It's time meddling councils were put in their place
The days when a law-abiding Englishman could go through his life barely interacting with the state beyond the policeman and the postman are long gone. Even so, it is dispiriting to see the eagerness with which minor government apparatchiks seize every opportunity to infringe on personal freedoms and impose inconveniences on the population.
Labour-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham Council's decision to fine a resident £1,000 for putting out his bins a few hours early before travelling away from home is a perfect example of the type of small-minded bureaucracy that permeates life in modern Britain.
It fits all too neatly into a schema containing the proliferation of anti-driver Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and 20mph zones imposed against the wishes of residents, the excessive taxation of those who dare to own a second home, and the impression that local officials are all too willing to interfere and meddle in the daily lives of their residents with little sense of self-restraint.
Hammersmith and Fulham has taken this logic further than most, with uniformed enforcement teams patrolling the borough and issuing fines 'day and night, seven days a week', without providing the safety and security of police officers. But establishing a specialist unit of jobsworths is merely a logical continuation of a broader trend across the country as a whole.
A stranger arriving in Britain for the first time could be forgiven for believing that the primary role of local government is to restrict choice and wage war on convenience. It is hard to otherwise explain the sheer extent to which councils delight in imposing their whims on residents, and the sheer number of rules weighing down daily interactions with the public sector.
Rather than viewing their role as providing services to the taxpayers who fund them, however, it seems to be that councils see their job as ensuring adherence to the most rigid interpretation of the rules possible, enforcing ideological conformity with ambitions such as net zero or biodiversity improvement, and – potentially – levying fines to help balance the books.
The result is an unending war on convenience, and ever greater state intrusions into daily life that should rapidly be reined in.
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Reform UK row as party chair calls new MP's burqa ban question ‘dumb'
A row has broken out in Reform UK after its newest MP called on the prime minister to ban the burqa, with the party's chair, Zia Yusuf, saying it was a 'dumb' question given that was not party policy. Sarah Pochin, who recently won the Runcorn and Helsby byelection, asked Keir Starmer in parliament on Wednesday: 'Given the prime minister's desire to strengthen strategic alignment with our European neighbours, will he in the interests of public safety follow the lead of France, Denmark, Belgium and others and ban the burqa?' Her call was met with cries of 'shame' from some MPs, and Reform later clarified it was not the party's policy but that it could be part of a debate. Nigel Farage, the party leader, also weighed in later on GB News, saying: 'I don't think face coverings in public places make sense, and we deserve a debate about this.' However, Yusuf responded to the idea on X on Thursday suggesting the question should not have been asked. 'Nothing to do with me. Had no idea about the question nor that it wasn't policy. Busy with other stuff. I do think it's dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn't do,' he wrote. A Reform spokesperson said Yusuf had not been criticising Pochin personally as he had said it was a 'dumb' thing for a party to do, and that all parties contained people who took different positions on policy matters. However, it is the latest sign of disharmony in Reform, months after Rupert Lowe, one of the party's MPs, was booted out after a disagreement with Yusuf and Farage. Lowe, who now sits as an independent, takes a more sympathetic approach to the far-right agitator Tommy Robinson and has a hardline view advocating mass deportation of people who have migrated to the UK illegally. On Thursday, Lowe backed a burqa ban, saying: 'The burqa is a political symbol: it represents a deeply patriarchal and unpleasant worldview that has no place in our society. We must defend the freedom of girls and women born into a culture where that suffocation isn't a choice, but a rule. Let's ban the burqa.' The idea was also endorsed by Nick Timothy, a Tory MP and former chief of staff to Theresa May, who said on X: 'The burqa is as British as Jeddah and yes it should be banned.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
British lawyers for Hamas investigated by watchdog
The law firm trying to remove Hamas from the UK's list of proscribed terrorist groups is being investigated by a solicitors' watchdog, The Telegraph understands. Riverway Law made headlines in April when it launched an appeal to have Hamas taken off Britain's list of proscribed groups. The firm made a submission to Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, arguing that Hamas posed 'no threat to the UK people' and should be allowed to operate here on free speech grounds. Just days after submitting its appeal to the Home Office, the firm was reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) by Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary. Mr Jenrick argued that Riverway's appeal potentially breached UK sanctions rules on terror groups. He also drew attention to apparent social media posts about the war in Gaza by Fahad Ansari, the leading lawyer in the case and the director of Riverway. The posts included claims that Hamas is a 'legitimate resistance movement' protecting Palestinians from 'UK-sponsored Israeli genocide'. The SRA is understood to be at an early phase of its investigation and no conclusions have yet been reached. In a letter to the watchdog sent in April, Mr Jenrick said there was 'a clear need to uphold public confidence in the legal profession and to ensure rigorous enforcement of the UK sanctions regime'. He said that there were 'significant questions as to whether Riverway have complied with their obligations under the UK sanctions regime, the SRA's own published guidance and broader professional standards expected of solicitors'. Mr Ansari has defended his firm's actions. In response to Mr Jenrick's complaint he said: 'We were in contact with OFSI [the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation], external counsel and others who had represented sanctioned organisation[s], to ensure that we did not breach our duties under the sanctions regime.' Riverway submitted a 106-page application to the Home Office in April, accompanied by a video which was posted to its social media channels. The application argued the proscription of Hamas in the UK should be lifted in line with European Convention of Human Rights protections in the interest of freedom of speech. It also claimed the ban is disproportionate and that Hamas poses 'no threat to the UK people'. The ongoing appeal, believed to be the first of its kind, is being fronted by Mousa Abu Marzouk, Hamas's head of international relations and its legal office. Mr Jenrick welcomed the SRA's investigation on Saturday, telling The Telegraph: 'Our sanctions regime is pointless if it isn't enforced. 'Ansari is a shameless apologist who argues Hamas poses no threat to the British people. What nonsense. This evil death cult threatens free people everywhere.' Mr Ansari has previously appeared to make a series of controversial social media posts related to the ongoing Israel-Gaza war. In posts dating from last year he appeared to praise fighters of the 'courageous Palestinian mujahideen', wrote 'you should view Hamas as an army of angels' and dismissed international courts as 'hopeless', saying that 'only armed resistance' would help Palestinians. In April last year, a post on his X account said: 'Eid Mubarak to everyone celebrating especially the courageous Palestinian mujahideen who continue to resist the Western-backed Israeli genocide entirely on their own. You are the pride of this Ummah. May you celebrate Eid one day in a fully liberated Palestine.' Another comment posted in June said: 'If you believe genocidal Israel is the most moral army in the world, then you should view Hamas as an army of angels.' The SRA declined to comment. Mr Ansari and Riverway Law were approached for comment. 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.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Britain's debt is a threat to national security
Our sky high debt is a threat to our national security. This year, the cost of servicing our debt will be almost double what we are spending on defence. And in today's turbulent world, the fiscal buffer to cushion us from shocks is paper thin. The smallest tap could shatter our economic credibility. The Prime Minister has made defence and security the organising principle of his government. Given that, putting our debt on a downward path should be his government's priority. It isn't. Debt will be higher at the end of the Parliament than today. And with global government debt already around $100 trillion, and Donald Trump about to increase that by a further $2.4 trillion, who will buy our debt – and at what price? Last year, the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee raised a red flag that UK debt risks becoming unsustainable unless tough decisions are taken in this Parliament. We set out a choice: taxes would have to rise, or the state would have to do less. Being cross-party, we did not opine on which option was best. The Government has taken tough decisions – but in my mind the wrong ones. Taxes are rising to record highs. The Chancellor said last year that her strategy would deliver growth, and that she would not come back for more tax. But the growth forecast has been halved, and further tax hikes are on the cards. Meanwhile, pressure to spend more on defence is going to increase. At the upcoming Nato summit, nations are likely to be asked to commit to spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence – double Labour's current commitment. So what is to be done? We need to confront the other option: the state should do less. The Government rightly says that the relentless rise in welfare spending is 'unsustainable'. Spending on disability and incapacity benefits alone is more than on defence. But having announced that action would be taken to curb the growth in the welfare budget, the Prime Minister is now blinking in the face of opposition. The Government – and the nation – cannot afford ministers losing their nerve to keep a lid on spending. The bond vigilantes have saddled up and are on the prowl. Nor can the Chancellor tax her way out of the debt quagmire: to do so would risk us entering into a doom loop of ever lower growth and ever higher debt. If defence and security is the organising principle of government, the Chancellor must set out a credible plan to stop debt's relentless rise and bring it down from today's giddying heights. Not doing so risks economic catastrophe – and our national security. Lord Bridges of Headley is a former Government minister; he was Chairman of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee between January 2022 and January 2025 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.
