I’m not quite sure the Farage=Truss line is going to stick.
To me it seems to be saying that any party offering radical change is going to crash the economy so voters need to stick with boring Keir and Rachel. This may indeed have a truth to it - but voters of late have not reacted well to messaging that they simply can’t have it any different and they have to just trust the grown ups.
For now, the most important thing for Labour is to start to sow doubt, so it’s not as if I am criticising the attack line at this stage of a parliament. I just feel that when it comes to the crunch it isn’t going to resonate that well.
I do however think it is a tactical error for Starmer to keep saying the Tories are doomed. He is better off facing the Tories as the main opposition at the next GE than Farage, and by continuing this line all he is doing is contributing to Reform’s growth.
The theory I’ve heard which is based on private polling klaxon is that Labour will get more tactical votes if their main opponent is Reform/Farage rather than the Tories.
So it explains why Labour are bigging up Reform as the principal opposition.
Some truth in that, Yougov found 58% of LDs, 55% of Greens and even 24% of Tories would vote Labour if their seat was a straight fight between Labour and Reform.
Only 48% of LDs and 48% of Greens would vote Labour if their constituency was a straight Tory v Labour battle though
I’m not quite sure the Farage=Truss line is going to stick.
To me it seems to be saying that any party offering radical change is going to crash the economy so voters need to stick with boring Keir and Rachel. This may indeed have a truth to it - but voters of late have not reacted well to messaging that they simply can’t have it any different and they have to just trust the grown ups.
For now, the most important thing for Labour is to start to sow doubt, so it’s not as if I am criticising the attack line at this stage of a parliament. I just feel that when it comes to the crunch it isn’t going to resonate that well.
I do however think it is a tactical error for Starmer to keep saying the Tories are doomed. He is better off facing the Tories as the main opposition at the next GE than Farage, and by continuing this line all he is doing is contributing to Reform’s growth.
The theory I’ve heard which is based on private polling klaxon is that Labour will get more tactical votes if their main opponent is Reform/Farage rather than the Tories.
So it explains why Labour are bigging up Reform as the principal opposition.
I think it is brave to rely on tactical voting to see you through - but we shall see.
I’m not quite sure the Farage=Truss line is going to stick.
To me it seems to be saying that any party offering radical change is going to crash the economy so voters need to stick with boring Keir and Rachel. This may indeed have a truth to it - but voters of late have not reacted well to messaging that they simply can’t have it any different and they have to just trust the grown ups.
For now, the most important thing for Labour is to start to sow doubt, so it’s not as if I am criticising the attack line at this stage of a parliament. I just feel that when it comes to the crunch it isn’t going to resonate that well.
I do however think it is a tactical error for Starmer to keep saying the Tories are doomed. He is better off facing the Tories as the main opposition at the next GE than Farage, and by continuing this line all he is doing is contributing to Reform’s growth.
The theory I’ve heard which is based on private polling klaxon is that Labour will get more tactical votes if their main opponent is Reform/Farage rather than the Tories.
So it explains why Labour are bigging up Reform as the principal opposition.
The risk of course is a Reform win, and while we can realistically anticipate such a clownshow government collapsing in chaos fairly quickly, it won't necessarily be Starmerite Labour that picks up the pieces. After all that is the Tory experience now, they are getting zero benefit from the lacklustre and directionless current government.
The most visible and audible example of petty crime around us at the moment is kids riding hacked Lime Bikes.
It’s both profoundly irritating, particularly given their smug faces and the annoying beeping a hacked Lime bike makes, and also bizarrely nostalgic to see so many young boys (always boys) riding around on bikes rather than sitting staring at iPads.
TFL have advised staff not to confront people they think might be dangerous, they have to call in officers trained in 'enforcement' - which merely begs the question, how many of these stations have these enforcement staff, and where are they? Anyone dodging a barrier has committed a crime, so don't they all present the possibility of danger? So what's the point of having people who aren't trained to enforce the rules?
It is understood that TfL tells station staff that they are expected to assist customers to pay the correct fare for their journeys and encourage everyone to tap in.
But the network says that if a member of staff judges it is not safe to intervene, they are encouraged to report incidents they witness to inform the deployment of enforcement staff.
Most stations don't have enforcement staff, they just have one or two ordinary TFL staff members. And, as you say, they've been told not to intervene in case it's dangerous.
Would you want to confront four or five large young gentlemen pushing through the barrier? I wouldn't - I suspect even Robert Jenrick wouldn't.
Should there be permanent security staff at every problematic tube station? Might help though the evaders will do to another station.
Mobile swat squads attending stations randomly would be the most cost effective way of reducing fare evasion.
Which is roughly what happens. Arguably it doesn't happen enough, but that's a question of how much money TfL is prepared/able to spend to catch how many fare dodgers.
A crackdown on London Tube and bus fare dodgers cost around 20 times more than it clawed back over the past year, new figures show.
Then the fines are at least 20 times too low.
See fines on public transport in Singapore.....$500, $1000, $2000, these are real fines you can get for doing things like drinking water, carrying smelly fruit, bringing batteries over a certain size.....
There is an historical problem in the UK with using fines charged for offences to support enforcement.
Do you remember the ginormous whinging noise that arises whenever speeding fines are suggested as a way to support policemen or cameras to deal with the offence?
Or the whining chorus like a million labradors about "Councils making money from enforcing parking rules." Translation: How dare they try and stop ME from doing what I want.
That's Jenrick's game. He's pointing to particular people, like the Daily Mail, because he wants to fluff the finger-pointing demographic.
You can be sure that were enforcement applied stringently to people whose support he wanted, he'd be yowling his cynical head off about it in Parliament.
Is this a pitch for the leadership? Whatever the pros and cons of the TFL stunt one can't deny it is effective.
Kemi needs to step aside now. Jenrick has captured the public imagination like no politician has since Blair and 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'. If the Tories play this right, a massive landslide and years of good will await Jenrick as they awaited Blair all those years ago.
If we can look upon Leon as the clitoris of the right(ho, ho) thinking English voter, Jenrick has it in the bag.
Is that near the G spot?
In my experience for 99.99% of women the g spot is located at the end of the word shopping.
I’m not quite sure the Farage=Truss line is going to stick.
To me it seems to be saying that any party offering radical change is going to crash the economy so voters need to stick with boring Keir and Rachel. This may indeed have a truth to it - but voters of late have not reacted well to messaging that they simply can’t have it any different and they have to just trust the grown ups.
For now, the most important thing for Labour is to start to sow doubt, so it’s not as if I am criticising the attack line at this stage of a parliament. I just feel that when it comes to the crunch it isn’t going to resonate that well.
I do however think it is a tactical error for Starmer to keep saying the Tories are doomed. He is better off facing the Tories as the main opposition at the next GE than Farage, and by continuing this line all he is doing is contributing to Reform’s growth.
The theory I’ve heard which is based on private polling klaxon is that Labour will get more tactical votes if their main opponent is Reform/Farage rather than the Tories.
So it explains why Labour are bigging up Reform as the principal opposition.
I think it is brave to rely on tactical voting to see you through - but we shall see.
I’m not quite sure the Farage=Truss line is going to stick.
To me it seems to be saying that any party offering radical change is going to crash the economy so voters need to stick with boring Keir and Rachel. This may indeed have a truth to it - but voters of late have not reacted well to messaging that they simply can’t have it any different and they have to just trust the grown ups.
For now, the most important thing for Labour is to start to sow doubt, so it’s not as if I am criticising the attack line at this stage of a parliament. I just feel that when it comes to the crunch it isn’t going to resonate that well.
I do however think it is a tactical error for Starmer to keep saying the Tories are doomed. He is better off facing the Tories as the main opposition at the next GE than Farage, and by continuing this line all he is doing is contributing to Reform’s growth.
The theory I’ve heard which is based on private polling klaxon is that Labour will get more tactical votes if their main opponent is Reform/Farage rather than the Tories.
So it explains why Labour are bigging up Reform as the principal opposition.
The big downside to this is that Labour can't blame Farage for the previous 14 years.
Labour won by default last time. Reform could do the same next time.
The most visible and audible example of petty crime around us at the moment is kids riding hacked Lime Bikes.
It’s both profoundly irritating, particularly given their smug faces and the annoying beeping a hacked Lime bike makes, and also bizarrely nostalgic to see so many young boys (always boys) riding around on bikes rather than sitting staring at iPads.
Conservative failure effectively to regulate ... again.
TFL have advised staff not to confront people they think might be dangerous, they have to call in officers trained in 'enforcement' - which merely begs the question, how many of these stations have these enforcement staff, and where are they? Anyone dodging a barrier has committed a crime, so don't they all present the possibility of danger? So what's the point of having people who aren't trained to enforce the rules?
It is understood that TfL tells station staff that they are expected to assist customers to pay the correct fare for their journeys and encourage everyone to tap in.
But the network says that if a member of staff judges it is not safe to intervene, they are encouraged to report incidents they witness to inform the deployment of enforcement staff.
Most stations don't have enforcement staff, they just have one or two ordinary TFL staff members. And, as you say, they've been told not to intervene in case it's dangerous.
Would you want to confront four or five large young gentlemen pushing through the barrier? I wouldn't - I suspect even Robert Jenrick wouldn't.
Should there be permanent security staff at every problematic tube station? Might help though the evaders will do to another station.
Mobile swat squads attending stations randomly would be the most cost effective way of reducing fare evasion.
Which is roughly what happens. Arguably it doesn't happen enough, but that's a question of how much money TfL is prepared/able to spend to catch how many fare dodgers.
A crackdown on London Tube and bus fare dodgers cost around 20 times more than it clawed back over the past year, new figures show.
The problem is if you don't you end up with a situation like in NYC where on some bus route literally nobody pays and then the discussion changes to how to fund free travel for all.
You just need to reach an optimal outcome. The fact they actually lose money on more enforcement suggests they are currently doing too much, though I guess it's a slippery slope and things could escalate before you can respond (like the 2022 supermarket shoplifting surge).
Their 3% evasion rate is very good on an international comparison. From a purely financial POI, chasing the richer commuters evading £10,000+ is what they should do more of.
if you look at law enforcement purely economically at the bottom line, you soon miss the point. Nearly all law and order is self enforced and self imposed. If (fares, shop lifting) the ordinary honest begin to feel like uncool mugs the social contract breaks down. It is an aspect of the 'broken windows' theory.
Isn't this how we got in this mess in the first place, cuts to law and order, short term money saving, long term, shit show.
Various other factors too, some more subtle. The narrowing of communities so that lots of people don't know police officers personally as acquaintances or friends. Fewer people interact in a friendly and community way with police officers. More people feel they have no reputation to lose - those in that situation behave radically differently from the rest WRT shame. Quite a few of the poor are not only poor but also have drugs bills and other things to pay which means that TfL's finances are not a priority for them.
The most visible and audible example of petty crime around us at the moment is kids riding hacked Lime Bikes.
It’s both profoundly irritating, particularly given their smug faces and the annoying beeping a hacked Lime bike makes, and also bizarrely nostalgic to see so many young boys (always boys) riding around on bikes rather than sitting staring at iPads.
Lots of teens on bikes with balaclavas when I am out and about. I assume that they are drug mules for the county lines dark gig economy.
The other thing that annoys me is youths on motorbikes with invisibly small number plates. Obviously illegal, but seemingly no enforcement.
I’m not quite sure the Farage=Truss line is going to stick.
To me it seems to be saying that any party offering radical change is going to crash the economy so voters need to stick with boring Keir and Rachel. This may indeed have a truth to it - but voters of late have not reacted well to messaging that they simply can’t have it any different and they have to just trust the grown ups.
For now, the most important thing for Labour is to start to sow doubt, so it’s not as if I am criticising the attack line at this stage of a parliament. I just feel that when it comes to the crunch it isn’t going to resonate that well.
I do however think it is a tactical error for Starmer to keep saying the Tories are doomed. He is better off facing the Tories as the main opposition at the next GE than Farage, and by continuing this line all he is doing is contributing to Reform’s growth.
The theory I’ve heard which is based on private polling klaxon is that Labour will get more tactical votes if their main opponent is Reform/Farage rather than the Tories.
So it explains why Labour are bigging up Reform as the principal opposition.
The big downside to this is that Labour can't blame Farage for the previous 14 years.
Labour won by default last time. Reform could do the same next time.
Although Jenrick is blaming Labour (and convincingly) for the last 14 plus 1 years of criminality.
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I can't see an explanation of how a treasury rule change creates the additional money, unless it is merely transferred from elsewhere. So I suspect it is just a way of justifying increasing our grandchildren's liability.
TFL have advised staff not to confront people they think might be dangerous, they have to call in officers trained in 'enforcement' - which merely begs the question, how many of these stations have these enforcement staff, and where are they? Anyone dodging a barrier has committed a crime, so don't they all present the possibility of danger? So what's the point of having people who aren't trained to enforce the rules?
It is understood that TfL tells station staff that they are expected to assist customers to pay the correct fare for their journeys and encourage everyone to tap in.
But the network says that if a member of staff judges it is not safe to intervene, they are encouraged to report incidents they witness to inform the deployment of enforcement staff.
Most stations don't have enforcement staff, they just have one or two ordinary TFL staff members. And, as you say, they've been told not to intervene in case it's dangerous.
Would you want to confront four or five large young gentlemen pushing through the barrier? I wouldn't - I suspect even Robert Jenrick wouldn't.
Should there be permanent security staff at every problematic tube station? Might help though the evaders will do to another station.
Mobile swat squads attending stations randomly would be the most cost effective way of reducing fare evasion.
Which is roughly what happens. Arguably it doesn't happen enough, but that's a question of how much money TfL is prepared/able to spend to catch how many fare dodgers.
A crackdown on London Tube and bus fare dodgers cost around 20 times more than it clawed back over the past year, new figures show.
The problem is if you don't you end up with a situation like in NYC where on some bus route literally nobody pays and then the discussion changes to how to fund free travel for all.
You just need to reach an optimal outcome. The fact they actually lose money on more enforcement suggests they are currently doing too much, though I guess it's a slippery slope and things could escalate before you can respond (like the 2022 supermarket shoplifting surge).
Their 3% evasion rate is very good on an international comparison. From a purely financial POI, chasing the richer commuters evading £10,000+ is what they should do more of.
I wonder what basis they are measuring it as 3%?
I see tailgating and pushing through the barriers on about half my journeys.
You tell me, if you're going to challenge the stat. I'd guess they can measure or count the numbers on trains on different points and match it up with receipts at the gates. Probably a sample that is extrapolated.
Counting heads on trains would be complicated - matching that to gate entry, transfers between trains etc…. That would be a fun mess.
Observing behaviour at the gates would be much easier and less error prone, I would think.
Last nights Canvey Island Reform success has wrecked a council oddity - Castle Point DC was the only council in England with no Con, Lab, Ref, LD or Green councillors. Its still the only one with no Con, Lab, LD or Green
A barrister friend who works in the area reckons that if Hitler had invaded, he could have recruited a British SS on Canvey Island.
This may explain why the Luftwaffe never bombed Canvey.
Another theory is they thought it had already been done.
They did bomb Canvey. There was a bomb next to the school I attended, and several others at various times.
I was only joking, OKC. I remember the place fondly from childhood holidays.
If I am not mistaken it has a number of distinguished ex and current inhabitants. Dean Macey is one, no?
Last nights Canvey Island Reform success has wrecked a council oddity - Castle Point DC was the only council in England with no Con, Lab, Ref, LD or Green councillors. Its still the only one with no Con, Lab, LD or Green
A barrister friend who works in the area reckons that if Hitler had invaded, he could have recruited a British SS on Canvey Island.
In all fairness to Canvey Island, that could be said of many parts of Britain. So as it stands the only thing to come out of Oil City of note was oil and Dr Feelgood.
There’s surely mileage in a travel book or TV series (perhaps it already exists) about the mysterious “islands” and “isles” of the UK that are not really, or only just, islands, and don’t fully live up to the Ibiza or Skye image of what an island should be.
As well as Canvey, some obvious candidates for chapters would be: Barry, Portland, Dogs, Sheppey, Thanet, Black, Grain, Hayling. Each has an interesting history and generally quirky culture.
Ely.
Kelham Island in Sheffield.
Burntisland!
Isle of Dogs.
Done in the OP.
There should be an isle of cats too. (There is Ao island in Japan).
There is a Wild Cat Island in the lake district world of Arthur Ransome.
The most visible and audible example of petty crime around us at the moment is kids riding hacked Lime Bikes.
It’s both profoundly irritating, particularly given their smug faces and the annoying beeping a hacked Lime bike makes, and also bizarrely nostalgic to see so many young boys (always boys) riding around on bikes rather than sitting staring at iPads.
I don’t think they are hacked, so much as not paid for.
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I can't see an explanation of how a treasury rule change creates the additional money, unless it is merely transferred from elsewhere. So I suspect it is just a way of justifying increasing our grandchildren's liability.
Can we please have the Stonehenge bypass back on the list? Pretty please? Its 40 years since the Landlord of the Bell Inn at Winterbourne Stoke left because he thought the bypass was going through 'shortly' and he would be ruined...
I see Farage wants tougher abortion laws. Does he have his own ideas, or does he just do whatever the US Right says now?
This is the big worry with Farage. Becoming purely an appendage of a Trumpian U.S.,with all that might bring along with it for democracy and the rule of law
Surely this is the ticking time bomb?
Hmmmm
Saville was not a political figure open about his views, though.
Savile was very open about politics. His support of Israel for one.
More people know who Savile is than this bald guy the BBC go on about a lot.
I doubt the picture will hurt Farage, but keep hoping.
The right way to neuter Farage is for the govt to start delivering and making people’s lives better. I can see why they, and their fans, resort to other methods as that seems out of their reach.
You must listen to different BBC News sources to me. Tate is reported on factually, i.e. whoever he is subjected to a legal issue the BBC report that issue. Farage and Reform on the other hand are given a free pass on pretty much everything. Evan Davis was last night supportive of Farage and critical of Starmer's attack in a conversation with Darren Jones. I don't believe Davis is fanboying Farage but they are desperate for the Farage rags to riches political story to be true.
As to Labour standing or falling on their record that is absolutely fair, however both the Conservatives and Labour for their own survival need to call out Farage's fantasy economics.
Reform will soon have records to defend. The press could, and should, be forensic in their analysis of their performance. Forget the DEI/Net zero/performative crap. Focus on delivery or lack of.
In Durham we were promised a forensic audit of expenditure with money being clawed back. Yeah right. I discussed this on a local group on FB with Andrew Husband, now council leader.
I gave him my view that the only beneficiary of a spend audit will be the auditors and how much will that cost.
Farage’s commitments don’t add up either. They should be subject to more scrutiny. This is a party leading the polls.
It’s a task that doesn’t require auditors. Get a chart from HR, identify everyone who manages people and ask all of them to write a page of A4 on what their team(s) do and the budget they manage.
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I can't see an explanation of how a treasury rule change creates the additional money, unless it is merely transferred from elsewhere. So I suspect it is just a way of justifying increasing our grandchildren's liability.
Borrowing to spend on investment is reasonable.
The problem is mislabelling all expenditure as investment.
With very few limited exceptions (eg construction workers), salaries are not investment. A doctor's wages is current expenditure, an ongoing cost, not "investing in healthcare".
New buildings, roads, rails. Stuff that leaves a permanent legacy after it is built, that is a capital cost, not a current one.
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I wonder how many of the projects will be ones that she cancelled when they got into government, as it takes a lot of time to bring totally new projects to life from scratch.
I’m not quite sure the Farage=Truss line is going to stick.
To me it seems to be saying that any party offering radical change is going to crash the economy so voters need to stick with boring Keir and Rachel. This may indeed have a truth to it - but voters of late have not reacted well to messaging that they simply can’t have it any different and they have to just trust the grown ups.
For now, the most important thing for Labour is to start to sow doubt, so it’s not as if I am criticising the attack line at this stage of a parliament. I just feel that when it comes to the crunch it isn’t going to resonate that well.
I do however think it is a tactical error for Starmer to keep saying the Tories are doomed. He is better off facing the Tories as the main opposition at the next GE than Farage, and by continuing this line all he is doing is contributing to Reform’s growth.
The theory I’ve heard which is based on private polling klaxon is that Labour will get more tactical votes if their main opponent is Reform/Farage rather than the Tories.
So it explains why Labour are bigging up Reform as the principal opposition.
The big downside to this is that Labour can't blame Farage for the previous 14 years.
Labour won by default last time. Reform could do the same next time.
But if Farage is characterised as the reincarnation of Trussonomics....?
They don’t hack Lime bikes, they lift the rear wheel up and run and jump on.
They’re badly designed and easy to steal. I suspect Lime don’t care because they don’t actually lose the bikes, they just end up somewhere else.
I find them very convenient but I think the Santander bikes are better designed with how they dock to prevent this kind of thing.
The whole business model doesn't work as the scooters / bikes need constantly replacing due to theft, vandalism and just constant usage. The likes of Lime are just burning other peoples (investor) money until they collapse. Nobody anywhere has made this work long term.
Is Rob tackling the menace of cyclists accelerating into danger for social media views?
I'll listen to the recording of that. I have not heard Jenrick comment on people riding cycles to go about their daily business, but nor do I know whether JV is a softball interviewer. Nor am I sure whether Jenrick went with the conspiracy theories in the last Govt's Plan for Drivers.
I'm not aware that he ever went down the IDS "make stuff up and tell it to Parliament" route on this one, but it's in his modus operandi on other questions.
He also committed so many (speeding, I think) offences that he got himself banned from driving as a totter in 2022.
I'd assume that he will do and say whatever he thinks is populist; Jenrick as role model for a moral panjandrum has the credibility of a Nigel Farage election manifesto costing.
I’m not quite sure the Farage=Truss line is going to stick.
To me it seems to be saying that any party offering radical change is going to crash the economy so voters need to stick with boring Keir and Rachel. This may indeed have a truth to it - but voters of late have not reacted well to messaging that they simply can’t have it any different and they have to just trust the grown ups.
For now, the most important thing for Labour is to start to sow doubt, so it’s not as if I am criticising the attack line at this stage of a parliament. I just feel that when it comes to the crunch it isn’t going to resonate that well.
I do however think it is a tactical error for Starmer to keep saying the Tories are doomed. He is better off facing the Tories as the main opposition at the next GE than Farage, and by continuing this line all he is doing is contributing to Reform’s growth.
The theory I’ve heard which is based on private polling klaxon is that Labour will get more tactical votes if their main opponent is Reform/Farage rather than the Tories.
So it explains why Labour are bigging up Reform as the principal opposition.
The big downside to this is that Labour can't blame Farage for the previous 14 years.
Labour won by default last time. Reform could do the same next time.
But if Farage is characterised as the reincarnation of Trussonomics....?
It's a big gamble when Labour's economic policies aren't that dissimilar to Truss: "Growth!"
They don’t hack Lime bikes, they lift the rear wheel up and run and jump on.
They’re badly designed and easy to steal. I suspect Lime don’t care because they don’t actually lose the bikes, they just end up somewhere else.
I find them very convenient but I think the Santander bikes are better designed with how they dock to prevent this kind of thing.
The whole business model doesn't work as the scooters / bikes need constantly replacing due to theft, vandalism and just overuse. The likes of Lime are just burning other peoples (investor) money until they collapse.
It’s a fair point. I still find them very convenient however.
But I think they really should expand the Santander Cycles. They are one of the best things London has ever done IMV.
The most visible and audible example of petty crime around us at the moment is kids riding hacked Lime Bikes.
It’s both profoundly irritating, particularly given their smug faces and the annoying beeping a hacked Lime bike makes, and also bizarrely nostalgic to see so many young boys (always boys) riding around on bikes rather than sitting staring at iPads.
Lots of teens on bikes with balaclavas when I am out and about. I assume that they are drug mules for the county lines dark gig economy.
The other thing that annoys me is youths on motorbikes with invisibly small number plates. Obviously illegal, but seemingly no enforcement.
The minimum legal size is 230mm x 178mm which is quite small. Cops usually have absolutely no idea what the law is are quite fond of a pull for any non-standard plate. 🏍️💨🚨
TFL have advised staff not to confront people they think might be dangerous, they have to call in officers trained in 'enforcement' - which merely begs the question, how many of these stations have these enforcement staff, and where are they? Anyone dodging a barrier has committed a crime, so don't they all present the possibility of danger? So what's the point of having people who aren't trained to enforce the rules?
It is understood that TfL tells station staff that they are expected to assist customers to pay the correct fare for their journeys and encourage everyone to tap in.
But the network says that if a member of staff judges it is not safe to intervene, they are encouraged to report incidents they witness to inform the deployment of enforcement staff.
Most stations don't have enforcement staff, they just have one or two ordinary TFL staff members. And, as you say, they've been told not to intervene in case it's dangerous.
Would you want to confront four or five large young gentlemen pushing through the barrier? I wouldn't - I suspect even Robert Jenrick wouldn't.
Should there be permanent security staff at every problematic tube station? Might help though the evaders will do to another station.
Mobile swat squads attending stations randomly would be the most cost effective way of reducing fare evasion.
Which is roughly what happens. Arguably it doesn't happen enough, but that's a question of how much money TfL is prepared/able to spend to catch how many fare dodgers.
A crackdown on London Tube and bus fare dodgers cost around 20 times more than it clawed back over the past year, new figures show.
Then the fines are at least 20 times too low.
See fines on public transport in Singapore.....$500, $1000, $2000, these are real fines you can get for doing things like drinking water, carrying smelly fruit, bringing batteries over a certain size.....
There is an historical problem in the UK with using fines charged for offences to support enforcement.
Do you remember the ginormous whinging noise that arises whenever speeding fines are suggested as a way to support policemen or cameras to deal with the offence?
Or the whining chorus like a million labradors about "Councils making money from enforcing parking rules." Translation: How dare they try and stop ME from doing what I want.
That's Jenrick's game. He's pointing to particular people, like the Daily Mail, because he wants to fluff the finger-pointing demographic.
You can be sure that were enforcement applied stringently to people whose support he wanted, he'd be yowling his cynical head off about it in Parliament.
Well, indeed. There are a few who can be hypocritical. Fare dodgers should be whipped, but if they speed or park on a double yellow line or don't declare that little bit of extra income on the tax form, that's fine. If they take some pills that they weren't prescribed to get them through a long flight, if they snort some cocaine at a party, that doesn't count. If they libel someone in a Facebook post because they're cross or say asylum hotels should be burnt down, everyone should ignore that.
At the same time, many people do have legitimate concerns about low-level crime, like fare-dodging. Some high profile enforcement can perhaps have a deterrence effect.
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I can't see an explanation of how a treasury rule change creates the additional money, unless it is merely transferred from elsewhere. So I suspect it is just a way of justifying increasing our grandchildren's liability.
Borrowing to spend on investment is reasonable.
The problem is mislabelling all expenditure as investment.
With very few limited exceptions (eg construction workers), salaries are not investment. A doctor's wages is current expenditure, an ongoing cost, not "investing in healthcare".
New buildings, roads, rails. Stuff that leaves a permanent legacy after it is built, that is a capital cost, not a current one.
Is a teacher's wage an investment? The teacher leaves a permanent legacy in all their students.
TFL have advised staff not to confront people they think might be dangerous, they have to call in officers trained in 'enforcement' - which merely begs the question, how many of these stations have these enforcement staff, and where are they? Anyone dodging a barrier has committed a crime, so don't they all present the possibility of danger? So what's the point of having people who aren't trained to enforce the rules?
It is understood that TfL tells station staff that they are expected to assist customers to pay the correct fare for their journeys and encourage everyone to tap in.
But the network says that if a member of staff judges it is not safe to intervene, they are encouraged to report incidents they witness to inform the deployment of enforcement staff.
Most stations don't have enforcement staff, they just have one or two ordinary TFL staff members. And, as you say, they've been told not to intervene in case it's dangerous.
Would you want to confront four or five large young gentlemen pushing through the barrier? I wouldn't - I suspect even Robert Jenrick wouldn't.
Should there be permanent security staff at every problematic tube station? Might help though the evaders will do to another station.
Mobile swat squads attending stations randomly would be the most cost effective way of reducing fare evasion.
Which is roughly what happens. Arguably it doesn't happen enough, but that's a question of how much money TfL is prepared/able to spend to catch how many fare dodgers.
A crackdown on London Tube and bus fare dodgers cost around 20 times more than it clawed back over the past year, new figures show.
Then the fines are at least 20 times too low.
See fines on public transport in Singapore.....$500, $1000, $2000, these are real fines you can get for doing things like drinking water, carrying smelly fruit, bringing batteries over a certain size.....
There is an historical problem in the UK with using fines charged for offences to support enforcement.
Do you remember the ginormous whinging noise that arises whenever speeding fines are suggested as a way to support policemen or cameras to deal with the offence?
Or the whining chorus like a million labradors about "Councils making money from enforcing parking rules." Translation: How dare they try and stop ME from doing what I want.
That's Jenrick's game. He's pointing to particular people, like the Daily Mail, because he wants to fluff the finger-pointing demographic.
You can be sure that were enforcement applied stringently to people whose support he wanted, he'd be yowling his cynical head off about it in Parliament.
We might fruitfully adapt the Finnish practice of making fines proportionate to the income and wealth of the offender. Thus the £200k exec type fraudulently avoiding the full whack for his season ticket from Woking to Waterloo would be fined significantly more than the spotty oik jumping the disabled barrier at Stratford to catch the tube to Mile End.
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I wonder how many of the projects will be ones that she cancelled when they got into government, as it takes a lot of time to bring totally new projects to life from scratch.
If she has changed the green book rules and things actually get built before the next election it doesn’t matter what the projects are.
All that matters for Labour is showing that things have got better and that requires things being delivered
TFL have advised staff not to confront people they think might be dangerous, they have to call in officers trained in 'enforcement' - which merely begs the question, how many of these stations have these enforcement staff, and where are they? Anyone dodging a barrier has committed a crime, so don't they all present the possibility of danger? So what's the point of having people who aren't trained to enforce the rules?
It is understood that TfL tells station staff that they are expected to assist customers to pay the correct fare for their journeys and encourage everyone to tap in.
But the network says that if a member of staff judges it is not safe to intervene, they are encouraged to report incidents they witness to inform the deployment of enforcement staff.
Most stations don't have enforcement staff, they just have one or two ordinary TFL staff members. And, as you say, they've been told not to intervene in case it's dangerous.
Would you want to confront four or five large young gentlemen pushing through the barrier? I wouldn't - I suspect even Robert Jenrick wouldn't.
Should there be permanent security staff at every problematic tube station? Might help though the evaders will do to another station.
Mobile swat squads attending stations randomly would be the most cost effective way of reducing fare evasion.
Which is roughly what happens. Arguably it doesn't happen enough, but that's a question of how much money TfL is prepared/able to spend to catch how many fare dodgers.
A crackdown on London Tube and bus fare dodgers cost around 20 times more than it clawed back over the past year, new figures show.
The problem is if you don't you end up with a situation like in NYC where on some bus route literally nobody pays and then the discussion changes to how to fund free travel for all.
You just need to reach an optimal outcome. The fact they actually lose money on more enforcement suggests they are currently doing too much, though I guess it's a slippery slope and things could escalate before you can respond (like the 2022 supermarket shoplifting surge).
Their 3% evasion rate is very good on an international comparison. From a purely financial POI, chasing the richer commuters evading £10,000+ is what they should do more of.
I wonder what basis they are measuring it as 3%?
I see tailgating and pushing through the barriers on about half my journeys.
You tell me, if you're going to challenge the stat. I'd guess they can measure or count the numbers on trains on different points and match it up with receipts at the gates. Probably a sample that is extrapolated.
Counting heads on trains would be complicated - matching that to gate entry, transfers between trains etc…. That would be a fun mess.
Observing behaviour at the gates would be much easier and less error prone, I would think.
TFL have advised staff not to confront people they think might be dangerous, they have to call in officers trained in 'enforcement' - which merely begs the question, how many of these stations have these enforcement staff, and where are they? Anyone dodging a barrier has committed a crime, so don't they all present the possibility of danger? So what's the point of having people who aren't trained to enforce the rules?
It is understood that TfL tells station staff that they are expected to assist customers to pay the correct fare for their journeys and encourage everyone to tap in.
But the network says that if a member of staff judges it is not safe to intervene, they are encouraged to report incidents they witness to inform the deployment of enforcement staff.
Most stations don't have enforcement staff, they just have one or two ordinary TFL staff members. And, as you say, they've been told not to intervene in case it's dangerous.
Would you want to confront four or five large young gentlemen pushing through the barrier? I wouldn't - I suspect even Robert Jenrick wouldn't.
Should there be permanent security staff at every problematic tube station? Might help though the evaders will do to another station.
Mobile swat squads attending stations randomly would be the most cost effective way of reducing fare evasion.
Which is roughly what happens. Arguably it doesn't happen enough, but that's a question of how much money TfL is prepared/able to spend to catch how many fare dodgers.
A crackdown on London Tube and bus fare dodgers cost around 20 times more than it clawed back over the past year, new figures show.
Then the fines are at least 20 times too low.
See fines on public transport in Singapore.....$500, $1000, $2000, these are real fines you can get for doing things like drinking water, carrying smelly fruit, bringing batteries over a certain size.....
There is an historical problem in the UK with using fines charged for offences to support enforcement.
Do you remember the ginormous whinging noise that arises whenever speeding fines are suggested as a way to support policemen or cameras to deal with the offence?
Or the whining chorus like a million labradors about "Councils making money from enforcing parking rules." Translation: How dare they try and stop ME from doing what I want.
That's Jenrick's game. He's pointing to particular people, like the Daily Mail, because he wants to fluff the finger-pointing demographic.
You can be sure that were enforcement applied stringently to people whose support he wanted, he'd be yowling his cynical head off about it in Parliament.
Well, indeed. There are a few who can be hypocritical. Fare dodgers should be whipped, but if they speed or park on a double yellow line or don't declare that little bit of extra income on the tax form, that's fine. If they take some pills that they weren't prescribed to get them through a long flight, if they snort some cocaine at a party, that doesn't count. If they libel someone in a Facebook post because they're cross or say asylum hotels should be burnt down, everyone should ignore that.
At the same time, many people do have legitimate concerns about low-level crime, like fare-dodging. Some high profile enforcement can perhaps have a deterrence effect.
It is a clever trigger from Jenrick.
The fact that Jenrick's back story, particularly the Tower Hamlets outrage, is largely ignored and he comes over a a hero is a remarkable sleight of hand.
They don’t hack Lime bikes, they lift the rear wheel up and run and jump on.
They’re badly designed and easy to steal. I suspect Lime don’t care because they don’t actually lose the bikes, they just end up somewhere else.
I find them very convenient but I think the Santander bikes are better designed with how they dock to prevent this kind of thing.
The whole business model doesn't work as the scooters / bikes need constantly replacing due to theft, vandalism and just constant usage. The likes of Lime are just burning other peoples (investor) money until they collapse. Nobody anywhere has made this work long term.
Also news reports on poor maintenance and broken legs due to the weight of the bikes when people crash. My main peeve with e-bikes particularly the hire ones (as a regular commuting cyclist) is that the people who use them can be very poor cyclists, undertaking other cyclists on the left, cutting through the 1m gap between me and the kids when I'm escorting them to school and other dumb behaviour. E-scooters and illegal electric motorbikes just need to be taken off the road, for the safety of the users in the main
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I can't see an explanation of how a treasury rule change creates the additional money, unless it is merely transferred from elsewhere. So I suspect it is just a way of justifying increasing our grandchildren's liability.
Borrowing to spend on investment is reasonable.
The problem is mislabelling all expenditure as investment.
With very few limited exceptions (eg construction workers), salaries are not investment. A doctor's wages is current expenditure, an ongoing cost, not "investing in healthcare".
New buildings, roads, rails. Stuff that leaves a permanent legacy after it is built, that is a capital cost, not a current one.
Is a teacher's wage an investment? The teacher leaves a permanent legacy in all their students.
The teachers wage creates a public good, and so it's worthwhile public spending, but I wouldn't clarify it as investment. I think that's current spending that you have to cover from current income (at least over the economic cycle).
Crypto is also a big thing in the global MAGAsphere. For some reason it is an alt-right coded financial instrument. I suspect this is another US political import.
That’s certainly a part of it, but it is a small part.
Last nights Canvey Island Reform success has wrecked a council oddity - Castle Point DC was the only council in England with no Con, Lab, Ref, LD or Green councillors. Its still the only one with no Con, Lab, LD or Green
A barrister friend who works in the area reckons that if Hitler had invaded, he could have recruited a British SS on Canvey Island.
This may explain why the Luftwaffe never bombed Canvey.
Another theory is they thought it had already been done.
They did bomb Canvey. There was a bomb next to the school I attended, and several others at various times.
I was only joking, OKC. I remember the place fondly from childhood holidays.
If I am not mistaken it has a number of distinguished ex and current inhabitants. Dean Macey is one, no?
Yes. Plus, of course, much of Dr Feelgood, and, modestly, OKC.
In Parish Pump news, Agent Anderson is not very happy.
The local press are reporting on the new County Councillor for Newark who resigned because he could not both do his job (carer iirc) and be an effective Councillor, after having passed through the world-beating RefUK candidate vetting system, and are reporting the £25k it will cost us to have a byelection.
It's taken some time to be reported. I'm not sure if Reach plc can be called "lefty".
TFL have advised staff not to confront people they think might be dangerous, they have to call in officers trained in 'enforcement' - which merely begs the question, how many of these stations have these enforcement staff, and where are they? Anyone dodging a barrier has committed a crime, so don't they all present the possibility of danger? So what's the point of having people who aren't trained to enforce the rules?
It is understood that TfL tells station staff that they are expected to assist customers to pay the correct fare for their journeys and encourage everyone to tap in.
But the network says that if a member of staff judges it is not safe to intervene, they are encouraged to report incidents they witness to inform the deployment of enforcement staff.
Most stations don't have enforcement staff, they just have one or two ordinary TFL staff members. And, as you say, they've been told not to intervene in case it's dangerous.
Would you want to confront four or five large young gentlemen pushing through the barrier? I wouldn't - I suspect even Robert Jenrick wouldn't.
Should there be permanent security staff at every problematic tube station? Might help though the evaders will do to another station.
Mobile swat squads attending stations randomly would be the most cost effective way of reducing fare evasion.
Which is roughly what happens. Arguably it doesn't happen enough, but that's a question of how much money TfL is prepared/able to spend to catch how many fare dodgers.
A crackdown on London Tube and bus fare dodgers cost around 20 times more than it clawed back over the past year, new figures show.
Then the fines are at least 20 times too low.
See fines on public transport in Singapore.....$500, $1000, $2000, these are real fines you can get for doing things like drinking water, carrying smelly fruit, bringing batteries over a certain size.....
There is an historical problem in the UK with using fines charged for offences to support enforcement.
Do you remember the ginormous whinging noise that arises whenever speeding fines are suggested as a way to support policemen or cameras to deal with the offence?
Or the whining chorus like a million labradors about "Councils making money from enforcing parking rules." Translation: How dare they try and stop ME from doing what I want.
That's Jenrick's game. He's pointing to particular people, like the Daily Mail, because he wants to fluff the finger-pointing demographic.
You can be sure that were enforcement applied stringently to people whose support he wanted, he'd be yowling his cynical head off about it in Parliament.
We might fruitfully adapt the Finnish practice of making fines proportionate to the income and wealth of the offender. Thus the £200k exec type fraudulently avoiding the full whack for his season ticket from Woking to Waterloo would be fined significantly more than the spotty oik jumping the disabled barrier at Stratford to catch the tube to Mile End.
Surely this an idea that would appeal to Jenrick?
Do we not already have proportionate fines to some extent?
Going too far would run into problems like TSE's “friend” whose fine would presumably depend on whether it was levied before he was sacked (income £200k) or after (income £50 a week JSA).
I'm amazed that the jury in this murder case is taking so long to reach a verdict. It would seem that at least one juror is buying the defendant's story.
TFL have advised staff not to confront people they think might be dangerous, they have to call in officers trained in 'enforcement' - which merely begs the question, how many of these stations have these enforcement staff, and where are they? Anyone dodging a barrier has committed a crime, so don't they all present the possibility of danger? So what's the point of having people who aren't trained to enforce the rules?
It is understood that TfL tells station staff that they are expected to assist customers to pay the correct fare for their journeys and encourage everyone to tap in.
But the network says that if a member of staff judges it is not safe to intervene, they are encouraged to report incidents they witness to inform the deployment of enforcement staff.
Most stations don't have enforcement staff, they just have one or two ordinary TFL staff members. And, as you say, they've been told not to intervene in case it's dangerous.
Would you want to confront four or five large young gentlemen pushing through the barrier? I wouldn't - I suspect even Robert Jenrick wouldn't.
Should there be permanent security staff at every problematic tube station? Might help though the evaders will do to another station.
Mobile swat squads attending stations randomly would be the most cost effective way of reducing fare evasion.
Which is roughly what happens. Arguably it doesn't happen enough, but that's a question of how much money TfL is prepared/able to spend to catch how many fare dodgers.
A crackdown on London Tube and bus fare dodgers cost around 20 times more than it clawed back over the past year, new figures show.
Then the fines are at least 20 times too low.
See fines on public transport in Singapore.....$500, $1000, $2000, these are real fines you can get for doing things like drinking water, carrying smelly fruit, bringing batteries over a certain size.....
There is an historical problem in the UK with using fines charged for offences to support enforcement.
Do you remember the ginormous whinging noise that arises whenever speeding fines are suggested as a way to support policemen or cameras to deal with the offence?
Or the whining chorus like a million labradors about "Councils making money from enforcing parking rules." Translation: How dare they try and stop ME from doing what I want.
That's Jenrick's game. He's pointing to particular people, like the Daily Mail, because he wants to fluff the finger-pointing demographic.
You can be sure that were enforcement applied stringently to people whose support he wanted, he'd be yowling his cynical head off about it in Parliament.
We might fruitfully adapt the Finnish practice of making fines proportionate to the income and wealth of the offender. Thus the £200k exec type fraudulently avoiding the full whack for his season ticket from Woking to Waterloo would be fined significantly more than the spotty oik jumping the disabled barrier at Stratford to catch the tube to Mile End.
Surely this an idea that would appeal to Jenrick?
Driving fines proportional to the list price of the vehicle
They don’t hack Lime bikes, they lift the rear wheel up and run and jump on.
They’re badly designed and easy to steal. I suspect Lime don’t care because they don’t actually lose the bikes, they just end up somewhere else.
I find them very convenient but I think the Santander bikes are better designed with how they dock to prevent this kind of thing.
The whole business model doesn't work as the scooters / bikes need constantly replacing due to theft, vandalism and just constant usage. The likes of Lime are just burning other peoples (investor) money until they collapse. Nobody anywhere has made this work long term.
Also news reports on poor maintenance and broken legs due to the weight of the bikes when people crash. My main peeve with e-bikes particularly the hire ones (as a regular commuting cyclist) is that the people who use them can be very poor cyclists, undertaking other cyclists on the left, cutting through the 1m gap between me and the kids when I'm escorting them to school and other dumb behaviour. E-scooters and illegal electric motorbikes just need to be taken off the road, for the safety of the users in the main
That was a very weird article though. It was only a handful of injuries, IIRC. It made it sound like A&E was full of lime bike riders.
In Parish Pump news, Agent Anderson is not very happy.
The local press are reporting on the new County Councillor for Newark who resigned because he could not both do his job (carer iirc) and be an effective Councillor, after having passed through the world-beating RefUK candidate vetting system, and are reporting the £25k it will cost us to have a byelection.
It's taken some time to be reported. I'm not sure if Reach plc can be called "lefty".
Reach PLC care about driving clicks and engagement so they can bombard you with Ada.
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I can't see an explanation of how a treasury rule change creates the additional money, unless it is merely transferred from elsewhere. So I suspect it is just a way of justifying increasing our grandchildren's liability.
Borrowing to spend on investment is reasonable.
The problem is mislabelling all expenditure as investment.
With very few limited exceptions (eg construction workers), salaries are not investment. A doctor's wages is current expenditure, an ongoing cost, not "investing in healthcare".
New buildings, roads, rails. Stuff that leaves a permanent legacy after it is built, that is a capital cost, not a current one.
Is a teacher's wage an investment? The teacher leaves a permanent legacy in all their students.
I might be wrong but wasn't Gordon Brown the first big user of 'investment' when he really meant 'spending'. its become embedded now in the political jargon handbook.
I’m not quite sure the Farage=Truss line is going to stick.
To me it seems to be saying that any party offering radical change is going to crash the economy so voters need to stick with boring Keir and Rachel. This may indeed have a truth to it - but voters of late have not reacted well to messaging that they simply can’t have it any different and they have to just trust the grown ups.
For now, the most important thing for Labour is to start to sow doubt, so it’s not as if I am criticising the attack line at this stage of a parliament. I just feel that when it comes to the crunch it isn’t going to resonate that well.
I do however think it is a tactical error for Starmer to keep saying the Tories are doomed. He is better off facing the Tories as the main opposition at the next GE than Farage, and by continuing this line all he is doing is contributing to Reform’s growth.
The theory I’ve heard which is based on private polling klaxon is that Labour will get more tactical votes if their main opponent is Reform/Farage rather than the Tories.
So it explains why Labour are bigging up Reform as the principal opposition.
The big downside to this is that Labour can't blame Farage for the previous 14 years.
Labour won by default last time. Reform could do the same next time.
But if Farage is characterised as the reincarnation of Trussonomics....?
If Reform want to govern they will have to produce a minifesto that passes the most basic of tests. They will have no choice but to revert to the unpromising centre ground of running social democracy as well as possible, in which you can have a few policies for now, dressed up with cheap anti-wokery, and an infinity of aspiration.
They have started on this journey. It will be interesting. All their voters are high state spend welfare state social democrats. Reform know all this perfectly well.
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I can't see an explanation of how a treasury rule change creates the additional money, unless it is merely transferred from elsewhere. So I suspect it is just a way of justifying increasing our grandchildren's liability.
Borrowing to spend on investment is reasonable.
The problem is mislabelling all expenditure as investment.
With very few limited exceptions (eg construction workers), salaries are not investment. A doctor's wages is current expenditure, an ongoing cost, not "investing in healthcare".
New buildings, roads, rails. Stuff that leaves a permanent legacy after it is built, that is a capital cost, not a current one.
Is a teacher's wage an investment? The teacher leaves a permanent legacy in all their students.
I would say no, since its an ongoing cost. You need to pay the teacher's salary next year since we don't stop having children.
Building a new school building that can be used for decades to come, that is investment.
TFL have advised staff not to confront people they think might be dangerous, they have to call in officers trained in 'enforcement' - which merely begs the question, how many of these stations have these enforcement staff, and where are they? Anyone dodging a barrier has committed a crime, so don't they all present the possibility of danger? So what's the point of having people who aren't trained to enforce the rules?
It is understood that TfL tells station staff that they are expected to assist customers to pay the correct fare for their journeys and encourage everyone to tap in.
But the network says that if a member of staff judges it is not safe to intervene, they are encouraged to report incidents they witness to inform the deployment of enforcement staff.
Most stations don't have enforcement staff, they just have one or two ordinary TFL staff members. And, as you say, they've been told not to intervene in case it's dangerous.
Would you want to confront four or five large young gentlemen pushing through the barrier? I wouldn't - I suspect even Robert Jenrick wouldn't.
Should there be permanent security staff at every problematic tube station? Might help though the evaders will do to another station.
Mobile swat squads attending stations randomly would be the most cost effective way of reducing fare evasion.
Which is roughly what happens. Arguably it doesn't happen enough, but that's a question of how much money TfL is prepared/able to spend to catch how many fare dodgers.
A crackdown on London Tube and bus fare dodgers cost around 20 times more than it clawed back over the past year, new figures show.
Then the fines are at least 20 times too low.
See fines on public transport in Singapore.....$500, $1000, $2000, these are real fines you can get for doing things like drinking water, carrying smelly fruit, bringing batteries over a certain size.....
There is an historical problem in the UK with using fines charged for offences to support enforcement.
Do you remember the ginormous whinging noise that arises whenever speeding fines are suggested as a way to support policemen or cameras to deal with the offence?
Or the whining chorus like a million labradors about "Councils making money from enforcing parking rules." Translation: How dare they try and stop ME from doing what I want.
That's Jenrick's game. He's pointing to particular people, like the Daily Mail, because he wants to fluff the finger-pointing demographic.
You can be sure that were enforcement applied stringently to people whose support he wanted, he'd be yowling his cynical head off about it in Parliament.
We might fruitfully adapt the Finnish practice of making fines proportionate to the income and wealth of the offender. Thus the £200k exec type fraudulently avoiding the full whack for his season ticket from Woking to Waterloo would be fined significantly more than the spotty oik jumping the disabled barrier at Stratford to catch the tube to Mile End.
Surely this an idea that would appeal to Jenrick?
Do we not already have proportionate fines to some extent?
Going too far would run into problems like TSE's “friend” whose fine would presumably depend on whether it was levied before he was sacked (income £200k) or after (income £50 a week JSA).
Triple lock - maximum of 1% net wealth, 2% gross income, 5% value of car.
I’m not quite sure the Farage=Truss line is going to stick.
To me it seems to be saying that any party offering radical change is going to crash the economy so voters need to stick with boring Keir and Rachel. This may indeed have a truth to it - but voters of late have not reacted well to messaging that they simply can’t have it any different and they have to just trust the grown ups.
For now, the most important thing for Labour is to start to sow doubt, so it’s not as if I am criticising the attack line at this stage of a parliament. I just feel that when it comes to the crunch it isn’t going to resonate that well.
I do however think it is a tactical error for Starmer to keep saying the Tories are doomed. He is better off facing the Tories as the main opposition at the next GE than Farage, and by continuing this line all he is doing is contributing to Reform’s growth.
The theory I’ve heard which is based on private polling klaxon is that Labour will get more tactical votes if their main opponent is Reform/Farage rather than the Tories.
So it explains why Labour are bigging up Reform as the principal opposition.
I think it is brave to rely on tactical voting to see you through - but we shall see.
It seems very risky to me. Very risky indeed.
Indeed. It's a plan to come second. "If we do this we will lose by less"
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I can't see an explanation of how a treasury rule change creates the additional money, unless it is merely transferred from elsewhere. So I suspect it is just a way of justifying increasing our grandchildren's liability.
Borrowing to spend on investment is reasonable.
The problem is mislabelling all expenditure as investment.
With very few limited exceptions (eg construction workers), salaries are not investment. A doctor's wages is current expenditure, an ongoing cost, not "investing in healthcare".
New buildings, roads, rails. Stuff that leaves a permanent legacy after it is built, that is a capital cost, not a current one.
Is a teacher's wage an investment? The teacher leaves a permanent legacy in all their students.
I might be wrong but wasn't Gordon Brown the first big user of 'investment' when he really meant 'spending'. its become embedded now in the political jargon handbook.
All governments borrow. The issues are how much, and what is the plan for paying it back, and does using it do what was required?
Answers: No known limit There isn't one Jury is out.
I’m not quite sure the Farage=Truss line is going to stick.
To me it seems to be saying that any party offering radical change is going to crash the economy so voters need to stick with boring Keir and Rachel. This may indeed have a truth to it - but voters of late have not reacted well to messaging that they simply can’t have it any different and they have to just trust the grown ups.
For now, the most important thing for Labour is to start to sow doubt, so it’s not as if I am criticising the attack line at this stage of a parliament. I just feel that when it comes to the crunch it isn’t going to resonate that well.
I do however think it is a tactical error for Starmer to keep saying the Tories are doomed. He is better off facing the Tories as the main opposition at the next GE than Farage, and by continuing this line all he is doing is contributing to Reform’s growth.
The theory I’ve heard which is based on private polling klaxon is that Labour will get more tactical votes if their main opponent is Reform/Farage rather than the Tories.
So it explains why Labour are bigging up Reform as the principal opposition.
The big downside to this is that Labour can't blame Farage for the previous 14 years.
Labour won by default last time. Reform could do the same next time.
But if Farage is characterised as the reincarnation of Trussonomics....?
If Reform want to govern they will have to produce a minifesto that passes the most basic of tests. They will have no choice but to revert to the unpromising centre ground of running social democracy as well as possible, in which you can have a few policies for now, dressed up with cheap anti-wokery, and an infinity of aspiration.
They have started on this journey. It will be interesting. All their voters are high state spend welfare state social democrats. Reform know all this perfectly well.
In Parish Pump news, Agent Anderson is not very happy.
The local press are reporting on the new County Councillor for Newark who resigned because he could not both do his job (carer iirc) and be an effective Councillor, after having passed through the world-beating RefUK candidate vetting system, and are reporting the £25k it will cost us to have a byelection.
It's taken some time to be reported. I'm not sure if Reach plc can be called "lefty".
Reach PLC care about driving clicks and engagement so they can bombard you with Ada.
I’m not quite sure the Farage=Truss line is going to stick.
To me it seems to be saying that any party offering radical change is going to crash the economy so voters need to stick with boring Keir and Rachel. This may indeed have a truth to it - but voters of late have not reacted well to messaging that they simply can’t have it any different and they have to just trust the grown ups.
For now, the most important thing for Labour is to start to sow doubt, so it’s not as if I am criticising the attack line at this stage of a parliament. I just feel that when it comes to the crunch it isn’t going to resonate that well.
I do however think it is a tactical error for Starmer to keep saying the Tories are doomed. He is better off facing the Tories as the main opposition at the next GE than Farage, and by continuing this line all he is doing is contributing to Reform’s growth.
The theory I’ve heard which is based on private polling klaxon is that Labour will get more tactical votes if their main opponent is Reform/Farage rather than the Tories.
So it explains why Labour are bigging up Reform as the principal opposition.
The big downside to this is that Labour can't blame Farage for the previous 14 years.
Labour won by default last time. Reform could do the same next time.
But if Farage is characterised as the reincarnation of Trussonomics....?
If Reform want to govern they will have to produce a minifesto that passes the most basic of tests. They will have no choice but to revert to the unpromising centre ground of running social democracy as well as possible, in which you can have a few policies for now, dressed up with cheap anti-wokery, and an infinity of aspiration.
They have started on this journey. It will be interesting. All their voters are high state spend welfare state social democrats. Reform know all this perfectly well.
I’m not quite sure the Farage=Truss line is going to stick.
To me it seems to be saying that any party offering radical change is going to crash the economy so voters need to stick with boring Keir and Rachel. This may indeed have a truth to it - but voters of late have not reacted well to messaging that they simply can’t have it any different and they have to just trust the grown ups.
For now, the most important thing for Labour is to start to sow doubt, so it’s not as if I am criticising the attack line at this stage of a parliament. I just feel that when it comes to the crunch it isn’t going to resonate that well.
I do however think it is a tactical error for Starmer to keep saying the Tories are doomed. He is better off facing the Tories as the main opposition at the next GE than Farage, and by continuing this line all he is doing is contributing to Reform’s growth.
The theory I’ve heard which is based on private polling klaxon is that Labour will get more tactical votes if their main opponent is Reform/Farage rather than the Tories.
So it explains why Labour are bigging up Reform as the principal opposition.
The big downside to this is that Labour can't blame Farage for the previous 14 years.
Labour won by default last time. Reform could do the same next time.
But if Farage is characterised as the reincarnation of Trussonomics....?
If Reform want to govern they will have to produce a minifesto that passes the most basic of tests. They will have no choice but to revert to the unpromising centre ground of running social democracy as well as possible, in which you can have a few policies for now, dressed up with cheap anti-wokery, and an infinity of aspiration.
They have started on this journey. It will be interesting. All their voters are high state spend welfare state social democrats. Reform know all this perfectly well.
Do Reform know anything 'perfectly well'?
Yes. They, and everyone else knows that UK politics consists of minor variants on an unchanging theme of post WWII welfare state social democracy. At least 95% of voters vote for a version of it at every election. The rest are loonies, Marxists and genuine libertarians. Reform is and will be no different.
Forget the rhetoric, look at the substance. See where the money and the votes go.
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I can't see an explanation of how a treasury rule change creates the additional money, unless it is merely transferred from elsewhere. So I suspect it is just a way of justifying increasing our grandchildren's liability.
Borrowing to spend on investment is reasonable.
The problem is mislabelling all expenditure as investment.
With very few limited exceptions (eg construction workers), salaries are not investment. A doctor's wages is current expenditure, an ongoing cost, not "investing in healthcare".
New buildings, roads, rails. Stuff that leaves a permanent legacy after it is built, that is a capital cost, not a current one.
Is a teacher's wage an investment? The teacher leaves a permanent legacy in all their students.
I might be wrong but wasn't Gordon Brown the first big user of 'investment' when he really meant 'spending'. its become embedded now in the political jargon handbook.
There isn't a hard and fast distinction, I suggest, between investment and spending. It is, as others have suggested, a political game of how to label spending.
A new hospital is investment. Great, you have a new hospital! But you need to staff it and that counts as salaries/expenditure. If a construction worker building something can count as investment, can an orthopaedic surgeon building you a new knee count as investment?
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I can't see an explanation of how a treasury rule change creates the additional money, unless it is merely transferred from elsewhere. So I suspect it is just a way of justifying increasing our grandchildren's liability.
Borrowing to spend on investment is reasonable.
The problem is mislabelling all expenditure as investment.
With very few limited exceptions (eg construction workers), salaries are not investment. A doctor's wages is current expenditure, an ongoing cost, not "investing in healthcare".
New buildings, roads, rails. Stuff that leaves a permanent legacy after it is built, that is a capital cost, not a current one.
Is a teacher's wage an investment? The teacher leaves a permanent legacy in all their students.
I might be wrong but wasn't Gordon Brown the first big user of 'investment' when he really meant 'spending'. its become embedded now in the political jargon handbook.
There isn't a hard and fast distinction, I suggest, between investment and spending. It is, as others have suggested, a political game of how to label spending.
A new hospital is investment. Great, you have a new hospital! But you need to staff it and that counts as salaries/expenditure. If a construction worker building something can count as investment, can an orthopaedic surgeon building you a new knee count as investment?
It depends whether it's an OAP's knee or, for example, a teacher's knee, surely.
I'm amazed that the jury in this murder case is taking so long to reach a verdict. It would seem that at least one juror is buying the defendant's story.
I'm amazed that the jury in this murder case is taking so long to reach a verdict. It would seem that at least one juror is buying the defendant's story.
Body found under the stairs. Hang him. You know that's the plot of 10 Rillington Place? Tbh I've not heard of this particular case. It is almost as if Ireland is a foreign country.
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I can't see an explanation of how a treasury rule change creates the additional money, unless it is merely transferred from elsewhere. So I suspect it is just a way of justifying increasing our grandchildren's liability.
Borrowing to spend on investment is reasonable.
The problem is mislabelling all expenditure as investment.
With very few limited exceptions (eg construction workers), salaries are not investment. A doctor's wages is current expenditure, an ongoing cost, not "investing in healthcare".
New buildings, roads, rails. Stuff that leaves a permanent legacy after it is built, that is a capital cost, not a current one.
Is a teacher's wage an investment? The teacher leaves a permanent legacy in all their students.
I might be wrong but wasn't Gordon Brown the first big user of 'investment' when he really meant 'spending'. its become embedded now in the political jargon handbook.
There isn't a hard and fast distinction, I suggest, between investment and spending. It is, as others have suggested, a political game of how to label spending.
A new hospital is investment. Great, you have a new hospital! But you need to staff it and that counts as salaries/expenditure. If a construction worker building something can count as investment, can an orthopaedic surgeon building you a new knee count as investment?
It depends whether it's an OAP's knee or, for example, a teacher's knee, surely.
Making an OAP mobile will stay have savings, they can stay fit so lower secondary health conditions, will require less care, to name a couple.
TFL have advised staff not to confront people they think might be dangerous, they have to call in officers trained in 'enforcement' - which merely begs the question, how many of these stations have these enforcement staff, and where are they? Anyone dodging a barrier has committed a crime, so don't they all present the possibility of danger? So what's the point of having people who aren't trained to enforce the rules?
It is understood that TfL tells station staff that they are expected to assist customers to pay the correct fare for their journeys and encourage everyone to tap in.
But the network says that if a member of staff judges it is not safe to intervene, they are encouraged to report incidents they witness to inform the deployment of enforcement staff.
Most stations don't have enforcement staff, they just have one or two ordinary TFL staff members. And, as you say, they've been told not to intervene in case it's dangerous.
Would you want to confront four or five large young gentlemen pushing through the barrier? I wouldn't - I suspect even Robert Jenrick wouldn't.
Should there be permanent security staff at every problematic tube station? Might help though the evaders will do to another station.
Mobile swat squads attending stations randomly would be the most cost effective way of reducing fare evasion.
Which is roughly what happens. Arguably it doesn't happen enough, but that's a question of how much money TfL is prepared/able to spend to catch how many fare dodgers.
A crackdown on London Tube and bus fare dodgers cost around 20 times more than it clawed back over the past year, new figures show.
Then the fines are at least 20 times too low.
See fines on public transport in Singapore.....$500, $1000, $2000, these are real fines you can get for doing things like drinking water, carrying smelly fruit, bringing batteries over a certain size.....
There is an historical problem in the UK with using fines charged for offences to support enforcement.
Do you remember the ginormous whinging noise that arises whenever speeding fines are suggested as a way to support policemen or cameras to deal with the offence?
Or the whining chorus like a million labradors about "Councils making money from enforcing parking rules." Translation: How dare they try and stop ME from doing what I want.
That's Jenrick's game. He's pointing to particular people, like the Daily Mail, because he wants to fluff the finger-pointing demographic.
You can be sure that were enforcement applied stringently to people whose support he wanted, he'd be yowling his cynical head off about it in Parliament.
We might fruitfully adapt the Finnish practice of making fines proportionate to the income and wealth of the offender. Thus the £200k exec type fraudulently avoiding the full whack for his season ticket from Woking to Waterloo would be fined significantly more than the spotty oik jumping the disabled barrier at Stratford to catch the tube to Mile End.
Surely this an idea that would appeal to Jenrick?
Do we not already have proportionate fines to some extent?
Going too far would run into problems like TSE's “friend” whose fine would presumably depend on whether it was levied before he was sacked (income £200k) or after (income £50 a week JSA).
Yes, I see the problem, although any friend of TSE would automatically be done for the max.
Edit: Seriously, it would be interesting to know more about how the Finns manage this. I really think the idea has some mileage, and as you note we kind of do it a bit anyway. All the same I wouldn't mind seeing the idea given a proper trial.
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I can't see an explanation of how a treasury rule change creates the additional money, unless it is merely transferred from elsewhere. So I suspect it is just a way of justifying increasing our grandchildren's liability.
Borrowing to spend on investment is reasonable.
The problem is mislabelling all expenditure as investment.
With very few limited exceptions (eg construction workers), salaries are not investment. A doctor's wages is current expenditure, an ongoing cost, not "investing in healthcare".
New buildings, roads, rails. Stuff that leaves a permanent legacy after it is built, that is a capital cost, not a current one.
Is a teacher's wage an investment? The teacher leaves a permanent legacy in all their students.
I would say no, since its an ongoing cost. You need to pay the teacher's salary next year since we don't stop having children.
Building a new school building that can be used for decades to come, that is investment.
While I think this definition is accurate, it does also come with some problematic consequences.
One is that it encourages outsourcing and a loss of institutional knowledge. You classify all spending on IT development (or construction, etc) as investment, as one-off expenditure, and so you don't employ the expertise to do that work in-house. You outsource.
But, in practice, when it comes to the state investment spending in infrastructure, or IT development, etc, is something the state needs to spend on continually, to renew the stock of infrastructure that exists, to continue developing and improve productivity. And the benefit of doing that in-house, as an ongoing expenditure commitment, is that you also build up a stock of institutional knowledge about how to manage such projects well. You genuinely learn lessons about what works well and what doesn't.
It's one of the reasons that Britain is so poor at this kind of spending. It's all one-off. The same mistakes are made over and over.
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I can't see an explanation of how a treasury rule change creates the additional money, unless it is merely transferred from elsewhere. So I suspect it is just a way of justifying increasing our grandchildren's liability.
Borrowing to spend on investment is reasonable.
The problem is mislabelling all expenditure as investment.
With very few limited exceptions (eg construction workers), salaries are not investment. A doctor's wages is current expenditure, an ongoing cost, not "investing in healthcare".
New buildings, roads, rails. Stuff that leaves a permanent legacy after it is built, that is a capital cost, not a current one.
Is a teacher's wage an investment? The teacher leaves a permanent legacy in all their students.
I might be wrong but wasn't Gordon Brown the first big user of 'investment' when he really meant 'spending'. its become embedded now in the political jargon handbook.
There isn't a hard and fast distinction, I suggest, between investment and spending. It is, as others have suggested, a political game of how to label spending.
A new hospital is investment. Great, you have a new hospital! But you need to staff it and that counts as salaries/expenditure. If a construction worker building something can count as investment, can an orthopaedic surgeon building you a new knee count as investment?
I invest, you spend, he pisses it against the wall.
TFL have advised staff not to confront people they think might be dangerous, they have to call in officers trained in 'enforcement' - which merely begs the question, how many of these stations have these enforcement staff, and where are they? Anyone dodging a barrier has committed a crime, so don't they all present the possibility of danger? So what's the point of having people who aren't trained to enforce the rules?
It is understood that TfL tells station staff that they are expected to assist customers to pay the correct fare for their journeys and encourage everyone to tap in.
But the network says that if a member of staff judges it is not safe to intervene, they are encouraged to report incidents they witness to inform the deployment of enforcement staff.
Most stations don't have enforcement staff, they just have one or two ordinary TFL staff members. And, as you say, they've been told not to intervene in case it's dangerous.
Would you want to confront four or five large young gentlemen pushing through the barrier? I wouldn't - I suspect even Robert Jenrick wouldn't.
Should there be permanent security staff at every problematic tube station? Might help though the evaders will do to another station.
Mobile swat squads attending stations randomly would be the most cost effective way of reducing fare evasion.
Which is roughly what happens. Arguably it doesn't happen enough, but that's a question of how much money TfL is prepared/able to spend to catch how many fare dodgers.
A crackdown on London Tube and bus fare dodgers cost around 20 times more than it clawed back over the past year, new figures show.
Then the fines are at least 20 times too low.
See fines on public transport in Singapore.....$500, $1000, $2000, these are real fines you can get for doing things like drinking water, carrying smelly fruit, bringing batteries over a certain size.....
There is an historical problem in the UK with using fines charged for offences to support enforcement.
Do you remember the ginormous whinging noise that arises whenever speeding fines are suggested as a way to support policemen or cameras to deal with the offence?
Or the whining chorus like a million labradors about "Councils making money from enforcing parking rules." Translation: How dare they try and stop ME from doing what I want.
That's Jenrick's game. He's pointing to particular people, like the Daily Mail, because he wants to fluff the finger-pointing demographic.
You can be sure that were enforcement applied stringently to people whose support he wanted, he'd be yowling his cynical head off about it in Parliament.
We might fruitfully adapt the Finnish practice of making fines proportionate to the income and wealth of the offender. Thus the £200k exec type fraudulently avoiding the full whack for his season ticket from Woking to Waterloo would be fined significantly more than the spotty oik jumping the disabled barrier at Stratford to catch the tube to Mile End.
Surely this an idea that would appeal to Jenrick?
Driving fines proportional to the list price of the vehicle
I don’t know if it will make a difference politically but surely it was incredibly silly for Farage to praise Truss’s Budget so clearly.
Farage has 3+ years to do the following: stop identifying with people who are bad for reputations (eg Trump); stop identifying with spending hundreds of billions you haven't got; start identifying with the 95% of voters who are welfare state social democrats, fond of free stuff who want it run better; abandon Singapore on Humber and low tax; identify a group of people who could be a front bench that wouldn't make everyone laugh at them. Then produce a manifesto - it will be the most studied ever - that can get past the OBR, IFS, the markets and the media.
If he can win a majority it can only be from the position comprehensible to Clacton: high spending social democracy with less wokery and secure borders, sound on defence.
Personally I think the last few weeks show that this is his intention.
Farage is like Trump: he promises high state spending on his supporters *and* low taxes. Generally, there’s some magic element that will cover the difference (tariffs, saving money on asylum seekers).
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
I can't see an explanation of how a treasury rule change creates the additional money, unless it is merely transferred from elsewhere. So I suspect it is just a way of justifying increasing our grandchildren's liability.
Borrowing to spend on investment is reasonable.
The problem is mislabelling all expenditure as investment.
With very few limited exceptions (eg construction workers), salaries are not investment. A doctor's wages is current expenditure, an ongoing cost, not "investing in healthcare".
New buildings, roads, rails. Stuff that leaves a permanent legacy after it is built, that is a capital cost, not a current one.
Paying junior doctors to learn on the job is an investment in future consultants and registrars. The health service needs these. That’s no less of an investment than an apprenticeship.
The NHS doesn’t pay for their own doctors to take exams and up skill. That would be unheard of in the professional private sector.
I don’t know if it will make a difference politically but surely it was incredibly silly for Farage to praise Truss’s Budget so clearly.
Farage has 3+ years to do the following: stop identifying with people who are bad for reputations (eg Trump); stop identifying with spending hundreds of billions you haven't got; start identifying with the 95% of voters who are welfare state social democrats, fond of free stuff who want it run better; abandon Singapore on Humber and low tax; identify a group of people who could be a front bench that wouldn't make everyone laugh at them. Then produce a manifesto - it will be the most studied ever - that can get past the OBR, IFS, the markets and the media.
If he can win a majority it can only be from the position comprehensible to Clacton: high spending social democracy with less wokery and secure borders, sound on defence.
Personally I think the last few weeks show that this is his intention.
Farage is like Trump: he promises high state spending on his supporters *and* low taxes. Generally, there’s some magic element that will cover the difference (tariffs, saving money on asylum seekers).
It is exactly that which he will have to sort over the next three years. Not fully but enough to give him cover. This will be the most scrutinised manifesto in history, if he continues to be a possible victor in 2029.
I'm amazed that the jury in this murder case is taking so long to reach a verdict. It would seem that at least one juror is buying the defendant's story.
Last nights Canvey Island Reform success has wrecked a council oddity - Castle Point DC was the only council in England with no Con, Lab, Ref, LD or Green councillors. Its still the only one with no Con, Lab, LD or Green
A barrister friend who works in the area reckons that if Hitler had invaded, he could have recruited a British SS on Canvey Island.
In all fairness to Canvey Island, that could be said of many parts of Britain. So as it stands the only thing to come out of Oil City of note was oil and Dr Feelgood.
There’s surely mileage in a travel book or TV series (perhaps it already exists) about the mysterious “islands” and “isles” of the UK that are not really, or only just, islands, and don’t fully live up to the Ibiza or Skye image of what an island should be.
As well as Canvey, some obvious candidates for chapters would be: Barry, Portland, Dogs, Sheppey, Thanet, Black, Grain, Hayling. Each has an interesting history and generally quirky culture.
My mother in law was a resident of Hayling Island until she died a couple of years ago. If I had a pound for every time I was asked asked by people when I have said where I was going/had been "Is Hayling Island an island?" would have paid for the funeral.
Bit cheap, giving your Mother in Law a funeral for six pounds
I still question running what is basically a four year election campaign. Surely even he must know that if things improve he will far less ability to make a splash?
Has he concluded that Labour is already finished? Less than a year in?
Farage isn’t campaigning to win in 4 years’ time. He’s campaigning to boost his GBNews/Fox News/social media pay now.
Last nights Canvey Island Reform success has wrecked a council oddity - Castle Point DC was the only council in England with no Con, Lab, Ref, LD or Green councillors. Its still the only one with no Con, Lab, LD or Green
A barrister friend who works in the area reckons that if Hitler had invaded, he could have recruited a British SS on Canvey Island.
In all fairness to Canvey Island, that could be said of many parts of Britain. So as it stands the only thing to come out of Oil City of note was oil and Dr Feelgood.
There’s surely mileage in a travel book or TV series (perhaps it already exists) about the mysterious “islands” and “isles” of the UK that are not really, or only just, islands, and don’t fully live up to the Ibiza or Skye image of what an island should be.
As well as Canvey, some obvious candidates for chapters would be: Barry, Portland, Dogs, Sheppey, Thanet, Black, Grain, Hayling. Each has an interesting history and generally quirky culture.
My mother in law was a resident of Hayling Island until she died a couple of years ago. If I had a pound for every time I was asked asked by people when I have said where I was going/had been "Is Hayling Island an island?" would have paid for the funeral.
Bit cheap, giving your Mother in Law a funeral for six pounds
The most visible and audible example of petty crime around us at the moment is kids riding hacked Lime Bikes.
It’s both profoundly irritating, particularly given their smug faces and the annoying beeping a hacked Lime bike makes, and also bizarrely nostalgic to see so many young boys (always boys) riding around on bikes rather than sitting staring at iPads.
One GOOD thing I've noticed is the death of young versions of @Dura_Ace wanking about on motorbikes with deafening exhausts. They were an absolute menace as recently as 18 months ago. Through the evening, into the night, so loud it would drive anyone close by insane, and near-constant
Loathsome, pointless, selfish
And yet, they've suddenly dwindled to near nothing. You hear the odd one every now and again, once every few days, for a few seconds
Does anyone know why? Is it a fashion, or a fashion dying out? Is it new electric bikes and scooters?
I don’t know if it will make a difference politically but surely it was incredibly silly for Farage to praise Truss’s Budget so clearly.
Farage has 3+ years to do the following: stop identifying with people who are bad for reputations (eg Trump); stop identifying with spending hundreds of billions you haven't got; start identifying with the 95% of voters who are welfare state social democrats, fond of free stuff who want it run better; abandon Singapore on Humber and low tax; identify a group of people who could be a front bench that wouldn't make everyone laugh at them. Then produce a manifesto - it will be the most studied ever - that can get past the OBR, IFS, the markets and the media.
If he can win a majority it can only be from the position comprehensible to Clacton: high spending social democracy with less wokery and secure borders, sound on defence.
Personally I think the last few weeks show that this is his intention.
Farage is like Trump: he promises high state spending on his supporters *and* low taxes. Generally, there’s some magic element that will cover the difference (tariffs, saving money on asylum seekers).
It is exactly that which he will have to sort over the next three years. Not fully but enough to give him cover. This will be the most scrutinised manifesto in history, if he continues to be a possible victor in 2029.
Why does he need to sort it? Trump didn’t.
I mean, I hope you’re right, that his manifesto is properly scrutinised, but many populist right leaders have won elections without ever making the sums add up in their plans.
I don’t know if it will make a difference politically but surely it was incredibly silly for Farage to praise Truss’s Budget so clearly.
Farage has 3+ years to do the following: stop identifying with people who are bad for reputations (eg Trump); stop identifying with spending hundreds of billions you haven't got; start identifying with the 95% of voters who are welfare state social democrats, fond of free stuff who want it run better; abandon Singapore on Humber and low tax; identify a group of people who could be a front bench that wouldn't make everyone laugh at them. Then produce a manifesto - it will be the most studied ever - that can get past the OBR, IFS, the markets and the media.
If he can win a majority it can only be from the position comprehensible to Clacton: high spending social democracy with less wokery and secure borders, sound on defence.
Personally I think the last few weeks show that this is his intention.
Farage is like Trump: he promises high state spending on his supporters *and* low taxes. Generally, there’s some magic element that will cover the difference (tariffs, saving money on asylum seekers).
It is exactly that which he will have to sort over the next three years. Not fully but enough to give him cover. This will be the most scrutinised manifesto in history, if he continues to be a possible victor in 2029.
Why does he need to sort it? Trump didn’t.
I mean, I hope you’re right, that his manifesto is properly scrutinised, but many populist right leaders have won elections without ever making the sums add up in their plans.
And we elected Starmer with a huge majority based on 'I'm not the Tories' last year. No reason to believe Farage running as 'I'm not like them'(1) won't work bigly.(2)
(1) He is (2) Sorry, couldn't resist but all right thinking people must surely hope Farage and Reform never get into power.
The thing with fare evaders, fly tippers, even burglars is this.
You don't have to catch them every time, you don't need enforcement on every barrier, but you do have to catch them ENOUGH, and have appropriate punishments available to deploy when you do.
Enough (plus a margin) being determined by a deep understanding of the various cost/benefits to would-be evaders.
They don’t hack Lime bikes, they lift the rear wheel up and run and jump on.
They’re badly designed and easy to steal. I suspect Lime don’t care because they don’t actually lose the bikes, they just end up somewhere else.
I find them very convenient but I think the Santander bikes are better designed with how they dock to prevent this kind of thing.
The whole business model doesn't work as the scooters / bikes need constantly replacing due to theft, vandalism and just constant usage. The likes of Lime are just burning other peoples (investor) money until they collapse. Nobody anywhere has made this work long term.
They work absolutely fine in high trust East Asian societies, and the few that are still like that in Europe
We, alas, are no longer a high trust society, BECAUSE
My experience of the police is that, because they know they're judged on crime detection and clean-up, that they'll go for soft middle-class targets on things like numberplates, speeding, traffic lights and "speech" because they're hoping for self-incrimination - far too much work to gather evidence, charge and prosecute through the courts, and they know a lot of lay people will panic and admit it if they see a copper - and they know the risk of violence is minimal.
They'll get neither from the hard-nut cases, which are also much harder to clear up.
My advice to anyone dealing with the police playing these games is not to self incriminate - deny everything - and never accept a formal warning or caution.
TFL have advised staff not to confront people they think might be dangerous, they have to call in officers trained in 'enforcement' - which merely begs the question, how many of these stations have these enforcement staff, and where are they? Anyone dodging a barrier has committed a crime, so don't they all present the possibility of danger? So what's the point of having people who aren't trained to enforce the rules?
It is understood that TfL tells station staff that they are expected to assist customers to pay the correct fare for their journeys and encourage everyone to tap in.
But the network says that if a member of staff judges it is not safe to intervene, they are encouraged to report incidents they witness to inform the deployment of enforcement staff.
Most stations don't have enforcement staff, they just have one or two ordinary TFL staff members. And, as you say, they've been told not to intervene in case it's dangerous.
Would you want to confront four or five large young gentlemen pushing through the barrier? I wouldn't - I suspect even Robert Jenrick wouldn't.
Should there be permanent security staff at every problematic tube station? Might help though the evaders will do to another station.
Mobile swat squads attending stations randomly would be the most cost effective way of reducing fare evasion.
Which is roughly what happens. Arguably it doesn't happen enough, but that's a question of how much money TfL is prepared/able to spend to catch how many fare dodgers.
A crackdown on London Tube and bus fare dodgers cost around 20 times more than it clawed back over the past year, new figures show.
Then the fines are at least 20 times too low.
See fines on public transport in Singapore.....$500, $1000, $2000, these are real fines you can get for doing things like drinking water, carrying smelly fruit, bringing batteries over a certain size.....
There is an historical problem in the UK with using fines charged for offences to support enforcement.
Do you remember the ginormous whinging noise that arises whenever speeding fines are suggested as a way to support policemen or cameras to deal with the offence?
Or the whining chorus like a million labradors about "Councils making money from enforcing parking rules." Translation: How dare they try and stop ME from doing what I want.
That's Jenrick's game. He's pointing to particular people, like the Daily Mail, because he wants to fluff the finger-pointing demographic.
You can be sure that were enforcement applied stringently to people whose support he wanted, he'd be yowling his cynical head off about it in Parliament.
We might fruitfully adapt the Finnish practice of making fines proportionate to the income and wealth of the offender. Thus the £200k exec type fraudulently avoiding the full whack for his season ticket from Woking to Waterloo would be fined significantly more than the spotty oik jumping the disabled barrier at Stratford to catch the tube to Mile End.
Surely this an idea that would appeal to Jenrick?
Do we not already have proportionate fines to some extent?
Going too far would run into problems like TSE's “friend” whose fine would presumably depend on whether it was levied before he was sacked (income £200k) or after (income £50 a week JSA).
Yes, I see the problem, although any friend of TSE would automatically be done for the max.
Edit: Seriously, it would be interesting to know more about how the Finns manage this. I really think the idea has some mileage, and as you note we kind of do it a bit anyway. All the same I wouldn't mind seeing the idea given a proper trial.
It would be one of those policies where people who considered themselves hard done by are suddenly confronted by the fact they are quite well off.
There's also the issue of household v individual wealth/income, so you'd definitely need a car value catch. If it's a maximum of the three (proportionately), I'd get hammered by the income element - but that's the policy working as intended.
Comments
Only 48% of LDs and 48% of Greens would vote Labour if their constituency was a straight Tory v Labour battle though
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51713-is-tactical-voting-more-of-a-threat-or-opportunity-for-reform-uk
It’s both profoundly irritating, particularly given their smug faces and the annoying beeping a hacked Lime bike makes, and also bizarrely nostalgic to see so many young boys (always boys) riding around on bikes rather than sitting staring at iPads.
Northern Irish Assembly Voting Intention:
SF: 26% (-2)
DUP: 18% (-1)
ALL: 13% (-1)
UUP: 12% (+1)
TUV: 12% (+1)
SDLP: 11% (=)
GRN: 3% (+1)
AON: 2% (+1)
PBP: 1% (=)
Via @LucidTalk, 16-19 May.
Changes w/ 14-17 Feb.
Unionist vote splitting into thirds
Do you remember the ginormous whinging noise that arises whenever speeding fines are suggested as a way to support policemen or cameras to deal with the offence?
Or the whining chorus like a million labradors about "Councils making money from enforcing parking rules." Translation: How dare they try and stop ME from doing what I want.
That's Jenrick's game. He's pointing to particular people, like the Daily Mail, because he wants to fluff the finger-pointing demographic.
You can be sure that were enforcement applied stringently to people whose support he wanted, he'd be yowling his cynical head off about it in Parliament.
Rachel Reeves to announce billions in regional spending after Treasury rule changes
Extra investment lined up for schemes such as energy projects, roads and rails outside London and south-east
This seems good but Labour need to SELL IT. Johnson would be out there shouting about it.
Labour won by default last time. Reform could do the same next time.
The other thing that annoys me is youths on motorbikes with invisibly small number plates. Obviously illegal, but seemingly no enforcement.
Observing behaviour at the gates would be much easier and less error prone, I would think.
If I am not mistaken it has a number of distinguished ex and current inhabitants. Dean Macey is one, no?
@Sunil_Prasannan - that’s your cue.
The problem is mislabelling all expenditure as investment.
With very few limited exceptions (eg construction workers), salaries are not investment. A doctor's wages is current expenditure, an ongoing cost, not "investing in healthcare".
New buildings, roads, rails. Stuff that leaves a permanent legacy after it is built, that is a capital cost, not a current one.
They’re badly designed and easy to steal. I suspect Lime don’t care because they don’t actually lose the bikes, they just end up somewhere else.
I find them very convenient but I think the Santander bikes are better designed with how they dock to prevent this kind of thing.
I'm not aware that he ever went down the IDS "make stuff up and tell it to Parliament" route on this one, but it's in his modus operandi on other questions.
He also committed so many (speeding, I think) offences that he got himself banned from driving as a totter in 2022.
I'd assume that he will do and say whatever he thinks is populist; Jenrick as role model for a moral panjandrum has the credibility of a Nigel Farage election manifesto costing.
https://www.ft.com/content/565e116e-7150-4d9a-a85d-9e025ce5fabd
Bank of England policymaker plays down inflation risk in call for rate cuts
Yeah, that's going to end well...
But I think they really should expand the Santander Cycles. They are one of the best things London has ever done IMV.
At the same time, many people do have legitimate concerns about low-level crime, like fare-dodging. Some high profile enforcement can perhaps have a deterrence effect.
Surely this an idea that would appeal to Jenrick?
All that matters for Labour is showing that things have got better and that requires things being delivered
Indeed on those numbers SF is down 3% on the last NI election in 2022 and the combined Unionist vote up 2%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election
The fact that Jenrick's back story, particularly the Tower Hamlets outrage, is largely ignored and he comes over a a hero is a remarkable sleight of hand.
My main peeve with e-bikes particularly the hire ones (as a regular commuting cyclist) is that the people who use them can be very poor cyclists, undertaking other cyclists on the left, cutting through the 1m gap between me and the kids when I'm escorting them to school and other dumb behaviour.
E-scooters and illegal electric motorbikes just need to be taken off the road, for the safety of the users in the main
Transfers are never 100%, nor completely predictable.
Probably not, London probably needs some more cycle lanes.
The local press are reporting on the new County Councillor for Newark who resigned because he could not both do his job (carer iirc) and be an effective Councillor, after having passed through the world-beating RefUK candidate vetting system, and are reporting the £25k it will cost us to have a byelection.
It's taken some time to be reported. I'm not sure if Reach plc can be called "lefty".
Going too far would run into problems like TSE's “friend” whose fine would presumably depend on whether it was levied before he was sacked (income £200k) or after (income £50 a week JSA).
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2025/0530/1515840-richard-satchwell-court/
They have started on this journey. It will be interesting. All their voters are high state spend welfare state social democrats. Reform know all this perfectly well.
Building a new school building that can be used for decades to come, that is investment.
And with that I'm off to do exactly that lol!
https://x.com/danneidle/status/1928375085846405440?s=61
Answers:
No known limit
There isn't one
Jury is out.
Forget the rhetoric, look at the substance. See where the money and the votes go.
A new hospital is investment. Great, you have a new hospital! But you need to staff it and that counts as salaries/expenditure. If a construction worker building something can count as investment, can an orthopaedic surgeon building you a new knee count as investment?
Edit: Seriously, it would be interesting to know more about how the Finns manage this. I really think the idea has some mileage, and as you note we kind of do it a bit anyway. All the same I wouldn't mind seeing the idea given a proper trial.
John McTernan
@johnmcternan
·
2m
How any Labour MP can support cuts on this scale for people with disabilities is beyond me.
https://x.com/johnmcternan/status/1928405370155757934
One is that it encourages outsourcing and a loss of institutional knowledge. You classify all spending on IT development (or construction, etc) as investment, as one-off expenditure, and so you don't employ the expertise to do that work in-house. You outsource.
But, in practice, when it comes to the state investment spending in infrastructure, or IT development, etc, is something the state needs to spend on continually, to renew the stock of infrastructure that exists, to continue developing and improve productivity. And the benefit of doing that in-house, as an ongoing expenditure commitment, is that you also build up a stock of institutional knowledge about how to manage such projects well. You genuinely learn lessons about what works well and what doesn't.
It's one of the reasons that Britain is so poor at this kind of spending. It's all one-off. The same mistakes are made over and over.
The NHS doesn’t pay for their own doctors to take exams and up skill. That would be unheard of in the professional private sector.
Loathsome, pointless, selfish
And yet, they've suddenly dwindled to near nothing. You hear the odd one every now and again, once every few days, for a few seconds
Does anyone know why? Is it a fashion, or a fashion dying out? Is it new electric bikes and scooters?
I mean, I hope you’re right, that his manifesto is properly scrutinised, but many populist right leaders have won elections without ever making the sums add up in their plans.
(1) He is
(2) Sorry, couldn't resist but all right thinking people must surely hope Farage and Reform never get into power.
You don't have to catch them every time, you don't need enforcement on every barrier, but you do have to catch them ENOUGH, and have appropriate punishments available to deploy when you do.
Enough (plus a margin) being determined by a deep understanding of the various cost/benefits to would-be evaders.
We, alas, are no longer a high trust society, BECAUSE
They'll get neither from the hard-nut cases, which are also much harder to clear up.
My advice to anyone dealing with the police playing these games is not to self incriminate - deny everything - and never accept a formal warning or caution.
There's also the issue of household v individual wealth/income, so you'd definitely need a car value catch. If it's a maximum of the three (proportionately), I'd get hammered by the income element - but that's the policy working as intended.