The Left has fallen right into Jenrick's trap on fare-dodging
Robert Jenrick knows how to grab headlines. More importantly, he knows exactly how to lead his critics down a blind alley from which they cannot escape. Yesterday the shadow justice secretary released a video of himself in the London Underground confronting those who had avoided paying their fare.
The political point was hardly subtle: why should the rest of us pay for those who can't be bothered paying their way? Just as he must have hoped would happen, his vigilantism sparked a massive debate on social media, with users dividing along the traditional Right and Left lines: Jenrick was either a hero who was unafraid to tackle lawlessness on behalf of the majority, or a cynical villain who was at least in part responsible, while a government minister, for the reduction in police and Underground staff who might otherwise have been available to tackle the fare-dodgers themselves.
It all fell so neatly into place for Jenrick. The Left really cannot help itself, and he must have known this before he embarked on his publicity stunt. Channel 4 News spoke for much of progressive Britain who felt offended by his initiative: having watched the footage, they decided that the main news story was not that a worrying level of passengers were skipping ticket checks (nearly one in every 25 passengers, according to Jenrick) but that the Tory MP didn't have Transport for London's permission to film there at all.
Twitter users with more time on their hands than I have since pointed out that TfL rules seem only to apply to commercial filming, which obviously didn't include Jenrick's exercise. But his point was made: confronted with systematic and expensive fare-dodging, the Left would rather ignore the problem if it's identified by someone whose politics they disagree with.
Let us be clear: Jenrick was offering no actual solutions to the problem. This was an exercise in populism that Nigel Farage himself might have envied, and it is straight out of the Reform playbook to provoke voters' anger without explaining how they would fix the issue other than a few superficial slogans.
Nevertheless, it was a PR triumph for Jenrick. The tidal wave of indignation that followed the posting of his video could hardly have suited his purposes better. Here he was, standing up for hard-pressed, law-abiding Londoners while eight 'officers' (it was not clear if this was a reference to British Transport Police officers or Underground staff) stood nearby.
'It's also just annoying,' says Jenrick to the camera, 'watching so many people break the law and get away with it…It's the same with bike theft, phone theft, tool theft, shoplifting, drugs in town centres, weird Turkish barber shops. It's all chipping away at society. The state needs to reassert itself and go after law-breakers.'
The reference to 'weird Turkish barber shops' was also ingenious: most people share Jenrick's suspicion about the motivation behind their recent proliferation in high streets across the country, but it is exactly the kind of accusation that makes the red mist descend in the eyes and brains of many on the Left who would rather not bring foreigners into it.
At root, there is a fundamental and more complex policy issue which a minute-long video on Twitter can hardly be expected to analyse – the differing approaches to crime and its causes by the Right and the Left. Judging from many of the responses to Jenrick's original Tweet, there are very few Labour supporters who took to heart Tony Blair's view that the party should be 'tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime', preferring to emphasise the latter and completely ignore the former.
Fare-dodging is caused, it seems, either by poverty or by the state not devoting enough resources to prevent the rest of us from behaving badly. Meanwhile, the Right, as represented by Jenrick, believes it's all about personal responsibility and personal choices. It is not difficult to see whose side most voters will take in that debate.
Labour and the Left in general should never have fallen into Jenrick's trap. Just as Blair and Jack Straw caused outrage for a few on the Left in the 1990s by criticising 'aggressive' beggars and squeegee merchants, yet won the support of a majority of voters who were fed up with the practice and who felt, until then, unable to complain about it, so Jenrick is empowering others to object to a pretty straightforward injustice that is pushing up prices for the law-abiding majority. Cynical? Undoubtedly. Opportunistic? Without question. Effective? Certainly.
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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
US to reduce military presence in Syria, keeping only one base operational
The United States will shut down most of its military bases in Syria, consolidating operations to a single location, as part of a policy overhaul announced by its new special envoy. Thomas Barrack, appointed by President Donald Trump last month as the US ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy for Syria, said the shift marks a rejection of Washington's past century of failed approaches in Syria. In an interview with the Turkish broadcaster NTV on Monday, Barrack said the troop drawdown and base closures reflect a strategic recalibration. 'What I can assure you is that our current Syria policy will not be close to the Syria policy of the last 100 years because none of these have worked,' he said. US forces are expected to withdraw from seven of eight bases, including those in Deir Az Zor province in eastern Syria, with remaining operations centred in Hasakah in the northeast. Two security sources told the Reuters news agency that US military hardware and personnel have already started relocating. 'All troops are being pulled from Deir Az Zor,' one source told Reuters in April.A US Department of State official later said troop levels would be adjusted 'if and when appropriate', depending on operational demands. Roughly 2,000 American soldiers remain in Syria, largely embedded with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a key partner in the US-led campaign against ISIL (ISIS). The SDF, dominated by the People's Protection Units (YPG), a Kurdish militia, has been a longstanding point of contention with NATO ally Turkiye, which views it as linked to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). The PKK, which recently announced its disbandment, fought a decades-long armed rebellion against the Turkish state. Barrack called the SDF 'a very important factor' for the US Congress, stressing that integrating the group into Syria's national army is now a priority. 'Everyone needs to be reasonable in their expectations,' he said. Since the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December, international engagement with Damascus has resumed under new President Ahmed al-Sharaa. Barrack recently raised the US flag over the ambassador's residence in Damascus for the first time since 2012. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan criticised the SDF last week, accusing it of 'stalling tactics' despite its agreement to join the Syrian armed forces.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dutch government collapses after far-right leader quits coalition
The Dutch government has collapsed after Geert Wilders withdrew his far-right party from the governing coalition following a row over migration. Prime Minister Dick Schoof confirmed he was stepping down on Tuesday and offered the resignation of the cabinet to King Willem-Alexander. In televised remarks following an emergency cabinet meeting, Schoof said Wilders' decision to withdraw the support of his PVV party was "irresponsible and unnecessary". "As far as I'm concerned, this shouldn't have happened," he added. The governing coalition was in place for less than one year. The row which led to its collapse came after Wilders pushed for 10 additional asylum measures, including a freeze on applications, halting the construction of reception centres and limiting family reunification. Schoof had made a last-minute appeal to coalition party leaders on Tuesday morning, but the meeting lasted just one minute before Wilders walked out, ending the coalition. "No signature for our asylum plans. PVV leaves the coalition," said Wilders on X. There was shock and anger among political leaders, many of whom pointed out that several of Wilders' demands were similar to policies already in the coalition agreement, and that they would not stand in the PVV's way to implement them. Many of the additional proposals put forward by Wilders had been dismissed during coalition talks because of legal concerns. Wilders' decision has put an end to an uneasy governing coalition which was born in July 2024 after months of political wrangling following elections the previous year. His anti-immigration, far-right PVV was the largest party. The other members were the conservative-liberal VVD, the Farmers' Citizen Movement (BBB) and the centrist New Social Contract. Geert Wilders: Who is he and what does he want? From the start the coalition seemed a marriage of convenience, characterised by infighting and appeared to struggle to push through any of policies it had proudly promoted. Following its collapse, Wilders' former coalition partners accused him of engineering the crisis. VVD leader Dilan Yesilgoz said the move was "super irresponsible", adding: "This wasn't about asylum at all." "I think Wilders is betraying the Netherlands," said deputy Prime Minister Mona Keijzer from the BBB. But Wilders appears to feel emboldened. On Tuesday he told reporters that he intended to become prime minister of the Netherlands "and ensure that the PVV becomes bigger than ever in the next elections". Sandra Phlippen, the chief economist for ABN AMRO bank, said the immediate economic impact of the cabinet's collapse appeared minimal because during its 11 months in office the government had "barely made any concrete plans". Polls show the far right and Green-Left parties are neck-and-neck, with migration and cost-of-living issues fuelling political volatility across Europe. Wilders wanted the government to collapse as the support for his Freedom Party continues to drop in the polls, according to Armida van Rij, the Head of the Europe Programme at Chatham House. With the Nato summit due to be held in the Hague at the end of the month, Schoof's ministers will seek to remain in power in a caretaker capacity until a date is set for the Netherlands to return to the polls - likely in the autumn, according to Dutch media. In the Dutch political system, becoming prime minister requires forming a majority coalition in the 150-seat parliament. Even if Wilders again surpasses the political pundits expectations, his decision to collapse the government is being seen as reckless - and perceptions he is putting personal ambition above national stability could further complicate his ability to form alliances after the next election. The parties that were reluctant or refused to go into government with Wilders after the last election are likely to find that kind of partnership even less attractive now. In addition, by toppling the coalition over the issue of asylum, it is likely Wilders will put it at the centre of his upcoming election campaign. However, given that his party had been responsible for asylum and immigration for almost a year, there are no guarantees that such a gamble will pay off. After six months, Dutch parties reach government deal Geert Wilders: Who is he and what does he want? Wilders' Dutch victory sends tremors around Europe
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Suspended Met officer spent five years on full pay
The Metropolitan Police says Londoners "will be as outraged as we are at the utter waste of public funds" after a disciplinary process for one of its senior officers took almost five years. Cdr Julian Bennett has been dismissed from the force for a second time following a misconduct hearing. He had been suspended from duty since July 2020 after he refused to provide a sample for a drugs test. He was initially dismissed in October 2023 but he appealed to the Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT) which ordered a new hearing on the basis the panel had ruled on allegations they were not asked to. Mr Bennett was suspended on full pay during the whole process. On Tuesday the second panel found the allegation proven against Mr Bennett at the level of gross misconduct. Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist said the former senior officer "knew full well what was required of him, yet he made a choice not to cooperate". "I am enormously concerned that almost five years since this incident happened we have only now been able to dismiss Cdr Bennett," added Assistant Commissioner Twist. "This should have been a simple matter. Cdr Bennett has never disputed he refused a lawful order to take a drugs test." He said greater use by the Met of accelerated misconduct hearings to fast-track cases where the evidence is "irrefutable" would allow the force to dismiss officers "far more quickly". "I am confident a situation like Cdr Bennett's prolonged case would not happen again," he added. The original disciplinary panel rejected a claim by Mr Bennett's former flatmate Sheila Gomes that he had used cannabis daily before breakfast. But it found that he had breached professional standards when he refused to do a drugs test. Met officers who fail vetting scheme may keep jobs Sacking of Met commander over drugs test overturned Woman who reported predatory officer blamed by Met Two further allegations at the first panel - that between 2019 and 2020, while off duty, he had smoked cannabis, and that he gave an untrue explanation for why he refused to take the drugs test - were not proven. He told the first panel he had been taking CBD (cannabidiol) to treat facial palsy and was worried the sample would come up positive for an innocent reason. Mr Bennett - who wrote a Met drugs strategy in 2017 - was found in 2023 to have breached force standards for honesty and integrity, orders and instructions and discreditable conduct and was sacked. His lawyers successfully argued that while he had always admitted refusing to provide a sample, the panel found him guilty of a lack of integrity that he had not been charged with. Following the PAT's decision to revoke the dismissal, the Met considered a legal challenge by way of a judicial review but decided that Mr Bennett should face a fresh misconduct hearing. Following the misconduct panel's decision and his subsequent dismissal, Mr Bennett will be added to the College of Policing's barred list. Those appearing on the list cannot be employed by police and a number of police-related bodies. Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to Metropolitan Police Service