Call to fine 'headphone dodgers' who play music on buses
The Liberal Democrats are calling for fines of up to £1,000 for "headphone dodgers" who play loud music and videos on public transport.
Current railway byelaws already ban many forms of anti-social behaviour on trains and at stations, including using equipment to produce sound without permission if this annoys others.
However, the Lib Dems want to change the law to explicitly ban playing music and videos out loud from a phone on trains and buses in England.
A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "There are already strict rules in place to prevent anti-social behaviour on public transport, including possible fines of up to £1,000."
The government is also introducing further measures to tackle anti-social behaviour on buses, including mandatory training for staff on how to respond to incidents.
The idea has cross-party support, with some Labour and Tory MPs previously suggesting similar measures.
However, without government support the Lib Dem proposals are unlikely to become law.
Why do people play music in public through a phone?
Loud music could be banned on buses in West Midlands
A survey of more than 2,000 UK adults for the Lib Dems, conducted by Savanta, found 38% had experienced people playing music out loud often or sometimes.
Some 54% of people would not feel comfortable asking someone to turn down their music on public transport, the findings suggest.
The figure was higher for women (63%) then men (46%).
The Lib Dems said they would try to amend the Bus Service Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament and is due to be debated by peers next week, to introduce the changes.
The party said it also wanted existing railway byelaws to be amended to make clear playing music and videos out loud from a phone counts as unacceptable behaviour and should be punishable with a fine of up to £1,000.
It said this should be accompanied by a national publicity campaign, including posters on train platforms and at bus stops.
Currently passengers who breach bylaws can be removed from trains or stations, with a maximum fine of £1,000.
Existing regulations also allow passengers to be removed from buses if they play sounds which are likely to annoy others.
Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokeswoman Lisa Smart said: "Far too many people dread their daily commute because of the blight of anti-social behaviour - and headphone dodgers playing loud music on buses and trains are some of the worst offenders.
"Whether you're heading to work, taking your kids to school, or simply trying to enjoy a moment of peace, everyone deserves to feel safe and respected on public transport."
She added: "It's time to take a stand for the quiet majority who just want to get from A to B in peace."
Conservative shadow transport secretary Gareth Bacon said: "Playing loud music on public transport may seem like a small thing, but it speaks towards a growing tolerance of anti-social behaviour that chips away at public civility."
He added that the Conservative Party supports "common-sense reforms like this" but "any new byelaws must be backed by stepping up enforcement - something the Liberal Democrats' plan fails to deliver".
Reform UK and the Green Party have been approached for comment.
Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Israel's Strikes on Iran Trigger Elevated Shipping Risks Across Middle East
Israel's airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities early Friday morning have prompted the U.K. and Greece to advise their merchant shipping fleets on taking a more cautious approach to sailing certain trade bottlenecks in the Middle East. According to a report from Reuters sharing information from the U.K.'s Department for Transport, all U.K.-flagged vessels, which include ships registered under the flags of Gibraltar and Bermuda, were advised to avoid sailing through the southern Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. More from Sourcing Journal China-to-US Freight Rates 'No Longer Surging'-Is it All Downhill from Here? As Houthis Warn of 'War' Amid Israel-Iran Tensions, Red Sea Shipping Still Stagnant USTR Eases Port Fees for Foreign Vehicle Carriers, Scraps LNG Export Mandate If transiting these areas, vessels must adhere to their highest level of security measures and limit the number of crew on deck during transits, said the advisory. The Union of Greek Shipowners, which represent more than 60 percent of the E.U. controlled merchant fleet, urged shipowners to send details of their vessels sailing through the Strait of Hormuz to Greece's maritime ministry, Reuters said. The Strait of Hormuz flows into the Persian Gulf, with roughly one-fifth of the world's daily oil supply passing through, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The pre-emptive airstrikes bring speculation as to the immediate future of Red Sea shipping, particularly since the Iran-aligned Houthi militant group responsible for attacks in the waterway have been in direct conflict with Israel in recent months. Ahead of Friday's attacks, the Yemen-based Houthis had warned both Israel and the U.S. that any escalation against Iran would 'drag the entire region into the abyss of war.' The militants had conducted drone and missile attacks on commercial vessels traveling through the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb Strait starting in late 2023, which lasted throughout 2024. The U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization said it began the attacks in support of Palestinians in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war. Overall, the Houthis conducted more than 130 attacks on commercial vessels in that time frame, according to data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, a crisis monitoring organization. The onslaught resulted in container shipping firms mostly abandoning the Suez Canal, instead committing to rerouting their ships around southern Africa's Cape of Good Hope. The mass diversions lengthened East-to-West ocean shipping times by roughly one-to-two weeks. Although the Houthis have not conducted any attacks in the Red Sea in 2025, most of the major ocean carriers have refused to return to the trade artery due to a lack of safety guarantees. A circular shared by maritime security firm Ambrey early Friday said there was no impact to shipping at the time of the report. The firm warned of heightened risk to Israel-affiliated shipping in the Arabian Sea, Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf, similar to a warning sent out by the U.K. Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) office of the Royal Navy ahead of the Israeli airstrikes. For safety precautions, Ambrey recommended thorough affiliation checks for vessels planning to transit through the affected regions. Vessels with strong affiliations to Israel are advised to avoid these areas where possible. With tensions continuing to escalate in the Middle East amid Israel's ongoing military campaign in Gaza, roughly 200 protesters occupied the lobby of Maersk's Manhattan headquarters on Wednesday morning. The demonstration occurred in protest of the container shipping giant's transport of military equipment to Israel, namely the reported shipping of F-35 fighter jet parts. Maersk has stated that while it carries military equipment to Israel, it does not transport weapons or ammunition to the area, or any other conflict zones. Earlier this year, the company's shareholders voted against a proposal to halt shipments of arms to Israel on the grounds that premise of the proposal was incorrect. Members of the protesting group, which was organized by the Palestinian Youth Movement and Jewish Voice for Peace, refused to move from the lobby and chanted phrases like 'Maersk, Maersk, drop the cargo, we demand an arms embargo.' The demonstrators also demanded that more food and aid be sent to Gaza. Members of the NYPD's strategic response group moved in after about an hour and cuffed protesters. At least 50 had been taken into custody by the time the protest ended. The Manhattan demonstration follows a series of protests in major cities like Copenhagen, Paris and Berlin. Last month, more than 50 activists including Greta Thunberg held a demonstration in the Copenhagen office of Maersk's tankers division in protest of the equipment shipments, as well as the carrier's overall carbon emissions. Thunberg and a group of other activists on a Gaza-bound flotilla were later detained by Israeli officials after attempting to bring food and humanitarian aid to the region. The detainees were brought to Israel before they returned to their home countries.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Nigel Farage accused of ‘fantasy promises' with expensive policy pledges
Nigel Farage has been accused of leaving a multibillion-pound black hole at the heart of his party's spending plans after unveiling a series of expensive policy pledges to be paid for by cutting nonexistent items of government spending. The Reform UK leader laid out a series of economic promises at a speech on Tuesday designed to take advantage of disquiet among Labour voters at the government's policies on taxes and benefits. But while Farage promised up to £80bn worth of new spending – including scrapping the two-child benefit cap and increasing winter fuel payments – he did not explain exactly how they could be paid for. Helen Miller, the deputy director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: 'The risk is that we hear much more about sizeable giveaways on tax and benefits while getting nothing like the same amount of specificity about the big cuts to spending on public services that would be needed for the plan to be implementable.' One of Farage's main revenue-raising policies is to scrap the government's commitment to reaching net zero by 2050, which he said would save £45bn a year, citing calculations by the Institute for Government (IfG). But Jill Rutter, a senior fellow at the IfG, said the Reform leader had used a figure that included both public sector and private sector investment. 'The bulk of spending on energy infrastructure is going to come from the private sector – but closing private sector projects won't generate money for the government,' she said. Labour accused Reform of making 'fantasy promises', while the Liberal Democrats called his speech 'Trussonomics on steroids'. The Climate Change Committee says net zero will require investment of £26bn a year, more than two-thirds of which will be provided by the private sector. That will be offset, however, by about £22bn a year of savings the policy will enable. Tim Montgomerie, a political commentator and Reform supporter, told the BBC: 'I wouldn't say the numbers do add up yet, I readily concede that.' He said it was too far away from the election to demand the party deliver a fully costed policy platform. Farage himself admitted his sums might not add up, but insisted they gave 'an idea of direction, policy, of priorities, of what we think is important, of what we think it is going to cost'. The Reform leader set out his latest policy pledges during a speech in central London at which he made three main policy announcements: ending the two-child benefit cap, reversing the cuts to winter fuel payments and increasing tax breaks for married couples. He refused, however, to guarantee keeping the pensions triple lock, which ensures the state pension rises by the highest of inflation, earnings growth or 2.5% a year. The IFS calculated that when added to a separate promise to increase the threshold at which people start paying income taxes to £20,000, the policies could cost between £50bn and £80bn a year. Related: Watch Labour's flip-flopping on winter fuel and benefits, and you'll see who's really considered important | Frances Ryan Farage said his policies were in part about fairness, but also designed to encourage families to have more children, a social policy frequently espoused on the right. 'We believe lifting the two-child cap is the best thing to do, not because we support a benefits culture but because we believe for lower-paid workers this actually makes having children just a little bit easier for them,' he said. He also promised more generous tax breaks for married people should he win the next election, saying he would raise the amount of tax-free allowance that someone can transfer to their spouse from £1,260 to £5,000. He added that he wanted more stringent controls on abortion as well. 'I think it's ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous, that we can allow abortion up to 24 weeks, and yet, if a child is born prematurely at 22 weeks, your local hospital will move heaven and earth and probably succeed in that child surviving and going on and living a normal life,' he said.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
The charts that show why Reeves's spending plans are a fantasy
Rachel Reeves claims she is investing in the country's Chancellor was cheered on by her front benches as she announced more money for the NHS, defence and schools in a move she boasted would lead to 'a national renewal'. In some senses, there were few surprises on Wednesday. We already knew how much Reeves had to dole out in her maiden spending review. The NHS gobbled up most of the money, with day-to-day spending on the Department of Health and Social Care growing by an average of 2.8pc a year over the forecast period. Defence spending has also received a significant boost as pressure from Nato mounts. Other departments, notably the Home Office, were squeezed as Reeves sought to make the sums add up. But while the numbers may tally on paper, economists are already questioning whether they will work in reality as pressures build from a more dangerous world and an older population. There are also fears that Reeves's announcement will pave the way for massive increases in council tax to keep Britain's streets safe. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), says that while health and defence are big winners 'in pounds and pence, even here, one has to wonder whether this will be enough'. There are other pressures elsewhere. The Chancellor once vowed to never make an unfunded spending commitment but this week announced she will restore winter fuel payments to most pensioners with no clues as to how it will be paid for. She has also announced a Fair Pay Agreement for social care, which will set minimum terms across the sector without any clarity on how the proposals will be funded. Welfare spending, which sits outside Whitehall budgets, is poised to keep ballooning over the next five years as the Government prepares another about-turn to planned cuts to disability benefits. And unresolved questions over levies such as fuel duty will also pile more pressure on the Chancellor. While Reeves's statement is meant to set in stone government spending plans for at least the next three years, her £40bn tax raid last year may not be enough to foot the eventual bill. The tax burden is already on course to reach a peacetime high, but JP Morgan and Capital Economics both believe that Reeves will have to raise taxes by more than £20bn in the Budget this autumn to cover her increased spending plans and fend off increasing pressure from Reform. 'The spending review contains few surprises,' says Elliott Jordan-Doak, at Pantheon Macroeconomics. 'The question is only how big tax hikes will be in October.' The Government hinted on Wednesday that council tax would rise sharply to pay for policing after Reeves cut the Home Office budget by 2.2pc. Reeves claimed 'police spending power' would increase by 2.3pc in the coming years, which documents suggest could include more money from council tax. The Liberal Democrats said families in typical Band D households now faced a £395 increase in council tax by the next election. While the NHS is clearly a winner, there are already questions over whether the money will be enough to keep the health service running. Analysis by the IFS shows there have been just two occasions – in 1991 and 2004 – where health spending grew more slowly than envisaged in the spending review. More often, governments have been forced to top up health budgets to boost day-to-day health spending, which is on course to rise from a 26pc share of Whitehall budgets in 1999 to more than 40pc by the end of the decade. Reeves has set out plans to increase the NHS day-to-day budget more slowly than its historical average – by 3pc in real terms compared to 3.6pc – despite growing pressures on the health service. The plan set out by the previous Conservative government assumed real-terms funding increases of around 3.6pc per year. Johnson says: 'Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18 week target for hospital waiting times within this parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up.' The plans also revealed the front-loaded nature of many of the settlements, with NHS capital spending set to remain flat in real terms for the rest of the decade after this year. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government's tax and spending watchdog, believes pressures from an older and sicker population will increase demand for NHS services by 1.1pc per year alone. 'The pressure to spend more on the NHS will still be great even after today's announcement,' says Jordan-Doak. Economists also questioned whether the health department's pledge to find £9bn in efficiency savings by the end of the decade was credible. Labour will unveil a refreshed NHS 10-year plan in the coming months, which is expected to demand more spending on staff and equipment to deal with Britain's demographic challenge. Another winner from Wednesday's spending review was defence, with spending in this area on track to rise to 2.6pc of GDP by 2027. But there was no mention of a 3pc target which Sir Keir Starmer has committed to, let alone the 3.5pc goal Nato is piling pressure on countries to reach. Increasing defence spending from 2.5pc of GDP to 3pc represents an increase of £17bn by the end of the decade. That's the equivalent of an extra 2p on income tax. Johnson says: 'On defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6pc of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' There are also doubts about whether Reeves will be able to force through the cuts envisioned for the departments that lost out in Wednesday's announcement – including the Home Office, transport, Foreign Office and environment departments, which will suffer cuts in real terms. Even schools will get a real-terms freeze if you strip out the cost of expanding free school meals. In fact, departmental spending to 2028 will on average grow more slowly than under plans Rishi Sunak set out in the Conservatives' last spending review in 2021. 'We think that these real-terms spending cuts will be impossible to deliver given the pressure on public services and voters' demands for increased spending,' says Jordan-Doak. Then there are the Chancellor's investment plans. Capital spending is set to rise by £113bn over this parliament, with money going on everything from transport to green energy, new prisons and housing. Reeves is gambling that this investment blitz can kick-start growth. But as with any gamble, there is a risk it could go wrong. 'If the Government insists on accumulating the extra spending it's planning over the full parliament, it seems only fair to also draw attention to the £140bn of extra borrowing we're forecast to do over the same period,' says Johnson, at the IFS. Extra borrowing will keep Britain's debt pile rising every year until the end of the decade. 'That borrowing incurs a cost in the form of additional debt interest – and one that's bigger than it was a year ago,' says Johnson. The question was always whether the extra investment would bring sufficient benefits to make that worthwhile.' Government borrowing costs rose in the immediate aftermath of Reeves's announcement. Andrew Goodwin, at Oxford Economics, calculates that the Chancellor's already wafer-thin £9.9bn headroom to meet her borrowing rules has already been eroded by £2.5bn as a result of higher gilt yields. And while Reeves boasts about all the extra investment being pumped into the economy, another key question is: will she be able to get all of that money out the door? Previous analysis by the Resolution Foundation shows that successive governments of all stripes have struggled to spend all the money they wanted. Just £1 in every £6 in planned investment spending over the past seven spending reviews since 1998 actually went out the door. Why? Governments are often too optimistic about when projects become shovel-ready. There may be planning hold-ups, and the construction sector may not be able to cope with all that extra demand for engineers, project managers and construction workers to deliver these projects. 'We now know more about what sorts of projects the Government plans to invest in,' Johnson says. 'The focus must now shift to delivery and avoiding the all-too-common project over-runs.' Governments have in the past raided capital budgets in order to make their day-to-day spending budgets add up. New safeguards have been introduced to in theory prevent this from happening again. But this may simply make it harder for Labour to meet spending demands if plans go awry without putting up tax. Ben Ramanauskas, at Policy Exchange, casts doubt on Labour's ability to live within its means. He says: 'While the uplift to the defence and criminal justice budgets are welcome, this is unlikely to go far enough. Instead the Chancellor has chosen to prioritise the NHS by giving it even more money, without insisting on productivity improvements.' All this is expected to keep the size of the state permanently bigger than its pre-lockdown size. Ramanauskas says: 'The Government is yet to set out how it will fund its largesse to the public sector. However, it will almost certainly have to place even greater strain on the public finances by increasing borrowing or adding extra burdens to households and businesses by raising taxes.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Sign in to access your portfolio
