll back protections for Californians is just wrong,” said Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach).

Sierra Club lobbyist Bill Magavern called the GOP lawmakers “a dwindling minority trying to exploit the limited leverage they have.”

Environmentalists are particularly outraged by the Republican call for a delay in the curbs on greenhouse emissions.

The global warming measure is one of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proudest accomplishments. It has landed the governor, himself a Republican, on the covers of magazines around the world.

State officials are drafting rules for implementing the emissions caps, which are scheduled to take effect in January 2010. GOP legislators say complying with the rules will be costly for businesses at a time when they already are reeling from the poor economy and higher oil prices.

They want the governor to exercise a provision in the law that allows him to postpone implementation by declaring that it would cause the state “significant economic harm.”

“We’ve got a major downturn in the economy,” said Dave Cogdill of Modesto, leader of the state Senate’s Republicans. “We’re trying to convince the governor to give us more time on this.”

Republicans are making the same case for new rules requiring retrofitting of diesel engines on trucks, tractors and heavy construction equipment. The engines are a leading source of pollution and have been singled out by scientists as a cause of thousands of premature deaths and hospital admissions for respiratory problems in California each year.

Supporters of the laws say that the sickness they will prevent and the boost they will give to “green” technologies promise to be far more helpful to California’s economy than a delay in their implementation.

Schwarzenegger has said through aides that he does not wish to postpone environmental regulations and won’t let the budget situation sidetrack his long-term goals. But he also says nothing is off the table.

“We have open doors where everything is on the table,” Schwarzenegger said in a speech last month to the California Peace Officers Assn. “I don’t want to go and say to anything, ‘No.’ ”

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the governor is interested, for example, in working with Republicans on a relaxation of workplace rules that dictate when employees must be granted lunch breaks.

The governor, an ally of the state Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, is sympathetic to complaints from business owners that some workplace rules cost them money without benefiting employees.

The example most often cited comes from restaurant owners who say they must give their workers breaks at particular times, even if it is in the middle of the busiest shift, when many would rather be working tables to collect tips.

The Legislature must sign off on changes to such laws, something Democrats say they have no intention of doing. Their labor allies say budget season is a cynical time to raise the issue.

“If these were viable policy proposals, they would pass on their own merits,” said Emily Clayton, policy coordinator with the California Labor Federation.

Republicans, she said, “are trying to hold the budget negotiations hostage.”

—

evan.halper@latimes.com

Imagine cutting the cost of accommodation on your next holiday to about £5 a day. You can have a whole house, rather than just a bedroom. And you can go almost anywhere in the world and stay as long as you like, within reason. Welcome to house swapping.

You’re sceptical, I know. I was, too. Our terrace house was too small. Too overflowing with stuff. The 1980s kitchen was too old (and battered). We aren’t in a nice enough neighbourhood. Who would want to stay here? Lots of people, it turned out.

Our first swap was with a pair of retired Australian judges who had lived in the UK decades before. They came to our house first and, over a cup of tea and cake in our living room, we talked about where to find a good pint and the best fish and chips locally, as well as mastering the idiosyncrasies of how to run our dishwasher. They told us about their favourite local parks (warned us about snakes) and when to put out the bins, before we headed for our month-long stay at their house in Perth. It’s these conversations and connections that really make house swapping special.

Yes, we have stayed in some truly extraordinary homes. There was a house in Florida where we watched rocket launches while lounging in the pool; a clapboard cottage with a hot tub in the Stockholm suburbs; and a swanky five-bedroom villa in the south of France that we shared with friends. We couldn’t have afforded any of these if it were not for house swapping. In fact, the swaps themselves are free, but I pay $235 (£177) a year to use Home Exchange, a house swap booking platform, which works out at about £5 a night for the 35 or so nights I used it last year.

The greatest pleasure, however, is in the genuine relationships forged. Through the messages exchanged before and during the swap, friendships are created. You become, however briefly, part of each other’s lives. We have swapped pets and cars, and watered plants along the way. For a week, we became passionately involved in helping pick a summer school for our Basque guests’ kids. Warm welcomes are universal. We’ve had olive oil from the garden grove of a house in Greece and marmalade from Seville. In return, guests at our house can expect to find sparkling wine from Kent, Essex jam and a pile of Cadbury chocolate bars to try – French guests are big fans of the Crunchie.

Even in challenging moments we found friendship, such as when our shower sprang a leak and rained all over the dining table. We had to arrange an emergency repair via video call with our Spanish guests, an Albanian plumber and a UK insurer, all while frantically looking for a reliable phone signal in the countryside. The babel of languages resulted in a tube of silicone being applied and both parties leaving five-star reviews.

I won’t go back to hotels. I have saved tens of thousands of pounds over the past five years, but what has really hooked me is the interactions with hosts and guests that make my holidays more fulfilling. It’s like having a friend everywhere you go.

Q&A – Everything you need to know

Will I be comfortable house swapping?
If you’re precious about the things in your home or anxious about someone sleeping in your bed, a swap is not for you. Likewise, if spending the last day of your holiday cleaning is a deal-breaker.

How do I house swap?
For some sites, you pay a flat annual membership fee (£100-£200) to use a booking platform with thousands of homes. I use Home Exchange because it verifies member identities and offers some guarantees such as damage, theft and cancellation protection. Kindred is a smaller and generally more expensive rival, focused on upmarket homes. Instead of locking you into membership, it charges variable service and cleaning fees.

How does it work?
Classic swaps are simultaneous; you exchange houses on the same dates. But non-direct swaps are also allowed via a points system: you are awarded credits for stays at your house, which you can then spend to stay somewhere else.

What about scams and safety?
Everyone on Home Exchange is a host and a guest, so there is a high degree of trust. Most swaps don’t involve money, so scams are rare. The only exception is a cleaning fee, payable when the stay is at an end. If you’re asked for money in advance, it’s a scam.

How do I pick my accommodation?
This is time-consuming. The website looks similar to Airbnb, where you filter by availability, destination and the type of property you want, but you need to match with a host, too. Hosts and guests both have ratings from previous stays, but some people still like to phone or video call before agreeing to an exchange. Then once the exchange is agreed, there are messages to organise the swap and answer questions such as how to use the cooker or where the bedding is. Many hosts prepare a house manual. Cancellations are rare but do happen, usually due to illness in our experience. The one time it happened to us, Home Exchange helped us find a new host in the same city, and it will pay for a hotel in a true last-minute emergency.

Do I need to own a luxury house?
No. If you have a pool, hot tub or luxurious mansion, you will certainly get more offers, but flats and smaller houses near popular UK destinations (whether that’s Edinburgh, or the Dorset coast) do just as well. Most houses, like ours, are completely ordinary.

Do I need to put my stuff in storage?
Clear a few drawers, perhaps a wardrobe, for guests, and that’s it. Most of the houses on Home Exchange are family homes.

What about cleaning?
You do need to scrub that oven and clean that grout. Cleanliness expectations are high (and should be agreed upfront). We usually spend much of the last day of our holiday cleaning, and return to find our own house absolutely sparkling. Some hosts give you the option of paying a cleaner.

And DIY?
One of the fringe benefits of house swapping is that it has made us look after our house a little better. Sticky door handles and dripping taps need to be dealt with.

What if I break something?
We have broken small things, as have our guests; usually this is simply forgiven. Put more precious items away. For more expensive items, such as a TV or screen door, house swap platforms usually offer a level of cover, but you should make sure you have home insurance.

Will my home insurance cover my house swap?
Ask. Some insurers offer no cover, others offer it for a certain number of exchanges, or you may need to buy a bolt-on. House swapping is still relatively unusual, so persevere to get a clear answer. Insurers that cover holiday lets, such as Pikl, are also useful.

Are there legal restrictions?
Because no money is exchanged, house swapping is not restricted in the same way as Airbnb and similar services – except in Amsterdam, where only reciprocal swaps are allowed (so no paying with points). You do need to check visa rules if looking after someone’s pet – some countries (such as the US) may view this as providing a service and in breach of a visitor visa.

Other house swap sites
Keybento, Kindred, HomeLink

Rory Boland is the editor of Which? Travel

Governing, the political sages tell us, is all about making choices, particularly when leadership faces finite resources and the choices are between war and peace; this is the “guns or butter” balancing raised by Lyndon Johnson’s pursuit of the Vietnam War and, appropriately, by President Trump’s Iran war.

Thus far, according to budget experts and the Trump administration itself, the war has cost Americans about $25 billion, with the White House reportedly preparing to seek $200 billion more in military funding. That points to the obvious question of what the U.S. could buy if it stopped spending on the Iran adventure.

Here’s the short answer: Medicaid coverage, free school lunches, and housing, child care and community college assistance for tens of millions of Americans. Those estimates come from Bobby Kogan, senior director for federal budget policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.

Kogan is not alone in doing the math. Similar estimates have been published by the Century Foundation and Mother Jones.

Democrats in Congress have offered their own juxtapositions: “$11.3 billion would have fully funded the training of 100,000 new nurses to solve our staffing crisis,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) observed on social media. “Instead, it was spent in just six days on an illegal war with no endgame.” (She wrote when that was the government’s estimate on spending in only the first week of the Iran war.)

Details will follow. But first, a reminder that the “peace dividend” — that is, the surge of available resources for socially beneficial spending after the cessation of hostilities — has always been an elusive concept.

In part that’s because it invariably gets tied up in conflicts over precisely what peacetime programs political leaders wish to fund, and that often involves tougher decisions than whether to mount a bombing campaign against a perceived adversary.

“What happened to the peace dividend?” economist Augusto Lopez-Claros asked last year, referring to the supposed surfeit of funds that was to flow after the end of the Cold War. His answer was that there were always alternatives, many of them militaristic in nature, in the wings to suck up the funds that had been spent in the past.

The issue has especially acute significance today, not merely because of the Iran war. The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have been campaigning to cut federal spending, almost entirely on social programs such as Medicaid and on Social Security and Medicare benefits, ostensibly because they contribute heavily to our “unaffordable” federal budget deficits.

Never mind that the largest single contributor to the deficit is the massive tax cut enacted by Republicans in 2017, during the first Trump term, which were made permanent by the GOP’s budget bill last year.

Placing military spending in the context of alternatives is typically shunned by Republicans and conservatives. The Wall Street Journal editorial board derided the exercise as “dorm room politics,” referring specifically to an estimate by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) that the $200 billion reportedly sought by the White House “would pay for free college for every American,” and more.

That doesn’t mean the exercise isn’t worthwhile, however. Kogan acknowledges that it wouldn’t be up to the Pentagon to redirect its budget to the social programs that could be funded with its funding request, but his point in making the comparisons is “to get a sense of scale.”

So let’s dive in, starting with Kogan’s work. He matched the cost of several social services against the $25 billion estimated to be spent on the war through the end of this week and the $200-billion new request. He also broke down some of the spending by ordnance. The price of one Tomahawk missile, invoiced about $3.5 million each, could cover Medicaid for a year for 275 people, for example; the U.S. has fired an estimated 300 of them in the Iran war so far, for more than $1 billion.

Kogan calculated that more than 3.1 million people could be covered by Medicaid for $25 billion, and 24.8 million could be covered for $200 billion. He based this estimate on the Congressional Budget Office’s finding that the federal share of Medicaid came last year to $668 billion to cover about 82 million adult and child enrollees, or about $8,048 per person annually.

Then there’s free school lunches, which the government has pegged at up to $4.69 per day for about 30 million children receiving meals in school. If they all received free lunch, that would come to a little over $25 billion, based on a 180-day school year. (Only about two-thirds of those children receive free meals, with the rest receiving cut-price meals or paying full price.)

Child care isn’t typically a governmental responsibility (though it should be); Kogan uses an estimate from the nonprofit organization Child Care Aware that care cost Americans about $13,128 on average in 2024; inflating that to a 2026 figure yields an average of $14,048, meaning that 1.78 million households could be covered for about $25 billion, and about 14.2 million for $200 billion.

Tuition for a two-year path to an associate degree in community college, that portal to higher education for millions of Americans, will cost an average of $8,700 this year by Kogan’s reckoning, based on the College Board’s estimate of $8,300 for 2025. That means that about 2.87 million Americans could have their tuition fully covered for about $25 billion, and nearly 23 million students could be covered for $200 billion.

The progressive Century Foundation contributed estimates of how much in social program spending could be accommodated for $200 billion. Its roster includes the cancellation of all medical debt for the 100 million Americans shouldering about $194 billion in medical debt. The enhanced Affordable Care Act premium subsidies that expired this year could be continued for almost six years for about $200 billion, extrapolating from the 10-year, $350-billion estimate produced by the CBO. “Ensuring health coverage for all Americans,” the foundation noted, “could save an estimated 68,000 lives per year.”

The foundation also notes that $200 billion could ameliorate the draconian cuts in Medicaid imposed by the preposterously named One Big Beautiful Bill that the GOP enacted as a budget measure in July. The work requirement in that bill is estimated to reduce Medicaid spending by $326 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO, mostly by throwing enrollees out of the program. The work rules, which as I’ve reported do nothing to enhance employment, could be deferred for six years, preventing the loss of coverage for about 5.2 million Americans.

Mother Jones reported soberly that $200 billion would cover the wages of 2.8 million public school teachers, based on an average salary of $72,030, as reported by the National Education Assn.

The publication took a rather more fanciful approach for some calculations. It reported that $200 billion would pay for 2,666 sequels to the “Melania” documentary, based on the $75-million reported cost of its production and marketing by Amazon, its sponsor. And 500 more White House ballrooms, based on the latest projection of $400 million for just one.

Obviously all these calculations are somewhat chimerical. No one really believes that if Congress rejects the $200-billion ask, that money would be redeployed for any of these social programs, at least while the GOP remains in control of the government purse strings. The basic arithmetic itself is subject to cavils resulting from the murkiness of some of the cost calculations and projections.

But they’re not far wide off the mark in terms of orders of magnitude. Millions of dollars in social spending could be covered by billions of dollars in military spending, and much more productive investments could be made in the years and decades to come.

The lost “peace dividend” encompasses not just domestic needs, but also “the potentially catastrophic risks that we are taking on in the future because we are misallocating resources now,” Lopez-Claros observed — “spending massively on defense while leaving unattended climate change mitigation, pandemic preparedness, the shamefully high levels of malnourishment in the world, among others. We may well come to regret this and by then, unfortunately, it might be too late.”

Even before the first bombs fell on Iran, after all, the U.S. was shortchanging all those imperatives. “Just last July, Trump signed into law the biggest cuts to the social safety net in all U.S. history,” Kogan says, including “the biggest cuts to Medicaid ever, and the biggest cuts to SNAP, ever.” (The GOP budget bill cut SNAP, the food stamp program, by $186 billion, leaving “nearly 3 million young adults ages 18 to 24 who receive SNAP vulnerable to losing that assistance,” the Urban Institute estimated after the bill was signed.

At their heart, these calculations are not really about dollars and cents. The financial figures just help us keep score of the choices that define us as a nation.

WASHINGTON — In session for rare weekend votes with the election fast approaching, Congress acted Saturday to keep the government running for another 24 hours but made little apparent progress in breaking a budget impasse.

Despite the action of the House and the Senate on the eighth stopgap spending measure since the fiscal year began Oct. 1, a weird limbo enveloped the Capitol as neither Republicans nor Democrats predicted a quick deal. Gone for the time being was the usual year-end pressure to adjourn. Instead, both sides seemed willing to wait to see who would blink first.

Negotiations focused on the handful of issues still dividing the parties, issues that might or might not influence voters at the polls Nov. 7. Among them were tax credits for school construction, proposed workplace safety regulations and measures to ease immigration law.

President Clinton, who forced the weekend votes by insisting that lawmakers pass daily stopgap budget measures, urged the Republican-led Congress to wrap up its budget work and include an increase in the federal minimum wage.

“I’m not trying to harass [Congress],” Clinton said at a news conference. “I’m just trying to get them to finish their job and go home.”

Clinton cited an agriculture spending bill he signed Saturday as a model of bipartisanship. The president said he signed the bill–which included milestone language easing a decades-old trade embargo on Cuba to allow U.S. agricultural exports–even though he was critical of provisions that would limit the effect of the trade opening.

In a GOP radio address, New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman called the budget showdown “a case in point” of Washington gridlock that voters will punish.

“I think we are ready for a change,” Whitman said. “And the difference between the parties is striking. Republicans at all levels of government work with people to accomplish results–not make excuses for why we can’t even try to solve them.”

Republican congressional leaders note that they wrapped a minimum-wage increase Clinton supports into tax legislation that he is holding up with a promised veto. And they accuse the White House of constantly shifting its goals on the two government spending bills for fiscal 2001 that have not been finalized.

“I tell you, I’ve reached the end of my rope,” said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. To illustrate his frustration, Stevens said in an interview on the Capitol steps that the administration had sought $3.5 billion in extra spending on a bill containing $106.8 billion for discretionary spending on education, health and other programs. Then $4 billion. Then $4.1 billion. And now, he said, the demand is up to $4.5 billion.

“What can you do?” Stevens asked.

To register his protest, Stevens was one of two senators to vote against the daily budget resolution. The other was Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). Sixty-seven senators voted for the resolution.

Thirty-one senators–11 Democrats and 20 Republicans–were absent for what the chamber regarded as a ritual vote. Many missed it because of campaign events, a few for health reasons. California’s Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein–who is running for reelection–and Barbara Boxer, were both absent.

The House vote for the stopgap measure was 339 to 7. All seven dissenters were Democrats, including Rep. George Miller of Martinez. Of the 86 representatives who were absent, 42 were Republicans and 44 Democrats.

Twelve of California’s 52-member House delegation did not vote. They were Feinstein’s opponent in the Senate race, GOP Rep. Tom Campbell of San Jose, and Reps. Brian P. Bilbray (R-San Diego), Ken Calvert (R-Riverside), Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), Matthew G. Martinez (R-Monterey Park), Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Santa Clarita), George P. Radanovich (R-Mariposa), Joe Baca (D-Rialto), Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles), Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo), Pete Stark (D-Hayward) and Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles).

The roll call showed the political importance of the vote to many House members–all wary of the potential charge that their absence would reflect an insensitivity to the possibility of a government shutdown.

Bilbray was the only California absentee in a tough reelection race. Other California incumbents in contested races, such as Reps. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale), Steven T. Kuykendall (R-Rancho Palos Verdes), Calvin Dooley (D-Visalia), Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) and Stephen Horn (R-Long Beach), all eschewed campaign events to remain in Washington for the vote.

More stopgap budget votes were expected today.

A BUDGET rail operator is launching a new route that will travel 400 miles across the UK – and tickets cost less than £30.

Lumo, which operates fully electric trains, will connect London Euston to the Scottish city of Stirling this summer.

Rail travel across the UK can be very expensive but Lumo, which is part of FirstGroup, is known for its affordability.

Starting July 10, Lumo will start its new route from London Euston to Stirling for as little as £29.90.

When the service launches it will have four daily return trains between the two cities.

Between the two cities, trains will call at Milton Keynes, Nuneaton, Crewe, Preston, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Motherwell, Whifflet, Greenfaulds and Larbert.

ALL IN

The CHEAPEST all-inclusive holidays in May half term – from £259pp and kids go free

PARK UP

10 of our fave £9.50 holiday parks in the UK – with MORE breaks added from today

For those travelling between London and Preston, tickets start from £23.90.

And between Preston and Stirling, tickets can be booked from £14.90.

Stirling sits north of both Glasgow and Edinburgh and it’s known for its huge historic castle and even has an interactive Old Town Jail attraction.

Visitors often head to The National Wallace Monument which is a 220ft tower in the countryside.

The city also has a high concentration of pubs for its size – the oldest alehouse is The Settle Inn which has been serving ale since the 1700s.

Stuart Jones, managing director of First Rail Open Access, which runs Lumo said: “These fares are about putting customers first.

“By offering simple, low-cost tickets and direct services between Scotland, the north west of England and London, we’re making it easier and more affordable for people to travel for work, leisure and family visits.”

Onboard a Lumo train, there are no first class seat options – but wherever passengers sit, there’s access to USB sockets and tray tables.

Lighting can be personalised by using the button on the back of the seat in front of them.

Passengers can also use the free Wi-Fi, and each seat has a winged headrest for comfort and a coat hanger.

Lumo offers other routes too like London King’s Cross to Edinburgh.

But its latest started in December 2025 from London to Glasgow.

The company announced the news on social media, it said: “Our new timetable starts on 14th December 2025!

“Our new Glasgow service will start in December and we’re also adding an additional service from Newcastle to London King’s Cross every weekday.”

Lumo runs two northbound and one southbound service on weekdays and one service in each direction on Sundays between London King’s Cross and Glasgow.

On the way it also stops at Falkirk High and Newcastle.

For more on Scotland, here’s the most popular Scottish city to visit in 2026 with Traitors castles and epic road trip route.

And here’s a mythical Scottish waterfall with ‘magical properties’ where the water flows red.

One in five adults living outside London haven’t visited the capital in over 10 years due to costs – but a new challenge proves you can experience the city on just £150

A fifth of adults living outside of London haven’t set foot in the city for more than 10 years. A poll of 2,000 adults who live outside the capital found more than half (52%) admitted the cost of accommodation makes it too expensive to visit. Additional factors preventing people from visiting include transport costs (50%), the price of dining out (27%) and lacking the time to organise a major trip (21%).

Meanwhile, one in 10 have avoided it because the Tube leaves them baffled. However, 58% would welcome the opportunity to discover the city, with more affordable accommodation, reduced attraction prices, smaller crowds and a straightforward itinerary likely to entice them.

The study was commissioned by easyHotel, which tasked presenter Hattie Carter with experiencing London in 24 hours on a £150 budget, beginning from its Croydon location which has recently completed a full renovation.

Nathan White, UK operations director for the hotel chain, said: “There’s no denying that London is often seen as expensive and out-of-reach for those on a budget, particularly as the cost of living continues to rise. However, with a few simple hacks such as opting for affordable accommodation, the capital becomes much more accessible to all.

“Croydon has quick transport links reaching central London in under 15 minutes, so it’s a great option for those who want to spend their budget on the experiences that make a London trip worth it.”

The survey revealed that a quarter of adults typically organise their trips between two and six months ahead, although younger travellers are leaning towards more spontaneous plans, with 60% of 18- to 24-year-olds preferring to book within one month or less.

Kew Gardens (51%), Tate Modern (50%), and Camden Market (44%) were the top attractions people expressed a desire to visit. Additionally, 36% of participants indicated they would be most likely to visit London during the summer season.

Cheaper travel options are what 44% of adults claim would make them more inclined to visit London in the forthcoming 12 months – with the average adult prepared to spend £66.15 on a return train ticket.

Accommodation ranked second to travel as 37% of those surveyed via OnePoll.com would be persuaded if it was more affordable, expressing willingness to pay an average of £118.13 for an overnight stay.

However, despite 32% brimming with excitement at the prospect of planning a trip to the city, 24% feel anticipation – and 21% associate it with stress.

A spokesperson for easyHotel Croydon, where an average overnight stay costs just £58.27, commented: “It’s clear there is still a huge appetite to visit London and explore everything the city has to offer, but for many it’s about how to make it happen without breaking the bank.

“Our £150 budget challenge proves it can be done. By staying smart at an accessible and affordable hotel, London is doable.

“We want to help more people visit the capital for a memorable and positive experience, while keeping their budget firmly under control.”

March 10 (Asia Today) — President Lee Jae-myung said Tuesday the government may prepare an early supplementary budget to cushion the economic impact of rising energy prices linked to the Middle East conflict.

Speaking at a Cabinet meeting in Seoul, Lee said additional fiscal measures could be necessary to support small businesses, struggling companies and vulnerable households if global energy shocks continue.

“To provide fiscal assistance and support for small business owners and vulnerable firms, we may inevitably need an early supplementary budget,” Lee said.

Lee also called for targeted support for lower-income households rather than a blanket reduction in fuel taxes as oil prices surge.

The president instructed officials to accelerate additional financial and fiscal measures, including a petroleum price cap system, adjustments to energy taxes and direct assistance to consumers.

“We must mobilize all national capabilities to minimize the impact of external shocks on people’s livelihoods, the economy and industry,” Lee said.

Deputy Prime Minister and Economy Minister Koo Yoon-cheol said the government could potentially finance the supplementary budget without issuing new government bonds.

He cited improving conditions in the semiconductor industry and increased fiscal resources linked to stronger activity in the stock market.

Lee also addressed concerns over reports that United States Forces Korea may remove some air defense assets from the country amid the regional conflict.

“If you ask whether this seriously undermines our deterrence strategy against North Korea, the answer is no,” Lee said.

He acknowledged that South Korea had expressed opposition to the partial withdrawal of air defense systems but noted that the United States may reposition some assets based on its broader military needs.

Foreign media have reported that systems such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system and Patriot missile batteries could be redeployed.

Lee emphasized that South Korea’s defense spending remains among the highest in the world and said the country’s military readiness remains strong.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260311010002954