"Benefits claimants can ignore hosepipe ban MPs criticise ‘two-tier’ restrictions that allow benefits recipients with three children to hose their gardens"
It really pays less and less in this country to work full time, strive and get on.
You use your hosepipe. Get a fine.
The dole bludger down at number 7 can use theirs all day without any comeback.
Nuts but plenty will justify it.
I'll break this down for you. Up until the change in the law recently, benefit claimants with 3 or more children only received money for two. Most will be in debt to card companies, the DWP or the local council - perhaps all three. Fining them would simply add to the financial pressures and most likely the fines wouldn't/couldn't be paid. It would waste court time and money for nothing more that a gesture.
It may offend people and generate the two-tier trope but there is a practicality there.
So basically fine/screw over the people working you know you will be able to get money from for,doing something others can just do at will.
The fines are there to prevent a behaviour they don’t want. In this case using excessive water in the garden. So you’re effectively penalising some water users but allowing others to carry on with no fear of any consequence for a behaviour that is not desirable.
It is two tier and is manifestly unfair on those in the relevant areas.
By your logic we may as well let benefits claimants speed, park without paying for a ticket or do anything they like as the fine would be unlikely to be paid.
So what's the answer then?
There's not much point trying to fine people who don't have money. So then you end up looking at other punishments for non-payment of fines. We could (and do) send people to prison for that, but I'm not sure that's ideal either.
And there's also the flipside to consider. Some people and businesses feel that they can speed, park without paying for a ticket or do anything they like as the fine is a trivial amount of money for them. Again, that's not especially fair, but people on the right have traditionally been robust in saying that life isn't always fair- get over it. Frankly, I'd rather be in the slice of society where paying fines is a meaningful annoyance than the one the powers that be don't try and levy them.
Fine them and deduct the fine at source from their benefit payment over a period of time.
There has to be consequences for behaviour that contravenes relevant laws. If there aren’t people will just carry on without fear of any comeback.
As we have seen with people walking into shops and walking out with stuff
There will come a time when those that play by the rules and accept them and potential consequences just say ‘screw this’ and bad behaviour will spread more.
That’s what’s known as moving from a high-trust society to a low-trust society.
This is a right wing talking point, not a real thing. If anything is damaging trust in our society, it's social media lies, repeated by helpful idiots.
Oh, and top politicians not following the rules, like Farage and chums.
Trump has abandoned his 20% Hormuz transit fee. Assistant Gulf States have promised to make investments into the US instead. I am sure that some of these investments will enrich Trump directly. How long until the oil sheikhs tire of the frequent shakedowns?
Trump has abandoned his 20% Hormuz transit fee. Assistant Gulf States have promised to make investments into the US instead. I am sure that some of these investments will enrich Trump directly. How long until the oil sheikhs tire of the frequent shakedowns?
Fantastic. So he's set the rate at 20% for transit fees. The fart of the deal.
A lot of people on social media are starting their condolence messages by saying "I disagreed with everything Ann Widdecombe believed in...", but the problem is by saying this they're implying they're in favour of fox hunting, because she was a big campaigner against it. Shows why you should always do your research before making sweeping remarks.
"Benefits claimants can ignore hosepipe ban MPs criticise ‘two-tier’ restrictions that allow benefits recipients with three children to hose their gardens"
It really pays less and less in this country to work full time, strive and get on.
You use your hosepipe. Get a fine.
The dole bludger down at number 7 can use theirs all day without any comeback.
Nuts but plenty will justify it.
I'll break this down for you. Up until the change in the law recently, benefit claimants with 3 or more children only received money for two. Most will be in debt to card companies, the DWP or the local council - perhaps all three. Fining them would simply add to the financial pressures and most likely the fines wouldn't/couldn't be paid. It would waste court time and money for nothing more that a gesture.
It may offend people and generate the two-tier trope but there is a practicality there.
That's standard Telegraph Trolling to set off the outrage munchkins, and it has worked this morning.
"Can" is doing a lot of work in that headline: Benefits Claimants - MILLIONS of them.
The actual people they are talking about are those on a social water tariff called Watersure, which has a grand total of 300k people on it nationwide. Of those, 60k are within areas of hosepipe bans. Watersure aiui caps the bill, so only 60k may benefit since only 2 areas have bans according to the parts of the article not seen on social media.
The scheme has been in place since 1999, and was not cancelled during 14 years of Conservative lead Goverment.
A typical recipient would be a household with someone with a medical condition like Crohn's Disease or Weeping Skin Disease, where you need to wash your clothes much more. There's no indication whatsoever that these will be using hosepipes. For the Telegraph to demonise such people is despicable.
If the Telegraph want to be credibly outraged, then they should focus on people who do not have water meters, or who empty our reservoirs to water their gardens so causing the hosepipe ban in the first place.
Why can't people use PIP or child benefit or UC for this purpose? Why do we need a special scheme?
Why are we doing redistributive activities inside private firms rather than having the government do it? It's another way in which private water firms aren't really private. So maybe we should stop pretending and re-nationalise.
It's the private company that were given the powers to start the prosecution process. The statutory powers of old utilities and rail companies were flipped over during the privatisation process. So the water utilities are basically saying they have the power to take individuals to court or a fine in lieu of prosecution but are declining to do so. So it's a two tier private sector - those with statutory powers and those without.
Remember that the next time you pay your TV licence. (Life is not black and white - apart from in Newcastle)
Sorry, I was referring to Watersure. I should have bolded that para in MattW's comment when replying but I was too lazy.
How many households on watersure have gardens? Even if they do they're unlikely to be large. On the day that the PPE report is released, the Telegraph is getting enraged about a small number of people potentially watering their garden, not Mone, Mellor or any of the other COVID profiteers.
I am extremely puzzled at why anyone would drive the best part of 600 miles to assassinate Ann Widdecombe. Indeed I am extremely puzzled at why anyone should assonate her anyway. She was a fairly significant figure in Reform, true, but I can think of of several otrhgers who would be higher on an assassins list: people whose death would not give rise to the same degree of public sympathy.
No doubt more facts will become available soon, but for the moment I suspect that either there's something to come out a plot to assassinate all Reform's first and second level 'politicians' or the 'assassin' had some crazed dislike of the poor lady.
It feels like we're living in a poorly written soap. Neither the Anne-Widdecombe-gets-murdered storyline nor the Farage-calls-a-needless-byelection-and-loses-to-Binface storyline are remotely believable. Nor for that matter is wildfires in the notoriously-moist Greater Manchester. Put some effort in, writers!
I thought there were fires around Manchester a few years ago?
You're right, I was being slightly flippant. But - if you're here - it does add an air of unreality.
Still the BBC haven't got their story straight.
First, the Dovestones fire was pouring smoke over Manchester. Wrong, it wasn't, it was the Tintwistle fire, which coincidentally caused intermittent fire service call outs to localities in Huddersfield back in June when the wind was coming from the south.
Now to the BBC, it's billed as the Tintwistle fire near Dovestones as if there is one fire. Wrong - the two locations are the other side of the same hill, but they are separated by about 5 miles as the crow flies, or about 12 miles by road.
Two separate fires - (1) smaller one at Dovestones, attended by GM and contributing a little smoke, (2) larger one above Tintwistle, attended by Derbyshire, but sending smoke across Manchester.
The satellite picture the BBC are using tells this entire story as both of the fires and their smoke trails can be seen.
As we travelled back from Chester yesterday, the smoke was evident to the south of the city and it was being carried over the southern parts by a brisk easterly or east north easterly wind. It was worst at Heaton Moor as you might expect.
Better this morning as we headed out of Piccadilly but again plenty of haze to the east but not as bad as yesterday afternoon.
It feels like we're living in a poorly written soap. Neither the Anne-Widdecombe-gets-murdered storyline nor the Farage-calls-a-needless-byelection-and-loses-to-Binface storyline are remotely believable. Nor for that matter is wildfires in the notoriously-moist Greater Manchester. Put some effort in, writers!
I thought there were fires around Manchester a few years ago?
You're right, I was being slightly flippant. But - if you're here - it does add an air of unreality.
Still the BBC haven't got their story straight.
First, the Dovestones fire was pouring smoke over Manchester. Wrong, it wasn't, it was the Tintwistle fire, which coincidentally caused intermittent fire service call outs to localities in Huddersfield back in June when the wind was coming from the south.
Now to the BBC, it's billed as the Tintwistle fire near Dovestones as if there is one fire. Wrong - the two locations are the other side of the same hill, but they are separated by about 5 miles as the crow flies, or about 12 miles by road.
Two separate fires - (1) smaller one at Dovestones, attended by GM and contributing a little smoke, (2) larger one above Tintwistle, attended by Derbyshire, but sending smoke across Manchester.
The satellite picture the BBC are using tells this entire story as both of the fires and their smoke trails can be seen.
As we travelled back from Chester yesterday, the smoke was evident to the south of the city and it was being carried over the southern parts by a brisk easterly or east north easterly wind. It was worst at Heaton Moor as you might expect.
Better this morning as we headed out of Piccadilly but again plenty of haze to the east but not as bad as yesterday afternoon.
Is one of these the fire that was started by kids setting off fireworks on the moor?
Betting post: England appear to be favourites to qualify from their semi-final with Argentina tomorrow. This is madness, surely? Argentina are not only very good but will cheat, they will get away with it, and they will win. I'd say a chance of England getting through tomorrow's match is less than 20%, rather than the greater than 50% the odds appear to imply.
I think England are the marginally better team. I would have them slight favourites to beat Argentina but clear underdogs in the final, especially against France. Cheating is harder than it used to be. In the age of VAR the hand of God goal would presumably have been disallowed and Maradona punished.
I am extremely puzzled at why anyone would drive the best part of 600 miles to assassinate Ann Widdecombe. Indeed I am extremely puzzled at why anyone should assonate her anyway. She was a fairly significant figure in Reform, true, but I can think of of several otrhgers who would be higher on an assassins list: people whose death would not give rise to the same degree of public sympathy.
No doubt more facts will become available soon, but for the moment I suspect that either there's something to come out a plot to assassinate all Reform's first and second level 'politicians' or the 'assassin' had some crazed dislike of the poor lady.
I don’t understand why anyone would drive anywhere to assassinate anyone, but I’m not on X so won’t be radicalised by Musk.
@JohnSimpsonNews Argentina v England is important way beyond football. If Argentina wins tomorrow night, it’ll put real fire behind the demand for the Falklands. If England wins, that should put the lid on it — for now.
Betting post: England appear to be favourites to qualify from their semi-final with Argentina tomorrow. This is madness, surely? Argentina are not only very good but will cheat, they will get away with it, and they will win. I'd say a chance of England getting through tomorrow's match is less than 20%, rather than the greater than 50% the odds appear to imply.
I think England are the marginally better team. I would have them slight favourites to beat Argentina but clear underdogs in the final, especially against France. Cheating is harder than it used to be. In the age of VAR the hand of God goal would presumably have been disallowed and Maradona punished.
You obviously not seen who is ref'ing the game tomorrow....
@JohnSimpsonNews Argentina v England is important way beyond football. If Argentina wins tomorrow night, it’ll put real fire behind the demand for the Falklands. If England wins, that should put the lid on it — for now.
Its hard to tell these days is he is trying to tell a funny that doesn't really land or being deadly serious. It appears more often than not its the latter.
@JohnSimpsonNews Argentina v England is important way beyond football. If Argentina wins tomorrow night, it’ll put real fire behind the demand for the Falklands. If England wins, that should put the lid on it — for now.
Has Simpson been on the sherry ! What an absolutely ludicrous thing to say .
Ed Miliband has principles and if you don’t like those he has other ones.
Miliband willing to approve North Sea oil to land job as chancellor
Energy Secretary wants to prove he is a ‘pragmatist’ rather than a ‘zealot’ on environmental policy to help his case for being chancellor
Ed Miliband wants to approve drilling in the North Sea to calm market jitters about his possible appointment as chancellor and prove he is no net zero “zealot”.
The Energy Secretary has privately signalled his willingness to grant consent for drilling at the Jackdaw gas field but cannot publicly confirm the move until a consultation closes next month.
Jackdaw, off the coast of Aberdeen, is one of two licences in the North Sea currently held in legal limbo. The other site, Rosebank, would produce oil to be sold in a global market, but Jackdaw would be able to provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million British homes this winter.
A sensible move but might not help Burnham with squeezing the Green vote, though would help him squeeze some ex Labour voters who have gone Reform
“ Rosebank, would produce oil to be sold in a global market, but Jackdaw would be able to provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million British homes this winter.”.
Is the Telegraph correct in that statement about Jack Daw? I didn’t think UK owned any North Sea Oil, so what arrangement with private enterprise prevents it being sold on the markets, and consumption for UK only?
When is the cut off for it not to be ready for British homes this coming winter? Weather forecasts for business planning is suggesting one of coldest snowfest in living memory.
Betting post: England appear to be favourites to qualify from their semi-final with Argentina tomorrow. This is madness, surely? Argentina are not only very good but will cheat, they will get away with it, and they will win. I'd say a chance of England getting through tomorrow's match is less than 20%, rather than the greater than 50% the odds appear to imply.
I think England are the marginally better team. I would have them slight favourites to beat Argentina but clear underdogs in the final, especially against France. Cheating is harder than it used to be. In the age of VAR the hand of God goal would presumably have been disallowed and Maradona punished.
You obviously not seen who is ref'ing the game tomorrow....
Burglar described as “lighting every room he walked into” and an “aspiring footballer”
So he was a fire raiser as well as a burglar.
Burglar's will be the first to the wall when the Omnium regime arrives. And let's face it we're only days away from the Burnham, and thus only mere weeks from the Burnham Collapse, and then the Council of the Wise, and then it's me! (Luckily I've planned ahead, and the population of both Clacton and Makerfield will be sold into slavery to ease the National debt.
Betting post: England appear to be favourites to qualify from their semi-final with Argentina tomorrow. This is madness, surely? Argentina are not only very good but will cheat, they will get away with it, and they will win. I'd say a chance of England getting through tomorrow's match is less than 20%, rather than the greater than 50% the odds appear to imply.
I think England are the marginally better team. I would have them slight favourites to beat Argentina but clear underdogs in the final, especially against France. Cheating is harder than it used to be. In the age of VAR the hand of God goal would presumably have been disallowed and Maradona punished.
You obviously not seen who is ref'ing the game tomorrow....
Burglar described as “lighting every room he walked into” and an “aspiring footballer”
So he was a fire raiser as well as a burglar.
Burglar's will be the first to the wall when the Omnium regime arrives. And let's face it we're only days away from the Burnham, and thus only mere weeks from the Burnham Collapse, and then the Council of the Wise, and then it's me! (Luckily I've planned ahead, and the population of both Clacton and Makerfield will be sold into slavery to ease the National debt.
“ the population of both Clacton and Makerfield will be sold into slavery to ease the National debt”
Betting post: England appear to be favourites to qualify from their semi-final with Argentina tomorrow. This is madness, surely? Argentina are not only very good but will cheat, they will get away with it, and they will win. I'd say a chance of England getting through tomorrow's match is less than 20%, rather than the greater than 50% the odds appear to imply.
I think England are the marginally better team. I would have them slight favourites to beat Argentina but clear underdogs in the final, especially against France. Cheating is harder than it used to be. In the age of VAR the hand of God goal would presumably have been disallowed and Maradona punished.
You obviously not seen who is ref'ing the game tomorrow....
We are really going to have to beat them so convincingly that there is no way any assistance matters.
It largely depends if Burnham wins the next general election or not. If he doesn't then Farage or Badenoch would be next PM. If he does then it depends how long Labour remains ahead in the polls, if the right reunite and they fall behind in the polls it might be a more centrist New Labour figure like Streeting who replaces him rather than just more leftism with Ed Miliband or Rayner
Who will win the next election is a game of elimination. It is pretty universally agreed on the centre ground that no-one deserves to, but there will of course be a PM after the next election.
It's a subject for Sherlock's great dictum (true of course only if slightly amended, but the point is clear):
when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
As it can only be the leader of Lab/Con/Ref it is simple.
It can't be Reform because they can't win. It can't be Kemi because she isn't PM material and she can't win and there is no-one decent to replace her. So it's Labour, or Labour led, which means almost 100% certainly Burnham. DYOR.
This is not informed commentary, it's hopecasting. You hate Kemi and Nige, so you already have your conclusion, then work backwards. That's fine as it goes - you have arranged the words nicely, but what credence do you expect anyone to give this?
Thanks; as to your comments: sentence 1, agree; sentence 2 disagree; sentence 3 none.
My only defence is that if you carefully sift through the last 8000 or so comments you will see that elsewhere I give more reasoned grounds for my wild speculations. I don't hate Kemi and I would like her to make the Tories electable, but I don't think she will. I don't hate Farage because I try not to hate anybody. People have souls and he is a hurt man. I am strongly opposed to what he stands for and his methods.
Well yes, if the alleged killer drove 300 miles, it probably was targeted. But was it terrorism?
Its best not to speculate.
The initial assessment of a burglary gone wrong and a local man arrested seemed the most plausible if tragic scenario.
After which there is clear evidence that a person did drive 300 miles , seemingly in the knowledge of where she lived , and made a premeditated decision to kill her.
Whether this was politcally or celebrity motivated, or linked to some specific views she openly held, and was entitled to hold who knows.
the fact that Farage / Musk and the usual right wing suspects are desperate to turn this in to a contract politically motivated killing just adds to the speculation that her family are desperate to quell.
We may never know.
It is a tragedy for her family and friends
What would be a bigger tragedy would be if her reputation was tarnised by Farage and his stormtroopers in any way to create another summer of insurection and violence. She would have hated that!
I was half expecting Farage to, pace Jonathan Aitken, witter on about "the sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play" but given how that turned out for Aitken, probably not a good move.
Am I right in thinking even if Farage is re-elected, the Standards Committee could still throw him out of Parliament thereby forcing a second by-election in which Farage (presumably) would be unable to stand? I presume Farage is hoping a strong re-election will put pressure on the aforementioned Standards Committee to, if not, exonerate him entirely then perhaps to ensure it's more of a slap on the wrist than a kick in the gonads.
Farage remains an MP and life goes on as normally as it ever can and all we are out is the cost of the by-election and the prevailing questions about donations and contributions which will dog (so to apeak) Farage all the way to the next GE and perhaps beyond.
As for Count Bin-fahsay, I've seen him interviewed. I'm sure we can all understand his frustration at urinal facilities in west London pubs but how far will the joke take him and what will we do if he gets there?
The standards committee doesn't throw him out, but can suspend him. However if the days of suspension is sufficient then a petition for a by election can be sought. If there are enough signatures a by election is called. He can stand.
"Benefits claimants can ignore hosepipe ban MPs criticise ‘two-tier’ restrictions that allow benefits recipients with three children to hose their gardens"
It really pays less and less in this country to work full time, strive and get on.
You use your hosepipe. Get a fine.
The dole bludger down at number 7 can use theirs all day without any comeback.
Nuts but plenty will justify it.
I'll break this down for you. Up until the change in the law recently, benefit claimants with 3 or more children only received money for two. Most will be in debt to card companies, the DWP or the local council - perhaps all three. Fining them would simply add to the financial pressures and most likely the fines wouldn't/couldn't be paid. It would waste court time and money for nothing more that a gesture.
It may offend people and generate the two-tier trope but there is a practicality there.
So basically fine/screw over the people working you know you will be able to get money from for,doing something others can just do at will.
The fines are there to prevent a behaviour they don’t want. In this case using excessive water in the garden. So you’re effectively penalising some water users but allowing others to carry on with no fear of any consequence for a behaviour that is not desirable.
It is two tier and is manifestly unfair on those in the relevant areas.
By your logic we may as well let benefits claimants speed, park without paying for a ticket or do anything they like as the fine would be unlikely to be paid.
So what's the answer then?
There's not much point trying to fine people who don't have money. So then you end up looking at other punishments for non-payment of fines. We could (and do) send people to prison for that, but I'm not sure that's ideal either.
And there's also the flipside to consider. Some people and businesses feel that they can speed, park without paying for a ticket or do anything they like as the fine is a trivial amount of money for them. Again, that's not especially fair, but people on the right have traditionally been robust in saying that life isn't always fair- get over it. Frankly, I'd rather be in the slice of society where paying fines is a meaningful annoyance than the one the powers that be don't try and levy them.
Fine them and deduct the fine at source from their benefit payment over a period of time.
There has to be consequences for behaviour that contravenes relevant laws. If there aren’t people will just carry on without fear of any comeback.
As we have seen with people walking into shops and walking out with stuff
There will come a time when those that play by the rules and accept them and potential consequences just say ‘screw this’ and bad behaviour will spread more.
That’s what’s known as moving from a high-trust society to a low-trust society.
This is a right wing talking point, not a real thing. If anything is damaging trust in our society, it's social media lies, repeated by helpful idiots.
Oh, and top politicians not following the rules, like Farage and chums.
Part of it is about the demonisation of those on welfare so parties proposing swingeing cuts to welfare to fund tax cuts for the wealthy will get support at a future election. It's easy to argue to cut benefits if significant parts of the electorate view those on benefits as "scroungers" so let's call that for what it is, an attempt to mobilise an anti-welfare pro-tax vut agenda.
As for antisocial media, I already mentioned we were messaged by one of our friends who saw a video purporting to show a group of young men fighting with machetes "in Manchester" together with the usual pro-Restore, anti-immigration messaging.
This friend of ours sees the video and immediately concludes Manchester is a dangerous city filled by young men armed with machetes and thinks we are at risk. As you say, such videos are aimed at the stupid and the gullible and the problem is even when debunked (as they usually are), the damage is done, the message has got home.
I am extremely puzzled at why anyone would drive the best part of 600 miles to assassinate Ann Widdecombe. Indeed I am extremely puzzled at why anyone should assonate her anyway. She was a fairly significant figure in Reform, true, but I can think of of several otrhgers who would be higher on an assassins list: people whose death would not give rise to the same degree of public sympathy.
No doubt more facts will become available soon, but for the moment I suspect that either there's something to come out a plot to assassinate all Reform's first and second level 'politicians' or the 'assassin' had some crazed dislike of the poor lady.
I do wonder if she wasn't right wing enough for the killer, after all that seemed to be the motive for the various similar events over in Trumpistan.
"Benefits claimants can ignore hosepipe ban MPs criticise ‘two-tier’ restrictions that allow benefits recipients with three children to hose their gardens"
It really pays less and less in this country to work full time, strive and get on.
You use your hosepipe. Get a fine.
The dole bludger down at number 7 can use theirs all day without any comeback.
Nuts but plenty will justify it.
I'll break this down for you. Up until the change in the law recently, benefit claimants with 3 or more children only received money for two. Most will be in debt to card companies, the DWP or the local council - perhaps all three. Fining them would simply add to the financial pressures and most likely the fines wouldn't/couldn't be paid. It would waste court time and money for nothing more that a gesture.
It may offend people and generate the two-tier trope but there is a practicality there.
That's standard Telegraph Trolling to set off the outrage munchkins, and it has worked this morning.
"Can" is doing a lot of work in that headline: Benefits Claimants - MILLIONS of them.
The actual people they are talking about are those on a social water tariff called Watersure, which has a grand total of 300k people on it nationwide. Of those, 60k are within areas of hosepipe bans. Watersure aiui caps the bill, so only 60k may benefit since only 2 areas have bans according to the parts of the article not seen on social media.
The scheme has been in place since 1999, and was not cancelled during 14 years of Conservative lead Goverment.
A typical recipient would be a household with someone with a medical condition like Crohn's Disease or Weeping Skin Disease, where you need to wash your clothes much more. There's no indication whatsoever that these will be using hosepipes. For the Telegraph to demonise such people is despicable.
If the Telegraph want to be credibly outraged, then they should focus on people who do not have water meters, or who empty our reservoirs to water their gardens so causing the hosepipe ban in the first place.
Why can't people use PIP or child benefit or UC for this purpose? Why do we need a special scheme?
Why are we doing redistributive activities inside private firms rather than having the government do it? It's another way in which private water firms aren't really private. So maybe we should stop pretending and re-nationalise.
It's the private company that were given the powers to start the prosecution process. The statutory powers of old utilities and rail companies were flipped over during the privatisation process. So the water utilities are basically saying they have the power to take individuals to court or a fine in lieu of prosecution but are declining to do so. So it's a two tier private sector - those with statutory powers and those without.
Remember that the next time you pay your TV licence. (Life is not black and white - apart from in Newcastle)
Sorry, I was referring to Watersure. I should have bolded that para in MattW's comment when replying but I was too lazy.
How many households on watersure have gardens? Even if they do they're unlikely to be large. On the day that the PPE report is released, the Telegraph is getting enraged about a small number of people potentially watering their garden, not Mone, Mellor or any of the other COVID profiteers.
Should we be concerned about the renewed shenanigans in the Gulf? WTI back up to around $80 a barrel and Brent to $85 so basically where it was a month ago and still above the $65 - $67 at the end of February.
As someone argued earlier, are we looking, much as we did with Iraq in the "No Fly" period of occasional bursts of violence followed by periods of relative calm for a longer or shorter period? It took an invasion and regime change to end that stand off but is there really any appetite in Washington for a ground invasion of Iran? It doesn't seem likely.
Two positives.
Firstly, @Casino_Royale was right, and we didn't run out of jet fuel, or diesel, etc. Refineries did a lot of work to fill the gaps, and China used its reserves to massively cut imports.
Secondly, we're already four and a half months into this, so we're four and a half months closer to pipelines that bypass the strait, to other producers increasing output to make up the deficit, to installing enough renewables that we don't need fossil fuels from the Middle East, to making the Strait increasingly irrelevant.
It's really bad for Kuwait and Iraq, and some of the other Gulf States, and the higher oil price is a boon for Putin, but it keeps Trump busy and distracted from any other escapades. I'm inclined to just leave him to it.
It will certainly be ironic if Trump's legacy ends up being an accelerated decline in the use of fossil fuels and a concerted push towards the deployment of more renewables.
I am extremely puzzled at why anyone would drive the best part of 600 miles to assassinate Ann Widdecombe. Indeed I am extremely puzzled at why anyone should assonate her anyway. She was a fairly significant figure in Reform, true, but I can think of of several otrhgers who would be higher on an assassins list: people whose death would not give rise to the same degree of public sympathy.
No doubt more facts will become available soon, but for the moment I suspect that either there's something to come out a plot to assassinate all Reform's first and second level 'politicians' or the 'assassin' had some crazed dislike of the poor lady.
Because they knew she lived alone in an isolated area? That probably isn't true of all the other high profile Reform politicians.
Burglar described as “lighting every room he walked into” and an “aspiring footballer”
So he was a fire raiser as well as a burglar.
Burglar's will be the first to the wall when the Omnium regime arrives. And let's face it we're only days away from the Burnham, and thus only mere weeks from the Burnham Collapse, and then the Council of the Wise, and then it's me! (Luckily I've planned ahead, and the population of both Clacton and Makerfield will be sold into slavery to ease the National debt.
“ the population of both Clacton and Makerfield will be sold into slavery to ease the National debt”
That’ll raise what, £100?
Well, I suspect that the national campaign to rid ourselves of the electors of Makerfield will be a thing.
It would appear that the increasingly authoritarian and seemingly desperate Kemi is starting a cull of centrists and one Nation Tories.
Gavin Barwell may be a soft and easy target.
I would suggest that the likes of Ruth Davison, Andy Street and other moderate Tory MP''s and Lords and ex Political figures may be about the expose her folly and to bite back hard!
Internecine warfare in the Tory Party and the exposure of Farage as a frit gutless coward may yet prove Andy of Makerfield has one essence money cannot buy "political luck"...
I am extremely puzzled at why anyone would drive the best part of 600 miles to assassinate Ann Widdecombe. Indeed I am extremely puzzled at why anyone should assonate her anyway. She was a fairly significant figure in Reform, true, but I can think of of several otrhgers who would be higher on an assassins list: people whose death would not give rise to the same degree of public sympathy.
No doubt more facts will become available soon, but for the moment I suspect that either there's something to come out a plot to assassinate all Reform's first and second level 'politicians' or the 'assassin' had some crazed dislike of the poor lady.
Because they knew she lived alone in an isolated area? That probably isn't true of all the other high profile Reform politicians.
The profiles of various deliberate killers of politicians, in various countries, over the years suggests that, for many of them, the motive wasn’t especially rational.
It would appear that the increasingly authoritarian and seemingly desperate Kemi is starting a cull of centrists and one Nation Tories.
Gavin Barwell may be a soft and easy target.
I would suggest that the likes of Ruth Davison, Andy Street and other moderate Tory MP''s and Lords and ex Political figures may be about the expose her folly and to bite back hard!
Internecine warfare in the Tory Party and the exposure of Farage as a frit gutless coward may yet prove Andy of Makerfield has one essence money cannot buy "political luck"...
I'd go with just one target at a time if I was you.
@JohnSimpsonNews Argentina v England is important way beyond football. If Argentina wins tomorrow night, it’ll put real fire behind the demand for the Falklands. If England wins, that should put the lid on it — for now.
Has Simpson been on the sherry ! What an absolutely ludicrous thing to say .
Maybe he is in the know, and attuned to something we are not?
The players in dressing room are singing Malvinas songs as well as their fans. Was that always the case each time England has played Argentine since 1982? The Franco regime came to an end, but Argentina still remained under the shadow, the Generals war was an attempt to regain popularity, so for a while Argentinian people may not have been so wildly in favour of attempt to take the islands as they may now have come to be today.
Times change and sentiment changes, leaving us ordinary folk behind the curve, and subject matter experts who live it and have a lifetime of contacts, could be the only ones who realise it first?
It feels like we're living in a poorly written soap. Neither the Anne-Widdecombe-gets-murdered storyline nor the Farage-calls-a-needless-byelection-and-loses-to-Binface storyline are remotely believable. Nor for that matter is wildfires in the notoriously-moist Greater Manchester. Put some effort in, writers!
I thought there were fires around Manchester a few years ago?
You're right, I was being slightly flippant. But - if you're here - it does add an air of unreality.
Still the BBC haven't got their story straight.
First, the Dovestones fire was pouring smoke over Manchester. Wrong, it wasn't, it was the Tintwistle fire, which coincidentally caused intermittent fire service call outs to localities in Huddersfield back in June when the wind was coming from the south.
Now to the BBC, it's billed as the Tintwistle fire near Dovestones as if there is one fire. Wrong - the two locations are the other side of the same hill, but they are separated by about 5 miles as the crow flies, or about 12 miles by road.
Two separate fires - (1) smaller one at Dovestones, attended by GM and contributing a little smoke, (2) larger one above Tintwistle, attended by Derbyshire, but sending smoke across Manchester.
The satellite picture the BBC are using tells this entire story as both of the fires and their smoke trails can be seen.
As we travelled back from Chester yesterday, the smoke was evident to the south of the city and it was being carried over the southern parts by a brisk easterly or east north easterly wind. It was worst at Heaton Moor as you might expect.
Better this morning as we headed out of Piccadilly but again plenty of haze to the east but not as bad as yesterday afternoon.
You could smell the smoke in the city centre today.
Is doing it once enough to make Labour MPs 'used to' it?
Edited extra bit: even the gleeful assassins of the Conservatives only axed two leaders in one Parliament because one of them was driving the economy off a cliff. Unless Burnham does the same, he should be safe until the General Election.
Yes it would be enough to make them get used to it, but absent a total Truss style implosion, it's hard to envisage a situation so drastic it would result in another change - even the very worst usually get 2 years, at which point we are dangerously close to needing a new GE anyway - I think Australia has done it, multiple changes including just before a new GE, but it didn't work.
I was half expecting Farage to, pace Jonathan Aitken, witter on about "the sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play" but given how that turned out for Aitken, probably not a good move.
Am I right in thinking even if Farage is re-elected, the Standards Committee could still throw him out of Parliament thereby forcing a second by-election in which Farage (presumably) would be unable to stand? I presume Farage is hoping a strong re-election will put pressure on the aforementioned Standards Committee to, if not, exonerate him entirely then perhaps to ensure it's more of a slap on the wrist than a kick in the gonads.
Farage remains an MP and life goes on as normally as it ever can and all we are out is the cost of the by-election and the prevailing questions about donations and contributions which will dog (so to apeak) Farage all the way to the next GE and perhaps beyond.
As for Count Bin-fahsay, I've seen him interviewed. I'm sure we can all understand his frustration at urinal facilities in west London pubs but how far will the joke take him and what will we do if he gets there?
The standards committee doesn't throw him out, but can suspend him. However if the days of suspension is sufficient then a petition for a by election can be sought. If there are enough signatures a by election is called. He can stand.
Farage is therefore hoping a comfortable re-election combined with voter fatigue will ensure he doesn't face a recall petition.
Strategically, possibly wise.
However, with the other parties presumably keeping their powder dry until the Standards Committee have ruled, they will (perhaps) join forces behind a recall petition and if successful force Farage into a second by-election.
Well yes, if the alleged killer drove 300 miles, it probably was targeted. But was it terrorism?
Its best not to speculate.
The initial assessment of a burglary gone wrong and a local man arrested seemed the most plausible if tragic scenario.
After which there is clear evidence that a person did drive 300 miles , seemingly in the knowledge of where she lived , and made a premeditated decision to kill her.
Whether this was politcally or celebrity motivated, or linked to some specific views she openly held, and was entitled to hold who knows.
the fact that Farage / Musk and the usual right wing suspects are desperate to turn this in to a contract politically motivated killing just adds to the speculation that her family are desperate to quell.
We may never know.
It is a tragedy for her family and friends
What would be a bigger tragedy would be if her reputation was tarnised by Farage and his stormtroopers in any way to create another summer of insurection and violence. She would have hated that!
If you've been wondering what old @stodge has been doing the last week or so...
Well, you're wrong.
I have been visiting Manchester looking for something called "the North" which I'm told exists and will be running the country before long. Now, based on last week, Manchester is England's Oven and staying close to what I'm told the locals call "Crackadilly Gardens" in a hotel with no air conditioning (some might call it a bedroom, I'd call it a sauna with a bed), it's still a place of energy and dynamism.
Like most cities, the gap between those have and those who don't is stark and reminders of the dark paths down which mental health and addiction can lead are everywhere.
I have to say for breakfast/brunch venues, Manchester is quite superb with top marks to Cafe 19, Moose and Coffee Lab and a honourable mention to North Star in Dale Street which does a full English Japanese style. Put another way, what happens in chicken yakitori club stays in chicken yakitori club.
Trips out took us to Buxton, Lancaster, Altrincham and a Saturday afternoon watching the money in Didsbury Village as a reminder suburban Cheshire can rival if not surpass even Surrey for comfort, nay affluence.
Did I find "the North"? No, for of course it does not exist anymore than "the south" exists. Britain and indeed England is far more complex and nuanced and defies easy attempts at pigeon holing, categorisation or demonisation just as "all" those on benefits will be able to water their gradens while "hard working British families" will be left with dirty cars and deserts (or desserts) apparently.
Someone posts a video claiming to be a machete attack in Manchester and one of my silly friends claims we are in danger - antisocial media plies on fears, prejudices and ignorance. It's not easy to support freedom of speech and see it abused and corrupted the way it is by those who post unverifiable nonsense to build a climate.
The North isn’t a place it is a state of mind (or something like that).
Glad you had fun up in the Tropical North West. Centre of Manchester has changed so much in the last few years - but like everywhere there are those, that for their own reasons and society failings, fall between the cracks. Some of these challenges are more noticeable in the mill towns around Manchester.
Although point of order Didsbury village distinctly not Cheshire. Probably more of a Dulwich / Wimbledon Village comparison.
As an aside I remember an Armando Ianucci (sic) joke that went something like “Cheshire is the Surrey of the North, unless you are in Sussex when the Surrey of the North is in fact Surrey” - well I found it funny.
Of course, Jim, I was having a wee josh at those getting over excited about Andy Burnham.
Thank you for the correction re: Didsbury - we travelled on the Metrolink (the Manchester equivalent of the London Underground with the main difference it's 100% above ground while the London Underground is only 55% above ground).
I assume places like Knutsford, Macclesfield and Congleton are more the wealthy bits of suburban Cheshire. We went to Chester yesterday and I enjoyed a visit round the Cathedral - it's no Canterbury or York Minster but not without appeal. Mrs Stodge "did" the shops.
Chester is a nice spot. Hope you checked out all the Roman stuff too (something that London doesn’t have too much of).
As someone who’s recently returned from the South to the North I always think the scale of London sets it apart from the rest of the country. It is nine old million people plus those that work in London. Manchester has nowhere near that and it shows, but there are benefits.
The folk of Knutsford will be spluttering into their pink gins by putting Macc and Cong in the same bracket as them. Folk there still look down on Wilmslow and Alderly Edge as “fur coat, no knickers” territory.
You and I are having the same conversation in parallel Jim! Whereabouts in the north are you? I've been thinking about what distinguished the south from the north, and had a similar thought: everywhere in the south (actually specifically the south east) relates to London in some way in a way.
Am based in Macc - home of the Macc lads, although the town tends to lean into the Joy Division connection rather than the beer, sex and chips and gravy sounds of the aforementioned. I still think “no sheep ‘til Buxton” is a blinding song title.
This is their own account of one of killings, which looks very much like a confession of murder to me.
https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2076798878595342620 On July 13, 2026, at approximately 7:00 AM ET, ICE was conducting targeted surveillance on the last known address of an illegal alien with a final order of removal. An illegal alien departed the residence in a vehicle. ICE law enforcement attempted to conduct a vehicle stop. The vehicle attempted to flee the scene and, fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon.
The driver of the vehicle was struck, and emergency services were immediately contacted. He passed away from his injuries.
The Biddeford Police Department and FBI responded to the scene. DHS OIG has been notified and like all discharge of firearms this will be investigated. This is a developing situation, and we will update the public when more information is available.
26 year old, with work permit and social security number, and his three year old kid in the car...
A car is capable of being used as a lethal weapon, depending on the circumstances, shooting the driver may be reasonable. We are pussies about reasonable force in self-defence in the UK.
In contrast to previous cases, they don't claim it was being used as a weapon (and eye witness video confirms it wasn't), or that the shooter feared for his own safety . There's no case for "reasonable self defence" in a situation instigated by the shooter, and where on his own evidence he shot someone simply for driving away.
It's not being a "pussy" to question giving government thugs effectively unlimited immunity to kill people.
They are claiming public safety, ie someone else's life was at risk.
Yes it may be bullshit but is a possible defence.
You're effectively saying immigration officers should have license to shoot anyone, on the flimsiest of pretexts.
"Congratulations, you are now eligible to be a candidate for Restore"?
I am open to arguments about constraints on self defence being a bit tight over in the UK, but even if that is the case I think we can also choose to agree that US law enforcement leans very heavily and quickly on 'reasonable self defence' as an excuse for, well, anything they like,
@JohnSimpsonNews Argentina v England is important way beyond football. If Argentina wins tomorrow night, it’ll put real fire behind the demand for the Falklands. If England wins, that should put the lid on it — for now.
Has Simpson been on the sherry ! What an absolutely ludicrous thing to say .
Maybe he is in the know, and attuned to something we are not?
The players in dressing room are singing Malvinas songs as well as their fans. Was that always the case each time England has played Argentine since 1982? The Franco regime came to an end, but Argentina still remained under the shadow, the Generals war was an attempt to regain popularity, so for a while Argentinian people may not have been so wildly in favour of attempt to take the islands as they may now have come to be today.
Times change and sentiment changes, leaving us ordinary folk behind the curve, and subject matter experts who live it and have a lifetime of contacts, could be the only ones who realise it first?
Time from the war has moved on so it has become a 'safe' and cosy topic for today's young Brits and Argentines, rather than the serious matter it still is.matter.
I was half expecting Farage to, pace Jonathan Aitken, witter on about "the sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play" but given how that turned out for Aitken, probably not a good move.
Am I right in thinking even if Farage is re-elected, the Standards Committee could still throw him out of Parliament thereby forcing a second by-election in which Farage (presumably) would be unable to stand? I presume Farage is hoping a strong re-election will put pressure on the aforementioned Standards Committee to, if not, exonerate him entirely then perhaps to ensure it's more of a slap on the wrist than a kick in the gonads.
Farage remains an MP and life goes on as normally as it ever can and all we are out is the cost of the by-election and the prevailing questions about donations and contributions which will dog (so to apeak) Farage all the way to the next GE and perhaps beyond.
As for Count Bin-fahsay, I've seen him interviewed. I'm sure we can all understand his frustration at urinal facilities in west London pubs but how far will the joke take him and what will we do if he gets there?
The standards committee doesn't throw him out, but can suspend him. However if the days of suspension is sufficient then a petition for a by election can be sought. If there are enough signatures a by election is called. He can stand.
Farage is therefore hoping a comfortable re-election combined with voter fatigue will ensure he doesn't face a recall petition.
Strategically, possibly wise.
However, with the other parties presumably keeping their powder dry until the Standards Committee have ruled, they will (perhaps) join forces behind a recall petition and if successful force Farage into a second by-election.
If it gets that far I hope there will be a white knight candidate.
By the time way I was simplifying stuff. The committee can recommend expulsion and it requires a vote in the house. Goodness knows what you have to do for that to happen.
"Benefits claimants can ignore hosepipe ban MPs criticise ‘two-tier’ restrictions that allow benefits recipients with three children to hose their gardens"
It really pays less and less in this country to work full time, strive and get on.
You use your hosepipe. Get a fine.
The dole bludger down at number 7 can use theirs all day without any comeback.
Nuts but plenty will justify it.
I'll break this down for you. Up until the change in the law recently, benefit claimants with 3 or more children only received money for two. Most will be in debt to card companies, the DWP or the local council - perhaps all three. Fining them would simply add to the financial pressures and most likely the fines wouldn't/couldn't be paid. It would waste court time and money for nothing more that a gesture.
It may offend people and generate the two-tier trope but there is a practicality there.
That's standard Telegraph Trolling to set off the outrage munchkins, and it has worked this morning.
"Can" is doing a lot of work in that headline: Benefits Claimants - MILLIONS of them.
The actual people they are talking about are those on a social water tariff called Watersure, which has a grand total of 300k people on it nationwide. Of those, 60k are within areas of hosepipe bans. Watersure aiui caps the bill, so only 60k may benefit since only 2 areas have bans according to the parts of the article not seen on social media.
The scheme has been in place since 1999, and was not cancelled during 14 years of Conservative lead Goverment.
A typical recipient would be a household with someone with a medical condition like Crohn's Disease or Weeping Skin Disease, where you need to wash your clothes much more. There's no indication whatsoever that these will be using hosepipes. For the Telegraph to demonise such people is despicable.
If the Telegraph want to be credibly outraged, then they should focus on people who do not have water meters, or who empty our reservoirs to water their gardens so causing the hosepipe ban in the first place.
Why can't people use PIP or child benefit or UC for this purpose? Why do we need a special scheme?
Why are we doing redistributive activities inside private firms rather than having the government do it? It's another way in which private water firms aren't really private. So maybe we should stop pretending and re-nationalise.
It's the private company that were given the powers to start the prosecution process. The statutory powers of old utilities and rail companies were flipped over during the privatisation process. So the water utilities are basically saying they have the power to take individuals to court or a fine in lieu of prosecution but are declining to do so. So it's a two tier private sector - those with statutory powers and those without.
Remember that the next time you pay your TV licence. (Life is not black and white - apart from in Newcastle)
Sorry, I was referring to Watersure. I should have bolded that para in MattW's comment when replying but I was too lazy.
How many households on watersure have gardens? Even if they do they're unlikely to be large. On the day that the PPE report is released, the Telegraph is getting enraged about a small number of people potentially watering their garden, not Mone, Mellor or any of the other COVID profiteers.
What else do you expect of the Telegraph?
Yes, it is quite typical of our modern media to question why vulnerable people on benefits should be exempt from hosepipe bans, rather than to question why our privatised water companies haven't buit a reservoir for decades, while creaming off vast dividends.
After the wet winter that we had we should have loads of water for everyone.
Me too, but I am a bit baffled by Rentoul's comment. A guy who does middle of the road satire about elections is now less funny because a politician was murdered? I see no connection as to his personal comedic value, or how we and the country should feel about joke candidates, because of a tragedy.
"Benefits claimants can ignore hosepipe ban MPs criticise ‘two-tier’ restrictions that allow benefits recipients with three children to hose their gardens"
It really pays less and less in this country to work full time, strive and get on.
You use your hosepipe. Get a fine.
The dole bludger down at number 7 can use theirs all day without any comeback.
Nuts but plenty will justify it.
I'll break this down for you. Up until the change in the law recently, benefit claimants with 3 or more children only received money for two. Most will be in debt to card companies, the DWP or the local council - perhaps all three. Fining them would simply add to the financial pressures and most likely the fines wouldn't/couldn't be paid. It would waste court time and money for nothing more that a gesture.
It may offend people and generate the two-tier trope but there is a practicality there.
So basically fine/screw over the people working you know you will be able to get money from for,doing something others can just do at will.
The fines are there to prevent a behaviour they don’t want. In this case using excessive water in the garden. So you’re effectively penalising some water users but allowing others to carry on with no fear of any consequence for a behaviour that is not desirable.
It is two tier and is manifestly unfair on those in the relevant areas.
By your logic we may as well let benefits claimants speed, park without paying for a ticket or do anything they like as the fine would be unlikely to be paid.
So what's the answer then?
There's not much point trying to fine people who don't have money. So then you end up looking at other punishments for non-payment of fines. We could (and do) send people to prison for that, but I'm not sure that's ideal either.
And there's also the flipside to consider. Some people and businesses feel that they can speed, park without paying for a ticket or do anything they like as the fine is a trivial amount of money for them. Again, that's not especially fair, but people on the right have traditionally been robust in saying that life isn't always fair- get over it. Frankly, I'd rather be in the slice of society where paying fines is a meaningful annoyance than the one the powers that be don't try and levy them.
Fine them and deduct the fine at source from their benefit payment over a period of time.
There has to be consequences for behaviour that contravenes relevant laws. If there aren’t people will just carry on without fear of any comeback.
As we have seen with people walking into shops and walking out with stuff
There will come a time when those that play by the rules and accept them and potential consequences just say ‘screw this’ and bad behaviour will spread more.
That’s what’s known as moving from a high-trust society to a low-trust society.
This is a right wing talking point, not a real thing. If anything is damaging trust in our society, it's social media lies, repeated by helpful idiots.
Oh, and top politicians not following the rules, like Farage and chums.
Part of it is about the demonisation of those on welfare so parties proposing swingeing cuts to welfare to fund tax cuts for the wealthy will get support at a future election. It's easy to argue to cut benefits if significant parts of the electorate view those on benefits as "scroungers" so let's call that for what it is, an attempt to mobilise an anti-welfare pro-tax vut agenda.
As for antisocial media, I already mentioned we were messaged by one of our friends who saw a video purporting to show a group of young men fighting with machetes "in Manchester" together with the usual pro-Restore, anti-immigration messaging.
This friend of ours sees the video and immediately concludes Manchester is a dangerous city filled by young men armed with machetes and thinks we are at risk. As you say, such videos are aimed at the stupid and the gullible and the problem is even when debunked (as they usually are), the damage is done, the message has got home.
Suggesting cutting welfare is more a theoretical exercise than an empirical one. The way the legislation is woven into our day to day lives is such that any attempt at wholesale change would result in Judicial Reviews (JR) left right and centre. There are even templates available to mount your own JR if you can find someone to do it pro-bono. Usually the threat gets you somewhere. So we tinker and fudge while kicking the issue into the long grass.
Many of the comments on PB fall into the theoretical category as although we like the idea of being able to change the world or getting our favourite politician to do it, the actual graft to get the change is left to others. See first comment.
I am extremely puzzled at why anyone would drive the best part of 600 miles to assassinate Ann Widdecombe. Indeed I am extremely puzzled at why anyone should assonate her anyway. She was a fairly significant figure in Reform, true, but I can think of of several otrhgers who would be higher on an assassins list: people whose death would not give rise to the same degree of public sympathy.
No doubt more facts will become available soon, but for the moment I suspect that either there's something to come out a plot to assassinate all Reform's first and second level 'politicians' or the 'assassin' had some crazed dislike of the poor lady.
Because they knew she lived alone in an isolated area? That probably isn't true of all the other high profile Reform politicians.
Sadly in the history of the world, people who are not secure in their living circumstances or their mental capacity, are recruited by knowing and sharp organisations to commit dreadful acts. What the internet has done is put an amazing recruiting tool into the hands of these organisations and made their business so much more easier. This is what I feel the outcome of this may be.
I was half expecting Farage to, pace Jonathan Aitken, witter on about "the sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play" but given how that turned out for Aitken, probably not a good move.
Am I right in thinking even if Farage is re-elected, the Standards Committee could still throw him out of Parliament thereby forcing a second by-election in which Farage (presumably) would be unable to stand? I presume Farage is hoping a strong re-election will put pressure on the aforementioned Standards Committee to, if not, exonerate him entirely then perhaps to ensure it's more of a slap on the wrist than a kick in the gonads.
Farage remains an MP and life goes on as normally as it ever can and all we are out is the cost of the by-election and the prevailing questions about donations and contributions which will dog (so to apeak) Farage all the way to the next GE and perhaps beyond.
As for Count Bin-fahsay, I've seen him interviewed. I'm sure we can all understand his frustration at urinal facilities in west London pubs but how far will the joke take him and what will we do if he gets there?
The standards committee doesn't throw him out, but can suspend him. However if the days of suspension is sufficient then a petition for a by election can be sought. If there are enough signatures a by election is called. He can stand.
Farage is therefore hoping a comfortable re-election combined with voter fatigue will ensure he doesn't face a recall petition.
Strategically, possibly wise.
However, with the other parties presumably keeping their powder dry until the Standards Committee have ruled, they will (perhaps) join forces behind a recall petition and if successful force Farage into a second by-election.
Every recall petition apart from the very first has easily met the threshold for a by-election. It seems unlikely this could not be met with a politician like Farage, who is very high profile and polarising.
No guarantee they even find him in breach, and if they do that they sanction at the level which triggers a recall petition.
It probably would, given sanctions applied in all those cases, but still worth a gamble to see what they do, I'd say.
It would appear that the increasingly authoritarian and seemingly desperate Kemi is starting a cull of centrists and one Nation Tories.
Gavin Barwell may be a soft and easy target.
I would suggest that the likes of Ruth Davison, Andy Street and other moderate Tory MP''s and Lords and ex Political figures may be about the expose her folly and to bite back hard!
Internecine warfare in the Tory Party and the exposure of Farage as a frit gutless coward may yet prove Andy of Makerfield has one essence money cannot buy "political luck"...
This is entirely bonkers and reinforces the sentiment that the Tories have not started their journey back to credibility.
"Benefits claimants can ignore hosepipe ban MPs criticise ‘two-tier’ restrictions that allow benefits recipients with three children to hose their gardens"
It really pays less and less in this country to work full time, strive and get on.
You use your hosepipe. Get a fine.
The dole bludger down at number 7 can use theirs all day without any comeback.
Nuts but plenty will justify it.
I'll break this down for you. Up until the change in the law recently, benefit claimants with 3 or more children only received money for two. Most will be in debt to card companies, the DWP or the local council - perhaps all three. Fining them would simply add to the financial pressures and most likely the fines wouldn't/couldn't be paid. It would waste court time and money for nothing more that a gesture.
It may offend people and generate the two-tier trope but there is a practicality there.
That's standard Telegraph Trolling to set off the outrage munchkins, and it has worked this morning.
"Can" is doing a lot of work in that headline: Benefits Claimants - MILLIONS of them.
The actual people they are talking about are those on a social water tariff called Watersure, which has a grand total of 300k people on it nationwide. Of those, 60k are within areas of hosepipe bans. Watersure aiui caps the bill, so only 60k may benefit since only 2 areas have bans according to the parts of the article not seen on social media.
The scheme has been in place since 1999, and was not cancelled during 14 years of Conservative lead Goverment.
A typical recipient would be a household with someone with a medical condition like Crohn's Disease or Weeping Skin Disease, where you need to wash your clothes much more. There's no indication whatsoever that these will be using hosepipes. For the Telegraph to demonise such people is despicable.
If the Telegraph want to be credibly outraged, then they should focus on people who do not have water meters, or who empty our reservoirs to water their gardens so causing the hosepipe ban in the first place.
Why can't people use PIP or child benefit or UC for this purpose? Why do we need a special scheme?
Why are we doing redistributive activities inside private firms rather than having the government do it? It's another way in which private water firms aren't really private. So maybe we should stop pretending and re-nationalise.
It's the private company that were given the powers to start the prosecution process. The statutory powers of old utilities and rail companies were flipped over during the privatisation process. So the water utilities are basically saying they have the power to take individuals to court or a fine in lieu of prosecution but are declining to do so. So it's a two tier private sector - those with statutory powers and those without.
Remember that the next time you pay your TV licence. (Life is not black and white - apart from in Newcastle)
Sorry, I was referring to Watersure. I should have bolded that para in MattW's comment when replying but I was too lazy.
How many households on watersure have gardens? Even if they do they're unlikely to be large. On the day that the PPE report is released, the Telegraph is getting enraged about a small number of people potentially watering their garden, not Mone, Mellor or any of the other COVID profiteers.
What else do you expect of the Telegraph?
Yes, it is quite typical of our modern media to question why vulnerable people on benefits should be exempt from hosepipe bans, rather than to question why our privatised water companies haven't buit a reservoir for decades, while creaming off vast dividends.
After the wet winter that we had we should have loads of water for everyone.
Not just the private companies at fault on the resevoir thing I'd say, but it should be a bigger scandal all around - we have sufficient rainfall to get through periods of drought like this.
It would appear that the increasingly authoritarian and seemingly desperate Kemi is starting a cull of centrists and one Nation Tories.
Gavin Barwell may be a soft and easy target.
I would suggest that the likes of Ruth Davison, Andy Street and other moderate Tory MP''s and Lords and ex Political figures may be about the expose her folly and to bite back hard!
Internecine warfare in the Tory Party and the exposure of Farage as a frit gutless coward may yet prove Andy of Makerfield has one essence money cannot buy "political luck"...
This is entirely bonkers and reinforces the sentiment that the Tories have not started their journey back to credibility.
They have, but are in first gear going slowly, as they don't know which path to take. There's a lot more fodder on the right, if Reform collapse.
@JohnSimpsonNews Argentina v England is important way beyond football. If Argentina wins tomorrow night, it’ll put real fire behind the demand for the Falklands. If England wins, that should put the lid on it — for now.
Has Simpson been on the sherry ! What an absolutely ludicrous thing to say .
Maybe he is in the know, and attuned to something we are not?
The players in dressing room are singing Malvinas songs as well as their fans. Was that always the case each time England has played Argentine since 1982? The Franco regime came to an end, but Argentina still remained under the shadow, the Generals war was an attempt to regain popularity, so for a while Argentinian people may not have been so wildly in favour of attempt to take the islands as they may now have come to be today.
Times change and sentiment changes, leaving us ordinary folk behind the curve, and subject matter experts who live it and have a lifetime of contacts, could be the only ones who realise it first?
Time from the war has moved on so it has become a 'safe' and cosy topic for today's young Brits and Argentines, rather than the serious matter it still is.matter.
I don’t agree, I think such things, nation psyche’s and sentiments, can go in the opposite direction the further from a war.
"Benefits claimants can ignore hosepipe ban MPs criticise ‘two-tier’ restrictions that allow benefits recipients with three children to hose their gardens"
It really pays less and less in this country to work full time, strive and get on.
You use your hosepipe. Get a fine.
The dole bludger down at number 7 can use theirs all day without any comeback.
Nuts but plenty will justify it.
I'll break this down for you. Up until the change in the law recently, benefit claimants with 3 or more children only received money for two. Most will be in debt to card companies, the DWP or the local council - perhaps all three. Fining them would simply add to the financial pressures and most likely the fines wouldn't/couldn't be paid. It would waste court time and money for nothing more that a gesture.
It may offend people and generate the two-tier trope but there is a practicality there.
So basically fine/screw over the people working you know you will be able to get money from for,doing something others can just do at will.
The fines are there to prevent a behaviour they don’t want. In this case using excessive water in the garden. So you’re effectively penalising some water users but allowing others to carry on with no fear of any consequence for a behaviour that is not desirable.
It is two tier and is manifestly unfair on those in the relevant areas.
By your logic we may as well let benefits claimants speed, park without paying for a ticket or do anything they like as the fine would be unlikely to be paid.
So what's the answer then?
There's not much point trying to fine people who don't have money. So then you end up looking at other punishments for non-payment of fines. We could (and do) send people to prison for that, but I'm not sure that's ideal either.
And there's also the flipside to consider. Some people and businesses feel that they can speed, park without paying for a ticket or do anything they like as the fine is a trivial amount of money for them. Again, that's not especially fair, but people on the right have traditionally been robust in saying that life isn't always fair- get over it. Frankly, I'd rather be in the slice of society where paying fines is a meaningful annoyance than the one the powers that be don't try and levy them.
Fine them and deduct the fine at source from their benefit payment over a period of time.
There has to be consequences for behaviour that contravenes relevant laws. If there aren’t people will just carry on without fear of any comeback.
As we have seen with people walking into shops and walking out with stuff
There will come a time when those that play by the rules and accept them and potential consequences just say ‘screw this’ and bad behaviour will spread more.
That’s what’s known as moving from a high-trust society to a low-trust society.
This is a right wing talking point, not a real thing. If anything is damaging trust in our society, it's social media lies, repeated by helpful idiots.
Oh, and top politicians not following the rules, like Farage and chums.
Part of it is about the demonisation of those on welfare so parties proposing swingeing cuts to welfare to fund tax cuts for the wealthy will get support at a future election. It's easy to argue to cut benefits if significant parts of the electorate view those on benefits as "scroungers" so let's call that for what it is, an attempt to mobilise an anti-welfare pro-tax vut agenda.
As for antisocial media, I already mentioned we were messaged by one of our friends who saw a video purporting to show a group of young men fighting with machetes "in Manchester" together with the usual pro-Restore, anti-immigration messaging.
This friend of ours sees the video and immediately concludes Manchester is a dangerous city filled by young men armed with machetes and thinks we are at risk. As you say, such videos are aimed at the stupid and the gullible and the problem is even when debunked (as they usually are), the damage is done, the message has got home.
Suggesting cutting welfare is more a theoretical exercise than an empirical one. The way the legislation is woven into our day to day lives is such that any attempt at wholesale change would result in Judicial Reviews (JR) left right and centre. There are even templates available to mount your own JR if you can find someone to do it pro-bono. Usually the threat gets you somewhere. So we tinker and fudge while kicking the issue into the long grass.
Many of the comments on PB fall into the theoretical category as although we like the idea of being able to change the world or getting our favourite politician to do it, the actual graft to get the change is left to others. See first comment.
It is very hard to unwind things. When in doubt, we go for the quicker and easier path - in life, as in politics.
@JohnSimpsonNews Argentina v England is important way beyond football. If Argentina wins tomorrow night, it’ll put real fire behind the demand for the Falklands. If England wins, that should put the lid on it — for now.
Has Simpson been on the sherry ! What an absolutely ludicrous thing to say .
Maybe he is in the know, and attuned to something we are not?
The players in dressing room are singing Malvinas songs as well as their fans. Was that always the case each time England has played Argentine since 1982? The Franco regime came to an end, but Argentina still remained under the shadow, the Generals war was an attempt to regain popularity, so for a while Argentinian people may not have been so wildly in favour of attempt to take the islands as they may now have come to be today.
Times change and sentiment changes, leaving us ordinary folk behind the curve, and subject matter experts who live it and have a lifetime of contacts, could be the only ones who realise it first?
Time from the war has moved on so it has become a 'safe' and cosy topic for today's young Brits and Argentines, rather than the serious matter it still is.matter.
I don’t agree, I think such things, nation psyche’s and sentiments, can go in the opposite direction the further from a war.
They can. In this case I worry it did, but is now heading back to aggression, even though not towards war. It's not seen as 'settled', and the trend is towards punchier and punchier statement of claims.
Me too, but I am a bit baffled by Rentoul's comment. A guy who does middle of the road satire about elections is now less funny because a politician was murdered? I see no connection as to his personal comedic value, or how we and the country should feel about joke candidates, because of a tragedy.
Presumably he thinks the two are connected: taking the p*ss out of Nigel and his £5m bung has damaged the high esteem in which Reform was previously held and consequently made it open season on its supporters.
Ed Miliband has principles and if you don’t like those he has other ones.
Miliband willing to approve North Sea oil to land job as chancellor
Energy Secretary wants to prove he is a ‘pragmatist’ rather than a ‘zealot’ on environmental policy to help his case for being chancellor
Ed Miliband wants to approve drilling in the North Sea to calm market jitters about his possible appointment as chancellor and prove he is no net zero “zealot”.
The Energy Secretary has privately signalled his willingness to grant consent for drilling at the Jackdaw gas field but cannot publicly confirm the move until a consultation closes next month.
Jackdaw, off the coast of Aberdeen, is one of two licences in the North Sea currently held in legal limbo. The other site, Rosebank, would produce oil to be sold in a global market, but Jackdaw would be able to provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million British homes this winter.
A sensible move but might not help Burnham with squeezing the Green vote, though would help him squeeze some ex Labour voters who have gone Reform
“ Rosebank, would produce oil to be sold in a global market, but Jackdaw would be able to provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million British homes this winter.”.
Is the Telegraph correct in that statement about Jack Daw? I didn’t think UK owned any North Sea Oil, so what arrangement with private enterprise prevents it being sold on the markets, and consumption for UK only?
When is the cut off for it not to be ready for British homes this coming winter? Weather forecasts for business planning is suggesting one of coldest snowfest in living memory.
It all depends on how the hydrocarbons are brought to shore- and where.
The last two administrations have very stupidly pursued policies that resulted in a huge reduction in refining capacity. So we no longer have the capacity to refine all the oil we need and have to get it from refineries in the Netherlands.
Jackdaw is producing gas and will be designed to export that straight into the UK gas network. This is by far the cheapest and most cost effective way of doing things for Adura (the Operator). Given we currently spend nearly £3 billion a year on fees for imported gas over and above the actual gas price, anything that reduces that cost will be a good thing. All the more so since Norway keep making noises about cutting supplies to the UK
Comments
Oh, and top politicians not following the rules, like Farage and chums.
On the day that the PPE report is released, the Telegraph is getting enraged about a small number of people potentially watering their garden, not Mone, Mellor or any of the other COVID profiteers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yzy7qvrpzo
Farmer who shot burglar dead, no charges.
Burglar described as “lighting every room he walked into” and an “aspiring footballer”
https://x.com/skynews/status/2077059351357895048?s=61
No doubt more facts will become available soon, but for the moment I suspect that either there's something to come out a plot to assassinate all Reform's first and second level 'politicians' or the 'assassin' had some crazed dislike of the poor lady.
Better this morning as we headed out of Piccadilly but again plenty of haze to the east but not as bad as yesterday afternoon.
Cheating is harder than it used to be. In the age of VAR the hand of God goal would presumably have been disallowed and Maradona punished.
https://x.com/JohnSimpsonNews/status/2077008507556053398
@JohnSimpsonNews
Argentina v England is important way beyond football. If Argentina wins tomorrow night, it’ll put real fire behind the demand for the Falklands. If England wins, that should put the lid on it — for now.
I think John Rentoul needs a lie down
Is the Telegraph correct in that statement about Jack Daw?
I didn’t think UK owned any North Sea Oil, so what arrangement with private enterprise prevents it being sold on the markets, and consumption for UK only?
When is the cut off for it not to be ready for British homes this coming winter? Weather forecasts for business planning is suggesting one of coldest snowfest in living memory.
That’ll raise what, £100?
My only defence is that if you carefully sift through the last 8000 or so comments you will see that elsewhere I give more reasoned grounds for my wild speculations. I don't hate Kemi and I would like her to make the Tories electable, but I don't think she will. I don't hate Farage because I try not to hate anybody. People have souls and he is a hurt man. I am strongly opposed to what he stands for and his methods.
The initial assessment of a burglary gone wrong and a local man arrested seemed the most plausible if tragic scenario.
After which there is clear evidence that a person did drive 300 miles , seemingly in the knowledge of where she lived , and made a premeditated decision to kill her.
Whether this was politcally or celebrity motivated, or linked to some specific views she openly held, and was entitled to hold who knows.
the fact that Farage / Musk and the usual right wing suspects are desperate to turn this in to a contract politically motivated killing just adds to the speculation that her family are desperate to quell.
We may never know.
It is a tragedy for her family and friends
What would be a bigger tragedy would be if her reputation was tarnised by Farage and his stormtroopers in any way to create another summer of insurection and violence. She would have hated that!
As for antisocial media, I already mentioned we were messaged by one of our friends who saw a video purporting to show a group of young men fighting with machetes "in Manchester" together with the usual pro-Restore, anti-immigration messaging.
This friend of ours sees the video and immediately concludes Manchester is a dangerous city filled by young men armed with machetes and thinks we are at risk. As you say, such videos are aimed at the stupid and the gullible and the problem is even when debunked (as they usually are), the damage is done, the message has got home.
Gavin Barwell may be a soft and easy target.
I would suggest that the likes of Ruth Davison, Andy Street and other moderate Tory MP''s and Lords and ex Political figures may be about the expose her folly and to bite back hard!
Internecine warfare in the Tory Party and the exposure of Farage as a frit gutless coward may yet prove Andy of Makerfield has one essence money cannot buy "political luck"...
Whatever happened to "keep calm and carry on?"
The players in dressing room are singing Malvinas songs as well as their fans. Was that always the case each time England has played Argentine since 1982? The Franco regime came to an end, but Argentina still remained under the shadow, the Generals war was an attempt to regain popularity, so for a while Argentinian people may not have been so wildly in favour of attempt to take the islands as they may now have come to be today.
Times change and sentiment changes, leaving us ordinary folk behind the curve, and subject matter experts who live it and have a lifetime of contacts, could be the only ones who realise it first?
Strategically, possibly wise.
However, with the other parties presumably keeping their powder dry until the Standards Committee have ruled, they will (perhaps) join forces behind a recall petition and if successful force Farage into a second by-election.
I am open to arguments about constraints on self defence being a bit tight over in the UK, but even if that is the case I think we can also choose to agree that US law enforcement leans very heavily and quickly on 'reasonable self defence' as an excuse for, well, anything they like,
By the time way I was simplifying stuff. The committee can recommend expulsion and it requires a vote in the house. Goodness knows what you have to do for that to happen.
After the wet winter that we had we should have loads of water for everyone.
Many of the comments on PB fall into the theoretical category as although we like the idea of being able to change the world or getting our favourite politician to do it, the actual graft to get the change is left to others. See first comment.
No guarantee they even find him in breach, and if they do that they sanction at the level which triggers a recall petition.
It probably would, given sanctions applied in all those cases, but still worth a gamble to see what they do, I'd say.
The last two administrations have very stupidly pursued policies that resulted in a huge reduction in refining capacity. So we no longer have the capacity to refine all the oil we need and have to get it from refineries in the Netherlands.
Jackdaw is producing gas and will be designed to export that straight into the UK gas network. This is by far the cheapest and most cost effective way of doing things for Adura (the Operator). Given we currently spend nearly £3 billion a year on fees for imported gas over and above the actual gas price, anything that reduces that cost will be a good thing. All the more so since Norway keep making noises about cutting supplies to the UK