Our politicians are the least serious in history – and that includes you, Nigel
This week an appalling case reminded us just how broken Britain is. We learnt that a 15-year-old boy killed elderly dogwalker Bhim Kohli while a female friend, aged 12, filmed it on her mobile phone. Both were laughing as the beloved grandfather lay dying in the street. How on earth can it have come to this?
The case is emblematic of everything that has gone wrong – and continues to go wrong – in our fragmented, seemingly lawless society. We are led by complete incompetents: from police administering two-tier justice right the way up to our Prime Minister. It is little wonder there is a university course running in France on why the UK is such a failure.
And Mayor of London Sadiq Khan's answer to our capital's woes, despite knife and other crimes soaring? Decriminalising cannabis.
We knew Labour were not fit for purpose before they even took office, but this latest example of idiocy from City Hall really does sum up the problem with having hapless, careerist socialists anywhere near the levers of power.
And now Reform UK appears to have imploded. Having abandoned the Conservative Party after an inept 14 years of governance, which left us with higher bills, higher taxes, higher NHS waiting lists and higher immigration, voters had hoped that Nigel Farage and his motley crew might bring the salvation Britain so desperately needs.
Reform was meant to represent the alternative to 'uniparty' politics by ripping up the political rule book and restoring good old fashioned common sense. What we have learnt in the past 24 hours, however, is that the one thing uniting all four major parties in the UK (and I'm including the ludicrous Liberal Democrats in this, with their clown of a leader Sir Ed Davey) is just how thoroughly unserious they all are. Westminster currently resembles a cross-party circus act; what has the electorate done to deserve this?
Let's take them one by one. We currently cannot believe a word slippery Starmer says after a string of Labour lies on tax, winter fuel, defence spending, relations with the EU, the Chagos Islands, immigration – you name it. They promised 6,500 more teachers with their vindictive VAT raid on private school fees and this week it was revealed teacher numbers are actually down since they took office.
Millionaires are leaving, businesses are folding, more tax rises are on the way. We've got an Attorney General who wants to defend terrorists like Osama bin Laden's right-hand man while the justice system imprisons mothers like Lucy Connolly for 'hurty words' on the internet.
The Left accuses Reform of being amateurs – and then run the country as if it's a university student union staffed by drop-outs.
Yet the Right-wing opposition appears equally as childish. This week, we have had the shadow chancellor Mel Stride denouncing Liz Truss's premiership with some weasel words about the Tories 'never again undermining fiscal credibility by making promises we cannot afford'.
The former prime minister – once famously compared to a lettuce – hit back with an excoriating statement on the political playground that is X, accusing Sir Mel of being a 'creature of the system' by siding with 'failed Treasury orthodoxy'. In what world does this blue-on-blue infighting help Kemi Badenoch as she struggles to cut through?
Equally infantile was the typically boyish intervention of her former leadership rival Sir James Cleverly with a demand that the Conservatives stick to net zero – despite it being among the main reasons the party is now facing its own climate emergency. He's been invisible for months and then emerges with this sort of unhelpful Ed Milibandesque claptrap? Read the room, for pity's sake.
All credit to Robert Jenrick for trying to find some grown-up solutions to some of the country's problems – like fare dodging, notwithstanding the self-serving nature of his attention-grabbing social media endeavours.
Badenoch is trying her best to be a serious politician, with thoughtful rather than knee-jerk interventions on issues like our membership of the ECHR – only to have MPs in her ranks like Kit Malthouse spreading anti-Israel slanders like his declaration this week that Gaza is 'an abattoir where starving people are lured out through combat zones to be shot at'.
Along with other Tories, he's also been calling for the Prime Minister to recognise a Palestinian state. Harebrained student politics are clearly not just confined to the Labour Party.
We had hoped Reform, led by streetwise Nigel Farage, a man of political wisdom and experience, might rise above all this. But even he has been dogged by infantilism. If Rupert Lowe's 'more people watch my X videos than Nigel's' bravado wasn't bad enough, Reform now has been badly damaged by the similarly petulant flouncing out of party chairman Zia Yusuf.
I like Zia and think he deserves credit for all the hard work he has put into professionalising the party over the past 11 months. But what on earth was there to be gained from such a public tantrum? Just leave quietly, don't blow the whole thing up with spiteful talk of working to get the party elected 'no longer being a good use of my time'.
Similarly juvenile was the language he used to describe Reform MP Sarah Pochin's Commons call to ban the burka (which provoked laughter from the front bench: that's the state of public discourse in this country, folks).
Responding to Katie Hopkins, of all people, on X, he wrote: '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.'
At the age of 38 and having worked at Goldman Sachs and established his own hugely successful business, he should know this is not the way to behave in the public eye.
Reform remains a party that cannot even govern itself, let alone the country. This simply isn't good enough. The Government is useless, the Tories are a busted flush; if Reform seriously wants to break the doom loom of despair then it cannot be part of the problem. The party must get its act together – and fast.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why banks may no longer refund fraud victims
Lenders are lobbying for new fraud reimbursement rules to be watered down over fears scam victims are being told to lie to their banks. Since last October, companies which handle payments have been required to give victims of 'Authorised Push Payment' (APP) fraud their money back, up to a limit of £85,000. In the first three months, 86pc of money lost to the scams – approximately £27m – was reimbursed to consumers by 60 firms. The current rules mean that, other than a £100 'excess' which firms can remove from payments, the only reasons that customers can be denied a payout are if they've ignored warnings, failed to quickly notify their bank of the fraud, refused to share information about the scam or do not consent to a police report being made. But in meetings in May, banks demanded that requirements for victims to act reasonably – and not to lie to their bank – were made stronger. This would mean that customers could be denied refunds in more cases. The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) will hold an independent review of the mandatory scheme in October, and will then recommend changes. Problems raised include the high reimbursement limit, compliance monitoring by which administers the scheme, and the limited number of exemptions for refusing payouts. Lenders also said they should be able to give clear warnings about lying to them, as victims are often guided to do by fraudsters. One bank told industry magazine The Banker that: 'The [consumer negligence] bar is set so high that in almost all these cases a customer can be incredibly reckless, can lie to their bank, can ignore warnings and still get their money back.' Riccardo Tordera, director of policy and government relations at The Payments Association (TPA), said: 'The PSR says just 2pc of claims are rejected on this basis yet acknowledges no clear shift in consumer behaviour. 'Meanwhile, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the PSR both apply a stricter definition of gross negligence than common law, which could make enforcement of reimbursement policies challenging in a British court.' Under the previous voluntary code – called the Contingent Reimbursement Model (CRM) – customers could be refused for ignoring warnings or failing to verify the payee. Now the test is much stricter. Reimbursement numbers never jumped above 75pc under the old scheme – compared to 86pc for the mandatory payouts. APP scams see victims convinced to move their money themselves, eventually into a 'safe' account controlled by the fraudsters, at which point it is lost. Ticket sale scams, such as those experienced by Oasis and Taylor Swift fans, are also considered APP frauds. At first glance, the implementation has gone well. The amount lost in APP frauds dropped by 2pc between 2023 and 2024, according to UK Finance, and the number of cases fell by a fifth. But £450.7m was still lost to fraudsters last year. But the scheme has not been without its critics. Before the scheme was implemented, some parts of the industry warned of the potential problems of moral hazard – which is when consumers are incentivised to lie – and that fraudsters would pose as victims. This, it was claimed, would drive a significant spike in claims. But these fears have not materialised. Originally, the reimbursement limit was set to £415,000 – with firms expected to pay out just days after claims were made. But lobbying saw the limit dropped to £85,000, the same as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), which protects money deposited with banks. Smaller and medium-sized payment companies had said that one large claim could wipe them out. David Geale, managing director of the Payment Services Regulator (PSR), which is responsible for the scheme, said in May that: 'While it is too early to draw firm conclusions based on the period covered by this data, we have not seen evidence of spikes in claim volumes that some had feared would occur under the policy.' Before the scheme was introduced, there was a voluntary code which most of the major banks were signed up to, run by the Lending Standards Board. Sources at the LSB said last year, before reimbursement was mandatory, that they had not seen fraudulent claims. Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at Which?, said: 'Based on the available data from the PSR, the new mandatory scheme appears to be performing well, with more fraud victims getting their money back. 'Sections of the industry had tried – without producing any evidence – to claim that mandatory reimbursement would lead to consumers acting irresponsibly or even teaming up with criminals to con banks out of cash. This seemed ludicrous at the time and initial insights have borne that out.' Ms Concha added that while the number of cases were down, there was another worrying trend. She said: 'Latest industry figures suggest more victims are being tricked into sending money to bank accounts overseas controlled by fraudsters. That is concerning as these transfers aren't covered by the new mandatory reimbursement rules.' A spokesman for the PSR said: 'We have always been clear that we would have an independent review following the implementation of the policy. 'If we think there are key learnings or adjustments to make to our policy, we will consider those carefully before making any changes.'
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
SUV drivers should pay more tax, Sadiq Khan told
Sir Sadiq Khan is under pressure to tackle 'car-spreading' by hitting bigger vehicles in London with even higher taxes and parking fees. In a motion passed by the London Assembly, the Mayor has been urged to write to the Government to demand higher vehicle excise duty for heavier vehicles and tighter restrictions on car sizes. Assembly members, 11 of 25 of whom are the Mayor's Labour allies, also urged him to write to councils across the capital to ask them to adopt higher parking fees for bigger cars – a policy some have embraced already. The motion blamed larger cars for clogging up London's streets, putting pedestrians at greater risk of injury or death and causing road surfaces to wear down more quickly. Elly Baker, the Labour assembly member who proposed it, said the capital's streets 'weren't designed for larger vehicles like SUVs'. She said: 'Their greater size, weight, and higher bonnets put vulnerable road users at greater risk, reduce available parking spaces, and cause more wear and tear on our roads. 'It's time we took sensible steps to manage the impact of oversized cars and ensure our streets remain safe and accessible for everyone.' A spokesman for the Mayor said on Friday: 'The Mayor, Transport for London and borough partners are working to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on our roads, by expanding the cycle network, making road crossings and junctions safer, reducing speed limits on our roads, and making larger vehicles like HGVs and buses safer. 'This year the Mayor will be refreshing his Vision Zero Action Plan, to restate his commitment to reducing road danger and responding to new and emerging risks on our roads'. The assembly's call comes after several English local authorities have proposed higher charges for larger or heavier vehicles, amid complaints they occupy more space, produce higher levels of pollution and take a bigger toll on road surfaces. Such charges have been proposed in Haringey, Bath, Oxford and Bristol, among other places, with many councillors taking a lead from Paris, where Left-wing French politicians have launched their own crackdown on SUVs. Sir Sadiq currently lacks the formal powers to introduce such charges himself but has said he is watching developments in the French capital closely. 'SUVs take up more space and we know there's issues around road safety, we know there's issues around carbon emissions and so forth,' he said in February. 'We know some councils in London are taking bold policies in relation to parking fees, in relation to your tickets and so forth. It's really good to work with those councils.' 'Car-spreading' SUVs have grown in popularity in recent years, with many drivers favouring their higher seating position. They accounted for a third of all new car registrations in the UK last year, compared with just 12pc a decade earlier. SUVs are generally taller, wider and heavier than traditional cars, and less fuel-efficient. The increase in the size of cars has been described as car-spreading. However, Edmund King, the president of the AA, said it should be 'up to Londoners to choose the type of vehicle that best fulfils their needs'. He said: 'It is not really the role of the London Assembly to dictate what cars individuals should drive. 'Some larger families may well need bigger vehicles with more passenger seats, whereas a driver conducting most trips alone may well choose a city car. 'London's streets were developed around the horse and cart, so of course our infrastructure needs modernising to keep up with change.' A recent study found that pedestrians and cyclists are 44pc more likely to die if they are hit by an SUV or similar-sized vehicle rather than a traditional car. The analysis produced by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Imperial College London stated that the figure rises to 82pc for children. Meanwhile, research by the campaign group Transport & Environment has previously found the average width of cars in the UK was growing by about half a centimetre per year. A typical car was 180.3cm wide in 2023, up from 177.8cm just five years earlier.
Daily Mail
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour is still spending £2.2bn a year of foreign aid on UK hotels for asylum seekers - despite vowing to end the practice
The government is spending around £2.2billion a year of foreign aid on housing asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Figures released by the Home Office show Labour only managed to reduce its spending on official development assistance between 2024/25 by around £1million, the BBC reports. That is despite the party's election manifesto pledge to 'end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. Official development assistance (ODA) is known at the UK's overseas aid budget and is used to promote the economic development and welfare in developing countries around the world. The Home Office is allocated a portion of this money to support refugees and asylum seekers shortly after their arrival into Britain, of which a large amount is spent on their accommodation. At the end of December 42,000 asylum seekers were in Home Office 'contingency accommodation', including 38,000 in hotels, a report National Audit Office (NAO) showed last month. This includes 735 people being housed in large accommodation sites built by the previous Conservative government, including former RAF base Wethersfield, in Essex, and Napier former barracks in Kent. Previous figures show the government spent around £2.3billion of Home Office ODA on asylum accommodation in 2024/25 while around £2.5billion was spent in 2023/24, when the Conservatives were in power. Last month, it was revealed that asylum accommodation - including hotels - will cost the taxpayer £15billion over 10 years. Data from the National Audit Office (NAO) showed that contracts originally forecast to cost £4.5billion over a decade from 2019 are now expected to run to £15.3billion over same period. It means that on average the taxpayer will spend £4,191,780 a day on housing asylum seekers over the life of the contracts. A separate breakdown from the NAO showed overall costs in 2024-25 were £1.67billion. That amounted to £4,567,123 a day on average, or £3,172 a minute. The report also found that asylum hotels 'may be more profitable' for companies holding the contracts than other types of housing. The Home Office awarded the contracts to three suppliers – Clearsprings Ready Homes, Mears Group and Serco – which operate two or three UK regions each. They are responsible for finding a range of self-catering accommodation for asylum seekers who are dispersed across the country, and for sub-contracting hotels for tens of thousands of migrants coming across the Channel by small boat. The report found Clearsprings is now set to be paid £7.3billion over the 10 years from 2019 to 2029, the NAO said, while Serco is expected to get £5.5billion and Mears will receive £2.5billion. Earlier this year it was reported that Deputy pm Angela Rayner wants the Government to terminate contracts they have made with private companies to house migrants. In its election manifesto, Labour vowed to 'hire additional caseworkers to clear the Conservatives' backlog and end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. But, despite the pledge, the Home Office is yet to set a definite end date on migrant hotels as it does not want to commit to 'arbitrary targets'. The only vague timeframe given by the department was by Matthew Rycroft, the department's top civil servant, in February. He told MP's that the aim is to get to 'zero by the end of the parliament', leaving open the possibility migrant hotels could stay until August 2029. A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. 'This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. 'We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026.'
