Why the Japanese don’t believe Fukushima is safe

Soil samples from Fukushima, the prefecture where Japan’s Dai-Ichi Nuclear reactor exploded in 2011 sending plumes of radioactive material into the sky, will be transported to the garden of Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba to serve as flower beds. Far from horticultural, the real purpose is to reassure the Japanese people that Fukushima is now safe and to allow the government to get on with the colossal task of moving the mountains of top soil now stocked in the prefecture around Japan to be used for agriculture and as building materials.

The government are resorting to this stunt – which reminded me of a long-ago incident when then agriculture minister John Selwyn Gummer tried to feed a hamburger to his daughter to prove British beef was safe – because a high level of scepticism remains about Fukushima. There are 14 million cubic metres of soil to shift and the government is obligated by law to disperse 75 per cent of it by 2045 so local trust and cooperation is essential. So far, things haven’t been going well: nimby opposition groups have already stopped plans to use the soil in Tokyo’s Shinjuku, Tokorozawa and Saitama wards over fears of contamination. Hence the Prime Minister’s new flower beds.

Despite a full fourteen years having passed since the tsunami and nuclear incident, a stigma is still attached to the region of Fukushima which continues to blight the area. Many residents evacuated in the immediate aftermath have not returned, leaving ghost towns where once there were thriving communities. The region’s agricultural produce, water, and soil are still treated with suspicion. Visitor numbers to the area even far from the site of the plant are a fraction of what they once were. The area still feels cursed.

Most popular

Jacob Heilbrunn

Will Trump really obliterate Iran on Tuesday?

Roger Kimball

Ignore the propaganda war

Charles Cornish-Dale

The peptides market is exploding – but are they safe?

Part of the problem is that official government information is considered unreliable or even dishonest. This is understandable for those who recall the often farcical official response to events at the Fukushima plant. I well remember the fear that gripped many as the government mixed up its microsieverts and millisieverts – the units used to measure radiation – in their announcements. Rumours abounded of a radioactive cloud approaching Tokyo to engulf us all, for which iodine tablets were to be distributed. These rumours were not adequately dispelled by the urgent and often unhelpfully intense 24-hour news coverage.

Many foreigners fled, some never to return. Of those, some, I suspect, chose to end an unhappy life in Japan and saw the nuclear incident as an excuse, but many were genuinely terrified. There was much confusion at that time and it wasn’t entirely clear whether it was harder for those who spoke the language or those who didn’t. I was lucky to have access to the detailed, daily bulletins produced by the British Council in Tokyo in connection with UK government scientists which outlined the risks, which were in fact minimal.

But it’s not just a poorly handled repose to the 2011 incident; the government also has to reckon with a deep-rooted unease with anything related to nuclear energy that lurks in the Japanese psyche. The origins of this are not only the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic/plutonium bombings of 1945 but also a less well-known incident from 1954. Accidental irradiation of a Japanese tuna fishing vessel off Bikini Atoll in 1954 following a US nuclear test led to severe health consequences for the crew.

The Japanese called this incident the ‘second atomic bombing of mankind’ and it forever imprinted the nightmarish association of atomic radiation and food contamination on the Japanese mind. It even inspired the Godzilla character, originally a sort of eco-parable. The long delayed – will it or won’t it be released in Japan? – saga of Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer shows how deep-rooted and enduring this unease about anything related to nuclear power still is. 

It might help matters if the true story of what really happened at Fukushima were better known. The Fukushima nuclear ‘disaster’ would perhaps be better named the ‘almost disaster’ (no one died as a direct result of the accident) with catastrophe, some believe, only being averted thanks to the professionalism and courage of one man. Masao Yoshida, a straight-talking maverick engineer, ignored the potentially disastrous orders of his superiors in Tokyo to abandon the facility and stayed on to continue pumping seawater into the reactors, thus cooling them but rendering them inoperable. He almost certainly prevented further explosions and may have saved countless lives. There ought to be a statue somewhere (Yoshida died of cancer in 2013) yet even today few Japanese know his name.

Since corporate and political incompetence is an essential part of the Fukushima story, from the decision to place it on the coast, to the design of the plant to the actions of the managers in Tokyo, and so on, it is a hard one for the authorities to be completely honest about. But as long as they remain cagey about the full details, it is unlikely that moves like Ishiba’s gardening ploy will do much to allay people’s fears.

Will the economy save the Tories?

This week Dominic Cummings said the Tories may have ‘crossed the event horizon’. He was trying to find a tech bro way of saying the game is up: they’re finished as an electoral force and it’s only Labour, Reform and the Lib Dems still in play. But might the Tories have one last chance? If they do, that chance will come from the economy.

Next week the shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, will try to make the case for the Tories being the party of economic responsibility in a keynote speech to the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. ‘Our country faces significant and increasing challenges both at home and abroad,’ he will say. ‘Challenges that will require a far stronger economy if they are to be met. An economy that can only be delivered through a radical rewiring.’

This won’t be a speech announcing new policies, a Conservative source tells me, but will instead set out ‘the direction of travel, in stark contrast to Farage’s fantasy economics’. It’s all part of a ‘Get Nigel’ strategy, as James Heale pointed out on Coffee House yesterday, that both Labour and the Conservatives have realised is existential. 

Stride will say:

People are angry with the main parties because we’ve had years of stagnation and people don’t feel better off – and they’re right to be angry – but Farage only offers cakeism that pretends there are easy answers to everything.

Yesterday Keir Starmer claimed Reform is ‘Truss on steroids’ as he attacked the idea of unfunded tax cuts. But all of this is surely missing the point. Whoever is to blame for the surging yields in gilt markets in the autumn of 2022 (and there’s a convincing argument that it was more to do with central bank mismanagement and persistent inflation than anything Truss did), the trust of the ‘bond vigilantes’ has not been won back. After every Budget and fiscal event since Truss, we’ve not seen the premium on UK debt removed by markets. The reason for this is simple: Britain’s spending and tax path is just not sustainable and pension funds, hedgers and investment bankers don’t consider the government’s plans to be fiscally responsible.

Labour has at least flirted with the concept of fiscal responsibility – cutting the benefits bill, reducing departmental spending – but at the first sign of resistance they seem to have decided to give this up, with their winter fuel U-turn and plans to scrap the two-child benefit cap. Reform too seem keen to unleash a benefits bonanza funded by mystical cuts to refugees there and asylum seekers here. So that’s where there’s a gap for the Tories.

While Reform and Labour soar above the Conservatives in polling, Rachel Reeves currently ranks among the least popular chancellors ever, and a recent YouGov survey puts the Tories level with the government on their perceived ability to manage the economy. Voters consistently rate the economy as the most important issue facing the country – so if the Conservatives can find a way to get the message across that they are the party of fiscal prudence then it just might be possible for them to weave a narrative that doesn’t see them completely wiped out at the next election. (The most popular chancellor just now is ‘don’t know’ on 76 per cent, so it really is all to play for there.)

That said, Reeves isn’t the first chancellor to leave herself painfully little fiscal headroom. The trend towards leaving less and less room has been continued by every Conservative incumbent of the role since ‘austerity’ Osborne.

It also shouldn’t be forgotten that it wasn’t just Truss’s unfunded tax cuts that upset markets, but the massive spending splurges the public came to demand, such as her £140 billion energy subsidy package. 

So there may be some way to go before voters trust the Tories on the economy. But with everything else going south, the strategy Stride will outline next week may be the only path the Conservatives have left if they’re to avoid complete oblivion.

America is coming for Britain’s social media censors

In 2021, after the barbaric Islamist murder of Sir David Amess MP, the response of Britain’s political class was as baffling as it was shameful: it decided to ramp up censorship of the internet. Somehow, MPs’ vital personal safety came to be equated with the nebulous concept of ‘safety’ online, along with the protection of ‘democracy’ from hurty words and unapproved opinions. The Online Safety Act (OSA) was born, handing vast new powers to Ofcom to ‘regulate’ what could be said online.

Well, that was then, and this is now. Twitter, the most influential platform for political news, has become X, and its new owner Elon Musk has made online free speech his mission. The Trump administration has done the same, and with Britain increasingly viewed in MAGA-world as something of a police state, this has set up a clash with the new regime in Washington. In his visit to the Oval Office back in February, Keir Starmer was publicly pressed on Britain’s free-speech issues by Vice President J.D. Vance, to which he responded unconvincingly: ‘We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the UK.’ In March, US human rights diplomats met British pro-life activists over censorship concerns about abortion clinic ‘buffer zones’, while the White House is currently said to be ‘monitoring’ the plight of Lucy Connolly, jailed for 31 months for a tweet.

This week, the heat was turned up further. The State Department has announced a new ‘visa restriction policy’ that will apply to foreign nationals, including British ones, responsible for censoring ‘protected expression in the United States’. ‘Foreign officials have taken flagrant censorship actions against US tech companies and US citizens and residents when they have no authority to do so’, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday, adding that this was ‘unacceptable’.

Most popular

Jacob Heilbrunn

Will Trump really obliterate Iran on Tuesday?

Roger Kimball

Ignore the propaganda war

Charles Cornish-Dale

The peptides market is exploding – but are they safe?

All this represents a major change in the transatlantic mood music since the Biden administration (which once attempted to bring in a Disinformation Governance Board) and British officialdom is struggling to keep up. Apparently surprised by the announcement, an Ofcom spokesperson told me on Thursday: ‘We’re working with the UK Government to seek clarity on the US State Department’s plans’.

We also saw a sign of the shifting sands last month. When Ofcom finally convened its ‘Advisory Committee on Misinformation and Disinformation’, as part of the OSA, it changed its name to the ‘the Online Information Advisory Committee’ – presumably to avoid riling US free-speechers. Whether the name change means much is debatable, but the censorship lobby is certainly not happy about it. In response, Full Fact sniffed: ‘We hope this is not in response to changing political circumstances, and that it will not be reflected in the important work the committee needs to do’.

Happily, it seems that the terms ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ are going the way of ‘woke’ and ‘EDI’ before them: odious newspeak the activist class once delighted in, but which, after broad political pushback, have now become a liability.

US officials have described the OSA as ‘Orwellian’, and it is worth noting why the regulation is so despised. In Europe, the equivalent Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into force in August 2023 has the power to fine firms up to 6 per cent of revenue for breaches, though this has not yet happened. Currently the European Commission has 127 employees dedicated to DSA enforcement, with that number expected to climb to 200 by the end of the year. Brendan Carr, chair of the US Federal Communications Commission, the American equivalent to Ofcom, has labelled the DSA ‘an attack on free speech’.

Though the OSA has still not fully come into in force, Ofcom already had 466 employees dedicated to ‘online safety’ last July, with more expected to be added this year. Under the OSA, social media giants face fines of up to 10 per cent of their annual revenue should they fail to take down ‘harmful content’, and Ofcom has pledged to enforce this. These are major fines; with the likes of Elon Musk so close to the White House, little wonder the US is set to make free-speech concerns a sticking point in any future trade deal.

If Washington is now looking to apply the thumbscrews to senior British officials pushing social media censorship, it has plenty to choose from. Top of the list will be Ofcom CEO Melanie Dawes, for instance, who will be chiefly responsible for any fines handed down, and who has criticised the perception in America that ‘freedom of expression… is naturally in conflict with safety’.

They might also consider the members of the Online Information Advisory Committee. It is chaired by Lib Dem peer Lord Allan, who, as the Daily Sceptic reported earlier this year, once described questioning the deadliness of Covid, or the need for action on climate change, as ‘seditious’. Also on the board is Elisabeth Costa, who worked at the Behavioural Insights Team on so-called ‘pre-bunking’. Several have campaigned for the Online Safety Act to be even stricter, and UCL academic Jeffrey Howard has written an ethics paper on ‘Why Content Moderation is a Moral Duty’. If the US wants to stick it to the censors, these are plum targets.

Outside of Ofcom, meanwhile, there is the PM’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who was the co-founder in 2018 of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a pro-censorship campaign group that has planned to ‘kill Musk’s Twitter’, as leaked documents have revealed. Or even Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Met police, who during the unrest last summer appeared to threaten to extradite Elon Musk over his online posts. ‘It is unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on US citizens or US residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on US soil’, said Marco Rubio, possibly referring to this incident.

Nevertheless, it is unclear how a travel ban would work in practice. If it proves to be more than a negotiating tactic, the MAGA State Department will find itself running up against the vagaries of Britain’s quango state. Who exactly are they going to ban? If the White House is unhappy about Ofcom slapping X with a fine, for instance, would it just be Melanie Dawes denied the chance to holiday in the Big Apple, or does Washington have a hitlist of Ofcom staff it’s out to punish? Moreover, while I hold no candle for censorious quangocrats, it is arguably unfair for Ofcom officials to be left holding the can here, when really they are only carrying out the directives of UK politicians. Rishi Sunak, for instance, is one Brit who spends plenty of time stateside who surely bears some responsibility for what the UK is now doing in the name of ‘online safety’. It was his government which passed the OSA back in 2023. Ultimately, of course, the buck stops with Sir Keir Starmer, who may come to regret his comments during last summer’s riots directly blaming ‘large social media companies and those who run them’ for the unrest. Yet will he really be barred from state visits until, say, Lucy Connolly walks free?

What we do know, however, is that until now British officialdom has faced few if any consequences for its uncompromising zeal for internet censorship. If that is now changing thanks to the Donald, one needn’t be a MAGA booster to view it as a positive step.

Scotland’s Ecocide Bill is pure moral posturing

Here we go again. The Scottish parliament risks embarking on yet another exercise in legislative virtue signalling: the Labour MSP Monica Lennon’s emotively titled Ecocide Bill. The Scottish government is reportedly looking favourably on this legislation, which would make destroying the environment a criminal offence punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Needless to say, destroying the environment – intentionally or recklessly – is already illegal under numerous statutes: the Environmental Protection Act, the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and the Climate Change Act, to name but three. But, like the ill-fated Named Person Act, the Gender Recognition Reform Bill or the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, this Ecocide Bill is designed to ‘send a message’. That message being: damaging the environment is a really, very bad thing indeed and should be opposed by all right-thinking people.

Much like those earlier legislative missteps, the unintelligible Ecocide Bill, if it goes the distance, will repealed, ignored, or, most likely, ruled ultra vires – beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I mean, is the UK government going to allow a Bill to be passed which could see energy ministers locked up for permitting oil drilling in the North Sea?

The proposed legislation refers to ‘widespread or long-term damage to the environment’ caused by ‘reckless disregard.’ That’s the kind of legal language that should alarm anyone who values clarity and due process. Who decides what counts as ‘long-term’? What constitutes ‘reckless’? In practice, this could mean anything from a catastrophic oil spill to a poorly thought-out land management policy – the very kind the Scottish government has been presiding over for years.

Most popular

Jacob Heilbrunn

Will Trump really obliterate Iran on Tuesday?

Roger Kimball

Ignore the propaganda war

Charles Cornish-Dale

The peptides market is exploding – but are they safe?

Consider the environmental degradation caused by the mismanagement of Scotland’s peatlands, inappropriate tree planting, and inadequate management of deer herds. Road-building could also be construed as damaging to the environment. Government-regulated fish farms pollute marine ecosystems. If ecocide is defined by damage and recklessness, then who better to stand in the dock than the very ministers who allowed these practices to continue?

This Bill, like the doomed Gender Recognition Reform Bill, will almost certainly be unworkable. The Gender Bill, passed overwhelmingly by the Scottish Parliament in 2022, was blocked by Westminster under Section 35 of the Scotland Act – not because of transphobia, but because it clashed with UK-wide equality legislation. The Ecocide Bill is another exercise in unworkable legislation that might well end up in court.

This kind of symbolic lawmaking undermines the public’s trust in parliament. When laws are passed to express values, the law ceases to be a tool for justice and becomes mere performance. That performance has a cost: confusion, inconsistency, and the potential criminalisation of sectors that are already heavily regulated and vital to the economy.

Scotland still relies largely on oil and gas for industry, transport and domestic heating. Does this Bill open the door to criminal proceedings against operators in the North Sea? Or against local authorities who approve developments later found to impact biodiversity – such as the controversial Flamingo Land development on Loch Lomond? Vague definitions and sweeping moral judgments make for dangerous legal instruments, especially when applied to complex environmental realities.

Of course, none of this will matter to MSPs whose appetite for symbolic politics is matched only by their indifference to practical governance. As long as the right buzzwords are uttered – ‘justice’, ‘climate’, ‘future generations’ – the substance of policy can remain nebulous. But Scotland doesn’t need more moralistic posturing. It needs real, enforceable environmental protections grounded in science, not slogans.

Child stars and the curse of Harry Potter

A spell has been cast. Three children – Dominic McLaughlin, Alastair Stout and Arabella Stanton – have magically gone from obscurity to global fame, after HBO announced that they will be playing Harry, Ron and Hermione in the new Harry Potter series. HBO released a photograph of the trio, kneeling in the grass looking earnest, expectant, enthusiastic – and very, very, young. My first thought? Good luck to them, they’re going to need it.

The fact that HBO felt the need to immediately disable the comments underneath its Instagram post shows the scale of pre-emptive scrutiny the project is under. The series itself is a huge risk, and with many wondering how they plan to re-introduce the wizarding world to a new audience when the old one is still very much present. 

Most popular

Jacob Heilbrunn

Will Trump really obliterate Iran on Tuesday?

Roger Kimball

Ignore the propaganda war

Charles Cornish-Dale

The peptides market is exploding – but are they safe?

To call Harry Potter a franchise or fandom is an understatement. It is a cultural juggernaut: seven books, eight movies, three spin-off films, over a dozen video games, several amusement parks, and endless iterations of fan fiction. It is also one that inspires quasi-religious devotion from magic-loving millennials. Grown adults make pilgrimages to Kings Cross to count down to the announcement of the arrival of the Hogwarts Express; school trips descend on the Warner Bros studios for the teachers’ enjoyment as much as the students’; and in Oxford, where I live, there are, unbelievably, four Harry Potter shops in about a 100m radius.

Inevitably, people are going to have opinions. These three kids are already TikTok and Twitter fodder, their suitability for these sacrosanct roles discussed, debated and dissected by anyone with a keyboard. How do you possibly prepare them for what’s to come? 

It is nothing short of a modern-day miracle that the original trio did not succumb to the usual perils of young stardom, and become yet another cautionary tale of the dangers of growing up too fast, too soon. Daniel Radcliffe has admitted to struggling with alcohol abuse, but he has been sober since 2010 and gone on to have an interesting and varied career post-Potter, with many praising his stage performances in Equus and Merrily We Roll Along. Emma Watson has successfully combined acting with activism and academia. Rupert Grint, who has perhaps kept the lowest profile, seems happily married (to fellow child actor Georgia Groome) and has two children.

The fact that these superstars have remained relatively well-adjusted will be partly down to supportive family networks. It will also have helped that the cast were insulated by a safe culture on set for over a decade, rather than thrown out into the wilderness after one smash-hit. Chris Columbus, director of the first two instalments, said that straightaway they recognised ‘a need to protect these kids against what can eventually go wrong if you star in a film of this magnitude’. 

More importantly however, the Harry Potter films preceded social media. Child stars have always been subject to the most vile abuse – Matilda actress Mara Wilson has spoken about how her parents and agents would screen her fan mail first, shielding her from harassment, letters from ‘creepy old men’ and even rape fantasies. Now though the worst possible things child actors could read about themselves may only be a click, comment or Google search away.

I worry most for Arabella Stanton. Even though she has the most formal acting experience (she has starred in two West End musicals, whereas Alastair Stout’s only time in the public eye is an advert for Jersey Royal potatoes), her ethnicity is already the source of frenzied debate on social media. Many have wondered how this might affect certain storylines – for example, Harry and Ron making fun of her hair or mocking her attempts to free house-elves from slavery, or the fact that Hermione is a ‘mud-blood’ – but it must be pretty disheartening to see a life-changing opportunity dismissed by so many as a DEI hire.

HBO’s decision to cast Paapa Essiedu as Snape provoked similar outrage from Harry Potter purists, who questioned why they had chosen a black actor to play someone infamously ‘sallow’, ‘pale’ and ‘ghostly’. Again, people have also speculated about potential narrative complications: events like James Potter and his friends bullying a young Snape, students making fun of Snape’s nose, or Snape being passed up for the role of the defence against the dark arts teacher could all now have a racial undertone.

Essiedu is an adult though, and so should be better-equipped to deal with criticisms over his casting. Stanton in particular though will have to deal with the inevitable obsession over her appearance, as we have seen with so many other young female actors, such as Bella Ramsey, Millie Bobby-Brown and Ariel Winter. I hope that once the initial hysteria quietens, they will be given a chance to settle into their new roles, and that audiences will remember that these are 11-year-old children we are talking about.

Flying has lost its charm

As someone who flies a lot for work, many of my moments of high blood pressure or ‘Is this really what I want in life?’ introspection take place in airports or on aeroplanes. I cannot – to put it gently – relate to the moronic practitioners of the ‘airport theory’, which involves turning up deliberately late for flights to get an adrenaline rush, and/or to make a sorry living off social media views. No, I’m there in good time, so it shouldn’t be a particularly stressful experience. And yet I’ve come to rather despise flying.

Most popular

Jacob Heilbrunn

Will Trump really obliterate Iran on Tuesday?

Roger Kimball

Ignore the propaganda war

Charles Cornish-Dale

The peptides market is exploding – but are they safe?

It wasn’t always this way. Admittedly my relationship with flying got off to a slightly tricky start. In my childhood I used to get extreme bouts of restless leg syndrome, which is a part of my medical history I’m happy to share for its comedic value. I used to have to stick my feet in the air and pedal furiously, as if on a Peloton. In hindsight I feel very sorry for those sitting next to me.

But those early days of flying discomfort gave way to a golden age in my twenties when I was old enough to take full advantage of the free booze on board. When working life hits, having a good excuse to do nothing but drink, read fiction and watch films for 15 hours is a very welcome thing.

Yet now – and maybe I’m just becoming more irritable – almost every little thing about flying seems to wind me up. It starts with checking in and providing that ‘Advance Passenger Information’ online. We are cursed with our name: we’re ‘United Kingdom’ on some drop-down lists, but ‘Great Britain’ or even just ‘Britain’ on others. Often the airlines aren’t even internally consistent: we’re ‘GBR’, sandwiched between Gambia and Grenada, for ‘Passport issued by’ and then back as the ‘UK’ for nationality. It’s enough to put anyone off their seven inches of legroom and no in-flight meal.

All this is before we even get to the airport. There greater horrors await. The psychology of the boarding gate must surely have been the subject of a couple of Harvard Business School theses. Why on earth do we insist on being at the front of the queue for boarding, only to then stand for 20 minutes looking enviously at the people sitting with their feet up in the seats we’ve just vacated? Such is our enthusiasm to get on the plane before everyone else the budget airlines now flog ‘priority’ tickets. Surely we would be better off paying for the privilege of being the last on? Waltzing on board just after the safety video has concluded, overpriced coffee in hand? Suckers.

Then there’s the delays. Fine, sometimes things happen. However, call me a pedant, but one of the things that really riles me is when we are apologised to for ‘any inconvenience caused’. Why can’t they apologise for all of the inconvenience caused or just the inconvenience caused, because you can bet your bottom dollar it’s caused inconvenience. Qualifying it is a cop out. That, of course, is if they bother to apologise at all.

On board, little things cause you (or at least me) to become quite enraged. Like the intensely irritating rules around raising your window blind for take-off and landing (another excuse to wake you up). I need to nick one of those ‘do not disturb’ signs from a hotel, attach some string and hang it around my neck while I sleep. I have resorted to morbidly researching online the (apparently grisly) reasons for these various rules and am still just as clueless as I used to be as to the truth of it all. But boy do the cabin crew enforce them with zeal. ‘Cross check!’

The movie you’re watching will constantly be interrupted by in-flight announcements you don’t need to hear. In any case, the headphones are unlikely to be working properly – one ear if you’re lucky. Another pet hate is the internal crew communications announced to the entire plane. ‘Flight attendants, prepare doors for departure.’ Can’t they get earpieces or important-looking walkie talkies to chat among themselves?

I look for little things to make the experience bearable. I sometimes resort to retail therapy from that funny shopping catalogue in the seat pocket, buying ludicrous things I would never normally consider. Occasionally there are other small wins, like getting a mini bottle of Tabasco with your tomato juice or bagging an extra bread roll with supper.

In fact, airline food is one thing I have an inexplicable guilty pleasure for. Something hot and salty when you’re at your lowest ebb. Those in business class are treated to more elaborate menu descriptions: ‘beef bourguignon with garlic pommes purée’ or ‘salmon en croute with a lemon hollandaise’. In economy it’s reduced to ‘meat or fish’, with requests for further detail met with incomprehension or outright irritation. But in some ways I admire it. Four waiters doing maybe 400 covers. Bloody efficient. 

There are plenty of other things that infuriate me. The joys of going through security, now with the new ‘Don’t shoot!’ body scanners. The science of seat selection. I could go on. Flying is a genre unto itself.

But that’s a good starter for ten. A regular column to vent flying frustrations would be nice, though. As I pen this among the clouds, having snatched a few hours’ sleep and with a belly full of bread roll and plonk, ‘Sky High Life’ has a good ring to it…

Tariffs will make America poorer

Is life worse today than it was 50 years ago? According to a Pew Research survey, 58 percent of respondents believe it is. Perhaps watching the doom and gloom of the nightly news gives the impression that times have never been worse. But the facts show otherwise.

The world has never been richer, food has never been more abundant, and extreme poverty is at historic lows. We are fortunate to live in a country where the people have a strong work ethic and control a vast, resource-rich territory. Yet, even with those advantages, we rely on trade to access goods that America simply does not produce in abundance, like coffee and bananas.

Perhaps we should ask a more nuanced question: is international trade good or bad? No country, not even the United States, is self-sufficient in every product or commodity. The high standard of living Americans enjoy depends greatly on international trade. Voluntary trade is, by definition, mutually beneficial, as both parties engage in it to enrich themselves. Trade is not only good; it is indispensable.

A recent analysis of “time prices” for finished goods, most of which are imported, highlights the salutary effects of free trade and global competition on American living standards.

Time prices measure how long one must work to afford something. If a T-shirt cost one hour of labor a decade ago but only 30 minutes today, a person today is twice as well off. In a recent study, one of us examined the time prices of 75 finished goods from 1971 to 2024. The results clearly show that Americans are vastly wealthier today than in previous generations.

Time prices for nearly every conceivable consumer product have fallen dramatically over the past five decades. Prices for refrigerators fell by 61 percent, meaning that for the cost of one refrigerator in 1971, you can buy 2.5 today. The price of a 23-inch color TV dropped by 93 percent – in other words, you could now buy 14 TVs for the cost of one 50 years ago.

Prices have declined for more than just household appliances. The cost of electronic hedge trimmers fell 89 percent, trench coats 87 percent, and denim jeans 41 percent. On average, the time price of menswear, childrenswear, womenswear, furniture, appliances, electronics, sporting goods, power tools and garden equipment declined by 80.7 percent.

This dramatic reduction in prices means that the average American can now better than ever afford abundance. In 1971, the average shopper at a department store might only have been able to afford a living room television. Today, that same person can, for the same amount of work, provide for the needs and hobbies of an entire family – purchasing a second television for the bedroom, a new coat, a drill, a pair of shoes and a baseball glove. International trade plays a huge role in making this rising standard of living possible.

This rising standard of living undercuts the populist claim that the middle class is being “hollowed out.” Yes, the middle class is shrinking, but only because more people are moving up into the upper class. At no point in history have more individuals been able to provide better lives for their families. And for the few products that remain expensive, populist solutions like tariffs will only make these harder to afford.

No item illustrates the advantages of free trade better than housing, likely the most expensive single purchase a person will make. While it is widely acknowledged that local supply restrictions drive up housing costs, few people realize that affordable building materials like lumber and steel are often imported. New tariffs on these materials will only further increase housing prices. Free trade helps keep housing costs in check.

Nearly 250 years after Adam Smith made the definitive case for trade and the division of labor, we still fall for the siren call of protectionism. Perhaps tens of thousands of years of history, when wealth was acquired chiefly by conquest, have conditioned us to ignore the promise of mutually beneficial exchange.

But the world has grown both richer and more peaceful – the war in Ukraine notwithstanding. Clearly, most of the new wealth had to be created through cooperation. Shifting from zero-sum to positive-sum thinking is thus essential for preserving and expanding American prosperity. That shift will not be easy. But the alternative is a far less prosperous America than we can achieve if we embrace economic freedom.

Senior Tories plan candidate overhaul

There are many justifiable criticisms of how the Tories ran candidate selection for the last election. On the day that Rishi Sunak headed to the Palace, scores of nominees were still to be chosen, prompting a mad scramble to find 160 candidates in 12 days. Some seats faced accusations of ‘stitch-ups’, including Basildon and Billericay, where the-then party chairman was controversially selected from a shortlist of one. Scores of unknown names had to be parachuted in elsewhere.

The good news for long-suffering members is that this message appears to have been heard by senior Tory figures. An eight-page paper on candidate selection has now been drawn up as part of the Party Review into the 2024 election. The draft paper makes 49 recommendations, currently being circulated among senior Conservatives. Three points are of particular interest. They concern future candidate selections, lessons from the 2019 intake and the possibility of ex-MPs returning next time.

Future candidates

To prevent nepotism in future selections, the document suggests the creation of ‘regional candidate co-ordinators’ – senior volunteers with ‘no parliamentary ambitions of their own.’ Conflicts of interest would be reduced by making future holders of roles like regional and area chairmen ineligible from joining the candidates’ list ‘for a period of (say) two years after completing their role.’

It adds too that ‘consideration should be given to restricting party staff (locally or nationally employed) from applying for specific seats, if there is a conflict or unfair advantage.’ Then there is the recommendation that by-election rules ‘must never consist of fewer than three applicants.’ This could be dubbed the ‘Richard Holden rule’ – a change designed to prevent associations from only being handed a shortlist of one in future.

Aspirant MPs will be given tighter contracts in future, setting out clear expectations and requirements. According to the draft document, the ‘Candidate Agreements/Contract must remain binding on those who are successfully elected as MPs.’ This would give clarity over the mutual expectations between MP and party, with ‘a process developed to take action if it is breached.’ This would also be ‘supported by ongoing vetting, potentially on a random basis.’ Candidates should also be recruited from ‘outside of the “usual” pools e.g those connected to Westminster, councillors.’

Lessons learned from Boris Johnson’s landslide

The experience of the 2019 intake loom large over this document. It stresses the importance of ‘clear information at the outset of the application process’ as to the ‘family, privacy, personal safety implications of proceeding.’ It advocates that questions on ‘political convictions’ are extended to include ‘campaigning activity/experience within the party’ and an ‘in person, dedicated interview’ using a debate on the applicants’ views on topical issues.

An interview would probe candidates’ ‘Conservative values to establish that they have a fully rounded and well developed philosophy of what it means to be a principled Conservative.’ The document also suggests the Approved List be cut, that expected by-elections commitments for those on the List be reviewed and that a ‘dedicated development programme’ is established, like Labour’s ‘Future Candidates’ scheme.

Former MPs coming back next time

Then there is the subject of ex-MPs hoping to return in 2029. Those seeking re-approval to the candidates’ list could face a full in-person assessment. This would focus on their personal record of past campaigning, voting record as an MP and relationship with their Association. For those on the list as of July 2024, the approval stage is a re-list assessment, with a specific focus on their record during the election campaign. The selection stage for both would be retained unchanged.

Following a consultation over these proposals, the Party Review will then finalise the recommendations, which will then go to the new Candidates’ Committee. After a final, detailed draft is completed, they will then be recommended to the Party Board for implementation.

Ex-Royal Marine charged over Liverpool crash

To Liverpool, where former Royal Marine Paul Doyle has been charged over the car crash that injured almost 80 people on Monday. Police announced they had taken a 53-year-old white British man into custody within hours of the attack and this afternoon, officers announced at a presser that Doyle had been charged with two counts of wounding with intent, two counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, two counts of attempted grievous bodily harm with intent and one count of dangerous driving.

Reports note that 79 people – including four children – sustained injuries in the incident that took place during Monday’s Premier League victory celebrations. Two people, including a child, were seriously hurt while 50 others needed hospital treatment. On Wednesday, seven people remained in inpatient care.

The 53-year-old father of three has in recent years held jobs in IT and cybersecurity while neighbours described Doyle as ‘such a normal Liverpool dad’ and a ‘genuinely pleasant family man’. He moved to Liverpool in 1998, according to his LinkedIn, and lived in New York before that.

The incident is believed to be ‘isolated’ and is not being treated as terrorism. He has been taken into custody and will appear in Liverpool Magistrates Court on Friday morning.

Ed Davey should challenge Nigel Farage to a debate

On Tuesday, Nigel Farage challenged Keir Starmer to a head-to-head debate. More specifically, the Reform leader wants to take on the Prime Minister in a northern working men’s club. 

Most popular

Jacob Heilbrunn

Will Trump really obliterate Iran on Tuesday?

Roger Kimball

Ignore the propaganda war

Charles Cornish-Dale

The peptides market is exploding – but are they safe?

Obviously, that is not going to happen. The PM might have declared in his speech today that ‘the choice at the moment is between the choice of a Labour government… or Nigel Farage and Reform,’ but there is zero chance of him risking all to take on Farage directly in a setting of the Reform leader’s choosing.

There is, however, another man who should play Farage at his own game and challenge him to a debate: Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey.

Davey has been calling out Farage for some time now, trying to compare him to US President Donald Trump and so on, although there has been little response to the jibes. The Lib Dem parliamentary party is also more than 14 times the size of Farage’s – 72 MPs compared to five. Not that you would know it from the current tone of political debate. See the above comments from the prime minister as an example of that. 

While Labour tries to appease Reform, it is time for Davey to take a big swing and try to establish his position as the true liberal opponent of Reform’s right-wing insurgency. 

Recent polling from YouGov revealed that the public would prefer the Lib Dem leader to be the prime minister, were it a direct fight between him and Farage. Davey won 41 per cent to 27 per cent, five points head of Kemi Badenoch when the public was given the option of her as PM vs Farage, and just three points behind the current incumbent of no. 10. The Liberal Democrats need to build on the momentum gained from a set of excellent local election results earlier this month by taking some bold moves, and preferably not ones involving a wetsuit.

Davey has become known for his stunts and even a sceptic like me must accept that they have done a good job of getting him heard. Now, though, it is time to get serious. Debating with Farage, who is desperately trying to convince the country he can be prime minister despite his party only just being able to field a five-a-side team of parliamentarians, could help him achieve that. 

In many ways, throwing down the gauntlet to the Reform leader is a win-win for Davey. If Farage declines, he looks like a coward – all talk and no trousers. If he accepts, it presents Davey with a real opportunity to assert himself on the national stage and make Badenoch in particular look even more irrelevant. Revealing the Conservative leader as unable to challenge Farage and Reform is important as the Lib Dems look to hoover up the soft Tory vote that both dismays of Badenoch’s (lack of) leadership and is repulsed by Farage.

The move is, though, not totally risk free for Davey, of course. While making the challenge would show some toughness, he would have to be seen to win the debate for it to be a truly worthwhile. Farage is undoubtedly a strong performer in such settings. 

Such an exercise would also arguably give Reform and its leader far more credibility and publicity than they deserve and this juncture. Recent polling by YouGov might have Reform leading the pack on 29 per cent, with the Lib Dems down in fourth on 15 per cent, but I remember the heady few days back in 2010 when the polling suggested that the Lib Dems might win the election with Nick Clegg becoming prime minister. That’s not quite what happened…

Furthermore, Reform is getting plenty of attention already, so it is not like a debate would flag them to an unsuspecting public.

Talking of Clegg, he did actually clash with Farage in a head-to-head debate back in 2014. The two men were focussing specifically on Europe and the then Ukip leader was judged by the public to have won pretty comprehensively in snap polling conducted afterwards. 

That underlines the risk Davey would be taking if he were to debate Farage. However, a victory, or even a close contest, would establish him the leader of the anti-Farage coalition that clearly exists and might well be growing. It’s a risk worth taking.

Robert Jenrick is right to confront tube fare evaders

Robert Jenrick tweeted a 60 second video this morning, showing him confronting suspected fare dodgers at Stratford London Underground station. He watches people reportedly forcing their way through the barriers while TfL staff seemingly do nothing to stop them. Jenrick then follows the suspected freeloaders down escalators, challenging them on why they haven’t paid. They’re not apologetic of course and none seem to show the slightest shame. One seems to threaten the shadow justice secretary, with Jenrick responding ‘you’re carrying a knife, did you say?’.

In his narration, Jenrick says 4 per cent of travellers on the London Underground haven’t paid for their fare – I checked with TfL and the number they quote is 3.5 per cent across the whole TfL network.

Sadiq Khan is driving a proud city into the ground.

Lawbreaking is out of control.

He's not acting. So, I did.👇 pic.twitter.com/MZSVQ3Sdak

— Robert Jenrick (@RobertJenrick) May 29, 2025

As a piece of political media, it’s great. Jenrick seems to straddle the gulf between politician and insurgent journalist, pursuing alleged wrongdoers and confronting them. In a country where politicians mouth platitudes while the nation crumbles, the video is refreshing. It’s great to see someone doing something, challenging the rule-breaking and antisocial behaviour we see all around us. I think that’s why this video has pleased so many people. Those who follow the rules, do everything they’re supposed to, and watch people unashamedly breaking the law without consequences are rightly angry. They want these abuses of our decency and trust to be brought to an end. Jenrick, in actually confronting fare dodgers, not just talking about it, shows that action is easier than we have been told.

The shadow justice secretary also correctly links fare-dodging to a wider collapse in social trust and the rule of law. As he says, ‘it’s the same with bike theft, phone theft, tool theft, shoplifting, drugs in town centres, weird Turkish barber shops’. He’s right. As the state has withdrawn, criminality has filled the gap.

Most popular

Jacob Heilbrunn

Will Trump really obliterate Iran on Tuesday?

Roger Kimball

Ignore the propaganda war

Charles Cornish-Dale

The peptides market is exploding – but are they safe?

LBC’s Henry Riley has reported that Jenrick broke TfL’s rules, in filming without permission. I’m not sure if this is true – the published guidelines suggest that only those filming ‘commercial content’ must apply for a permit, and TfL didn’t respond to my request for comment in time for this piece. But it would be entirely fitting with the anarcho-tyranny Britain has become, that the system would pursue the man revealing rulebreaking rather than the rulebreakers themselves.

Of course, much of the state of Britain is the fault of the Tories, who in their 14 years oversaw a collapse in law-and-order, and the gutting of police, probation and the prison service. But Jenrick should still be applauded for what he is doing now. 

His video has generated a great deal of discussion on social media, and it has also revealed the new divide in British politics between those ‘noticers’ who recognise the signs of failure and decline all around us, and those who think it’s low-status, or cringe to notice. The standard bearer of that second group is the Secret Barrister, an anonymous Twitter account operated by a working barrister who has written popular books about the destruction of our justice system over the past 15 years. They labelled Jenrick’s video as ‘the most spectacularly Alan Partridge thing that has ever happened’.

I have nothing but disdain for this attitude. On almost every measure our society is failing. Rampant criminality is allowed because the state lacks the will and capacity to act. And instead of engaging with the oncoming disaster, some people choose to sneer in decadent detachment. What’s interesting though, is how much of a minority they are. Most people have noticed the disorder all around and want something done about it.

People across the political spectrum, from Lord Frost to Aaron Bastani, have talked about the signs of societal decay, often rightly linking them to the destructive underfunding under the Tories. As Bastani wrote, ‘you can’t defund the state, in particular its enforcement agencies, and then ask why…the law isn’t enforced’. He’s right.

We need the will to restore order, law and safety across our country, but we also need the funding. We’re all noticers now. Our politicians need to start acting.

Revealed: which Tube lines have the most drugs?

They say that if you’re tired of London, you’re tired of life. But these days the capital’s commuters seem to certainly be tiring of the state of the public transport system. The ever-online Robert Jenrick has today released a new video, highlighting the impotence with which fare-dodgers can flagrantly get away without paying. And Mr S has done some of his own digging, to highlight the dire state of law abidance on the Tube.

A Freedom of Information request to Transport for London (TfL) was submitted by The Spectator, requesting information on the number of drug offences committed on London Underground since 2020. It turns out a whopping 2,481 incidents have been recorded by British Transport Police over the past five years, including a record high of 589 in 2023/24. Such offences are both for possession of illegal substances and commuters seen to be using drugs. Presumably, that includes the gentleman filmed smoking a crack pipe just last month…

Steerpike also asked for a list of drug paraphernalia and substances confiscated or found on the Underground over the past five years. White crystals, brown rocks, blue pills and cannabis are just some of the delights found by TfL, which records the station at which each substance was found. Taking the top spot with most drug-related incidents was Hammersmith on seven, followed by Oxford Circus on four. Below is a map of products found on each line since 2020:

Talk about going down the Tubes eh....

Has Russia changed its red lines?

Is the Kremlin on the verge of shifting its red lines on Ukraine? As Russian troops on the ground line up to launch a new summer offensive and more missiles rain down on Kyiv than any point since the beginning of the invasion, Putin’s diplomats are reportedly preparing to step back from some of their hardest-line positions. According to a set of Russian position papers seen by Reuters, the Kremlin appears to step back from its earlier demands for ‘de-militarization’ of Ukraine. Also apparently jettisoned are claims on the areas of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhiye regions still controlled by Ukraine but which Russia had formerly demanded as part of any peace deal. 

The Kremlin itself has been quick to squash speculation about their new, apparently toned-down negotiating position, with Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov declining to comment on the terms Russia intends to propose for a ceasefire in Ukraine. So far Peskov has only stated that coming face-to-face talks between Moscow and Kyiv will be ‘long and painstaking’.

But if true, the new parameters will mark a decided shift from Moscow’s position just two weeks ago when the first talks between Russian and Ukrainian teams since the beginning of the war took place in Istanbul. Putin’s decision not to send a single cabinet-level representative and instead deploy the exact same minions as had led unsuccessful negotiations back in April 2022 seemed a calculated snub. Former Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky, who led both delegations, did little more than re-state the same Kremlin talking points that had scuppered previous talks. Russia’s specific deal-breaking demands were for restrictions on the size of Ukraine’s military, for official recognition that territory seized by Moscow’s forces was de jure a part of Russia, and that Moscow would have a formal veto on Ukraine’s future ability to join any international alliances such as NATO or the European Union. 

Most popular

Jacob Heilbrunn

Will Trump really obliterate Iran on Tuesday?

Roger Kimball

Ignore the propaganda war

Charles Cornish-Dale

The peptides market is exploding – but are they safe?

Putin’s new set of demands represent roughly the same tune, but played with fewer notes. In place of restrictions on the size of Ukraine’s military, there is talk of excluding the deployment of foreign – read NATO – troops and strategic rockets on Ukraine’s territory. In place of demands for formal control over Ukraine’s future alliances, Russia appears now to be demanding a formal statement from NATO that Kyiv will not join the organisation. And Moscow also demands Ukraine’s return to the neutral status that was enshrined in its constitution between 2010 and 2015. 

There is no word, yet, on how Moscow’s position might shift on its demands for ‘de-nazification.’ During the last Istanbul talks in 2022, Medinsky demanded that the rights of Russian speakers inside Ukraine be protected, the reversing de-Sovietization campaigns that had removed the names of Soviet war heroes from streets and institutions and replaced them with Ukrainian nationalists (some of whom had fought with the Nazis in World War Two) and scrapping Ukrainian laws that criminalise display of Soviet-era symbols such as flags and red stars. But in fact there is clearly room for compromise on the issue of language rights as the Kremlin finds itself in unexpected agreement with the European Union, which has also insisted that the rights of the speakers of minority languages be protected and has criticised Ukraine’s restrictions on Russian. 

There is one new element in Russia’s reported negotiating position that also gives some hope that agreement may be reached. The Kremlin’s earlier official position on international sanctions had been that they actually helped the Russian economy become independent and that Russia would not be seeking sanctions relief as part of peace talks. That stance was disingenuous and everyone knew it. Now, according to Reuters, lifting of banking sanctions and the return of Russian Central Bank assets frozen in the EU and US are back on the table. 

If the reported new position paper is what Russia eventually brings to the negotiating table – venue as yet to be finalised – does it show that Putin could actually be finally ready for a ceasefire? Certainly, evidence is mounting that his economy is under increasing pressure, first and foremost from falling oil and gas revenues. Or are the newly-softened demands an elaborate stalling tactic designed to drive a wedge between the US and Europe? 

Putin’s demand that Nato formally renounce any further expansion is likely one that the Trump administration would find happily sign off on. Many Europeans, by contrast, would be up in arms – not least because such a declaration would acknowledge a de-facto sphere of influence for Putin over his near abroad.

In fact, compromises over the status of front-line countries were common during the Cold War. Norway, for instance, was a founded member of NATO in 1949 and, with Turkey, one of only two countries in the alliance with a land border with the USSR. But from the outset Norway unilaterally declared that it would allow foreign troops and weapons on its soil only in the event of war. West Germany was admitted a member of NATO, but its claims to rule the whole of the country were parked in a diplomatic limbo until reunification in 1991. And most famously Finland, which had been invaded by the Red Army in 1939 but unexpectedly repelled the more numerous Soviet aggressors from 75 per cent of its territory, remained strategically neutral during the whole Cold War period, trading with both the West and Russia. 

But a return to that kind of Soviet-era division of the world into zones, reminiscent of the carve up of Europe by Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin at the Yalta Conference in 1944, could cause a deep and deadly break between Washington and Europe. It would also open deep rifts inside Europe itself between vocally anti Kremlin Baltics and more pro-Russian Central Europeans. That, of course would delight Putin, a past master of divide and rule. 

Similarly fundamental differences of principle would apply in any lifting of sanctions. Trump has already repeatedly talked up the great opportunities for future business cooperation between the US and Russia after a ceasefire. But many Europeans remain adamantly opposed, with the EU formally committing itself to wean itself entirely off any Russian oil or gas imports by 2029 (even as it in fact increased its exports of Liquefied Natural Gas by 25 per cent from Russia in 2024). Germany’s new chancellor Friedrich Merz vowed this week that he would oppose the reopening of the partially-destroyed Nord Stream gas pipeline, sabotaged in September 2022 – even though one of the four lines remains intact and could start pumping cheap Gazprom gas tomorrow. America lifting sanctions – especially banking sanctions – would quickly make a mockery of European attempts to hold the line and spark a stampede to get back into the Russian market by US multinationals.

Genuine baby steps towards compromise or fiendish plot to sow discord among Ukraine’s friends? Putin’s reported proposals could easily be both. But so far only one thing is clear – talks will indeed be long, protracted and acrimonious. But thanks to the Kremlin’s scheming, as many of the disagreements promise to be between Kyiv’s friends as with Ukraine’s arch-enemy. 

The world that Elon Musk couldn’t conquer

Elon Musk understands astrophysics, yet he seems unable to grasp the strange laws of gravity which govern Washington politics. Last night, the world’s richest man confirmed what everybody in Washington already knew: his time as a ‘special employee’ in the White House is over and he’s leaving his formal role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). ‘I would like to thank @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,’ he said. ‘The DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.’

Musk’s public resignation may have been a necessary response to one of his many ongoing legal challenges. This week, a district judge in Washington, D.C. ruled that a lawsuit alleging Musk and DOGE are illegally wielding power over federal government operations could move forward. It’s become imperative, then, that Musk proves that Team Trump’s defence is true: that he is, and always has been, a temporary employee within the administration. 

Musk is eager to stress that, whatever the dreaded mainstream media may say, he and Trump have not fallen out. But it seems ridiculous to deny that his relationship with the White House has grown more distant recently. This week he even dared to criticise Trump’s cherished ‘big beautiful’ tax bill. ‘I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly,’ he told CBS, in an interview that will be aired in full on Sunday. ‘I think a bill can be big or beautiful. I don’t know if it can be both.’

What a difference five months makes. At the start of Trump 2.0, Musk was everywhere. He was involved in key hiring and policy decisions, and, through the creation of DOGE, Trump appeared to give him licence to hack away at every federal government department. Musk’s team of youthful DOGEsters roamed the corridors of power, freezing all sorts of spending, laying off thousands of federal staff and upsetting the Washington blob in every way they could. 

But DOGE was always going to run into the great wall of the legal and administrative state. And it did. Trump insiders quickly realised that, while Musk’s merry band of hackers could highlight or suspend government fraud or waste, the executive department had little constitutional authority over federal funding. ‘If it’s Elon vs the Machine, he’s shone a light on how the machine works,’ one insider told me this week. ‘But he’s done nothing to throw a spanner in the works.’

While Trump himself may still be supportive of Musk’s work, his cabinet and senior staff have grown tired of Elon’s disruptive behaviour. He’s clashed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, among others. In his public appearances – wielding a chainsaw on stage at CPAC, wearing two hats at cabinet meetings, or parading his son X around the White House – Musk at times appeared to be exhibiting signs of hypomania. So much so that even some of his friends and family have asked themselves: is Elon OK?

He’s under a lot of strain, clearly. His biggest business, Tesla, has struggled since he became involved in frontline politics. This week, ahead of the car maker’s big ‘Robotaxi’ launch, Musk’s own brother and a senior business partner sold off almost $200 million in stock. Elon’s ownership of X (formerly Twitter) has proved challenging, too. He may have turned the most influential news site in the world into a free-speech zone, but ‘user engagement’ has flatlined, while other social media giants continue to thrive. 

This week, too, Musk saw his precious Space X starship crashing back down to Earth following its ninth test launch. He desperately wants to colonise Mars, maybe so that he can get away from his problems here on Earth. You can’t conquer all worlds all the time.   

Don’t cancel Andrew Lawrence for his Liverpool joke

Andrew Lawrence has some claim to being Britain’s most-cancelled comedian. For more than a decade now, the 37-year-old stand-up has been losing himself work, friends and representation due to his wilfully offensive style of comedy / commentary.

In a 2014 Facebook post, he took aim at BBC panel shows on which ‘aging, balding, fat men, ethnic comedians and women-posing-as-comedians, sit congratulating themselves on how enlightened they are about the fact that Ukip are ridiculous and pathetic’. 

After England’s Euros penalties defeat in 2021 he wrote on Twitter: ‘All I’m saying is, the white guys scored.’ Given the tournament began with a row over England players taking the knee and ended with a moral panic about racist England fans abusing black players online (when the posts predominantly came from overseas), his timing couldn’t have been more explosive. That missive lost him his agent and a string of shows.

Now Lawrence has gone after the Scousers, with an (over)dose of gallows humour in the wake of the horrific car attack in Liverpool on Monday. ‘To be fair, if I was in Liverpool, I’d drive through crowds of people to get the fuck out of there as well’, he tweeted.

So far, this has cost Lawrence an upcoming gig in Southend and an indefinite ban from both the Hot Water Comedy Club in Liverpool and the Comedy Store, which has venues in London and Manchester. ‘His brand of cruelty has no place in the kind of comedy we stand for’, said Hot Water in a loftily worded statement.

For his part, Lawrence has posted a video to his YouTube channel, doubling down and then some – blasting Liverpudlians for talking about a car accident as if it is the Holocaust and for failing to understand what a joke is, probably on account of them being illiterate.

Most popular

Jacob Heilbrunn

Will Trump really obliterate Iran on Tuesday?

Roger Kimball

Ignore the propaganda war

Charles Cornish-Dale

The peptides market is exploding – but are they safe?

Rough stuff, for sure. But that’s what you get with Andrew Lawrence – a comic for whom it is never quite clear where his dark, nihilistic, blood-spitting comedy persona ends and his own view of the world begins. 

After his 2014 media storm, Lawrence felt moved to clarify that his ‘ethnic comedians and women-posing-as-comedians’ jibe was about tokenism, and how quotas give a leg-up to comics who aren’t yet ready for the big time, thus perpetuating the ‘myth’ that certain groups aren’t funny. 

After his more recent controversies, he has preferred to neither clarify nor apologise – insisting that if people don’t get his humour there is no helping them.

People are well within their rights to find Lawrence’s stuff unpleasant, dodgy, or ‘too soon’. They don’t have to attend his shows. To be frank, if they’d rather not support him, they probably shouldn’t be giving him the publicity.

But it is facile, censorious and philistine for comedy clubs to treat jokes as if they are straightforwardly sincere statements and no-platform comedians because they are offensive. Down this road lies precisely the panel-show mediocrity that Lawrence inelegantly inveighed against all those years ago.

I cannot see into Lawrence’s soul. Nor am I particularly interested in doing so. But just as I don’t think we should assume Frankie Boyle is revealing something about himself when he jokes about raping Holly Willoughby, I don’t think Lawrence’s tweets about black footballers and Liverpool can be taken totally seriously, either. 

A joke is a joke. Everything else is execution and personal taste. That goes for sick humour, gallows humour, and apparently ‘problematic’ humour. You don’t have to like it. But the point at which a comic is silenced is the point at which all of us should stop laughing.

Is this the end of Trump’s tariffs? Don’t count on it

Overnight three federal judges on the United States Court of International Trade ruled that Donald Trump’s worldwide tariffs are unlawful and blocked them from going into effect. A group of businesses had taken the President’s administration to court, successfully arguing that the tariffs announced on ‘Liberation Day’ were beyond the powers of the presidency.

The ruling made clear that the US Congress has sole authority on passing legislation affecting cross-border trade. The White House immediately appealed and argued that the court does not have the right to rule on the matter.

The effect of the ruling will be to dismantle the entire tariff regime announced on Liberation Day, with import duties only remaining on steel, aluminium and cars, returning tariffs to the position they were in at the beginning of March. Businesses that have already paid tariffs may be entitled to compensation payments too, if the judgment is not overturned through the appeals process.

Stocks in London rose 0.6 per cent when markets opened, before reversing the gains, indicating that investors don’t consider last night’s judgment to be the end of the story. It was a different picture across the pond and in Asia, however, where stocks rose strongly on the news and remained up. Analysts were quick to warn that even if Trump’s particular legal vehicle for imposing import taxes is blocked, he has plenty of other options at his disposal to achieve the same ends.

Meanwhile, the European Union (which according to Allianz Trade was looking at a €100 billion hit from Trump’s tariffs – mostly impacting Germany) is preparing a more pragmatic approach to deal with Trump’s protectionism. ‘Key proposals include already floated ideas such as ramping up LNG [Liquified Natural Gas] and agricultural imports [from the US], but also reviving a zero-for-zero tariff framework for industrial goods and softening or adjusting digital taxes and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism to reduce friction with US exporters,’ says Allianz.

If the tariffs are reinstated, which they most likely will be, new modelling from Oxford Economics suggests the effect on the global market will be disinflationary. While prices will obviously go up for American consumers as a result of the levies, the firm concludes that the negative impacts on demand will reduce commodity prices. Coupled with a weaker dollar this should reduce costs for other countries.

Carrie Johnson and the reality of having four children

While I am delighted to hear that Poppy Eliza Josephine Johnson, the fourth child of Boris and Carrie Johnson, arrived safely on Saturday, I’d be lying if I said that a small part of me didn’t die on seeing Carrie Johnson’s latest Instagram photos of the last days of her pregnancy. The cinematic shots of little tots kissing her belly, in her immaculate home, were not even the most implausible part of the shoot. Instead, it was the photo of her sitting alone, devoid of any children climbing up her legs or chewing her luscious hair.

Okay, it was a professional photo shoot, but as a mother of four young children, it is just too far removed from my reality to appreciate. When I was very pregnant with my fourth child, life was no John Lewis advert, it was more like a bad comedy show from the 1970s. When my husband shared the news with a colleague that I was expecting again, she didn’t say congratulations, she just asked ‘do you not own a TV?’ (We don’t as it happens). The whole nine months is a bit of a blur, but one disastrous trip to Tesco stands out in my memory, where an elderly gent witnessed me trying to cross the car park with three kids and yelled from the other side: ‘how are you going to cope with four, love?’  

I think it is safe to say that Mrs Johnson and I are worlds apart in many ways – and so our experiences of mothering four small kids will be dramatically different. But here is my survival guide for anyone else who has just crossed the threshold from three to four.

Most popular

Jacob Heilbrunn

Will Trump really obliterate Iran on Tuesday?

Roger Kimball

Ignore the propaganda war

Charles Cornish-Dale

The peptides market is exploding – but are they safe?

First, in those newborn months where you might have managed to sneak back to bed for a few hours while a grandparent holds the baby, brace yourself for when you return to your brood. Once you finally surface and descend the stairs your life will resemble the scene from Jesus Christ Superstar where wailing crowds surround you, and you might just find yourself yelling; ‘there are just too many of you!’ in the style of Ted Neeley. The newborn screaming in the background for milk, adds to the theatrical ambience.

Second, this might already be the case, but if you go anywhere, like the bathroom, then brief everyone first, including your spouse. If you don’t explain the reason for your absence, you can anticipate the sound of police helicopters whirling overhead after about two and a half minutes, and more wailing when you finally reappear.

Third, trying to leave the house becomes a morning activity in itself, with laughter, brawling and tears – mainly yours. When you finally arrive at the park or the supermarket, you will most likely provide free entertainment for those around you who will either look on disapprovingly or smile reassuringly.

Fourth, cling to your sense of humour. I was recently at a party when a fellow mum, complaining about how hard life is with kids, said to me; ‘but you know when I’m feeling down about myself, I just think of you.’  I’m happy for her.

In all seriousness, it is easy to look at a family of six and see the exhaustion and the chaos. I appreciate that it is not for everyone. But if you are in the trenches right now, with four hours of broken sleep and piles of laundry everywhere, there is some light at the end of the tunnel. 

My oldest is now nearly eight and through necessity he is coming to an age where he is a huge help and great older brother to his younger siblings. The school holidays are getting easier as they entertain and look after one another, and having gone through a number of baby losses, I have a sense of perspective which helps me through the hardest moments.

So, congratulations to Mr and Mrs Johnson. Enjoy every moment – especially when life is nothing like a John Lewis advert.

This won’t be the last time Starmer attacks ‘fantasy’ Farage

Liz Truss’s short-lived premiership is remembered fondly by few in British politics. But one group who certainly never miss a chance to mention it are Labour MPs sent out on broadcast duty. Having successful used the ex-PM as a two-word stick to hammer the Tories, now Keir Starmer is trying to use the same trick on Nigel Farage. The Prime Minister used an engagement at a business manufacturer in the north-west of England to test his party’s latest attack lines on Reform UK.

His remarks focused on those industries affected by the tariffs Donald Trump has slapped on the UK. The Labour leader claimed ‘We protected those jobs. Would Nigel Farage have done the same? Absolutely not. And that’s the question to have to ask… can you trust him?’ Turning his attention to the veteran Brexiteer’s speech on Tuesday, Starmer claimed that Reform’s plans contain ‘billions upon billions of completely unfunded spending – precisely the sort of irresponsible splurge that sent your mortgage costs, your bills and the cost of living through the roof. It’s Liz Truss all over again.’

The Prime Minister’s attack is by no means surprising. Reform’s poll numbers have hit the magic 30-point mark, at which they can win a majority in parliament. Labour’s, meanwhile, have slid, continuously down to the low 20s, since its landslide win ten months ago. Initially, Starmer ignored Farage in parliament, ducking the opportunity to confront him directly at PMQs. Now, amid rising panic on his backbenches, he has bowed to the inevitable and opted to fight.

The striking thing about Starmer’s comments is how they echo the Tory critique of Farage. Mel Stride, the Shadow Chancellor, has repeatedly attacked Reform’s ‘fantasy economics’ in recent weeks and plans a big speech on this theme. During the Tory years, The Spectator ran several covers, whenever a politician was under a major assault. In 2017 it was ‘Get Boris!’, in 2023, it was ‘Get Rishi!’ Now, in 2025, the theme of this week’s politics appears to be ‘Get Nigel!’

Farage, of course, has faced such criticisms before. His retort on Tuesday was that, with the national debt running at almost £3 trillion, what gives the other parties the right to criticise his plans? He will likely dismiss Starmer’s warnings as a rehash of the same Remainer critiques from 2016: nothing more than Project Fear 2.0. Yet, with borrowing costs rising, expect any additional spend to come in for a barrage of criticism from the likes of the IFS too.

Today’s attack from the Prime Minister will likely be the first of many. But it is perhaps telling that Starmer is now choosing to emphasise fiscal credibility. Previous Labour attacks have focused on Farage’s past comments on the NHS and Russia. Many of these are now a decade old; after the Runcorn by-election, some within Labour suggested that these criticisms had now lost their potency with voters. It remains to be seen whether the new focus on ‘fantasy economics’, will have more luck in dissuading Reform defectors – or less.

Watch: Jenrick confronts lawbreakers in dig at Khan

To shadow justice secretary, Robert Jenrick. The onetime Tory leadership contender has taken to Twitter to make a dig at Labour’s London mayor Sadiq Khan over TfL’s fee-dodgers. ‘Sadiq Khan is driving a proud city into the ground,’ Jenrick wrote furiously. ‘Lawbreaking is out of control. He’s not acting. So I did.’

What follows is a minute-long clip of the ex-Conservative Home Office minister approaching commuters who have attempted to use London’s public transport without paying. Jenrick has no qualms about going about travellers who have barged through the gates, asking one man: ‘Excuse me. Do you think it’s all right not to pay? Why do you go back through the barrier and pay? Do you want to go back and pay like everybody else?’ He didn’t let up – even when one infuriated commuter appeared to hint he was carrying a knife. Crikey!

Speaking to the camera, the Tory MP insists:

It’s the same with bike theft, phone theft, tool theft, shoplifting, drugs in town centres, weird Turkish barber shops. It’s all chipping away at society. The state needs to reassert itself and go after lawbreakers.

Watch the clip here:

Phone theft is out of control in London

It just happened to be my birthday. A Friday lunchtime at the start of November. Broad daylight. I had left Oval tube station and was about to turn onto my road. But as I strolled along the pavement, airpods in, replying to happy birthday messages on WhatsApp, the inevitable happened. Snatch. My phone was lifted straight out of my hand by a teenager on a bike. I suppose it served me right for listening to The Rest is Politics at the time.

I immediately felt like a complete mug. Almost every friend of mine in London had warned me about the proliferation of phone theft. I’d read enough newspaper articles about it, too. As such, I was normally more cautious about where and when I used my phone in the capital. But the one moment I let my guard down, no doubt lulled into a false sense of security by the fact I was just a few hundred yards from my front door, they pounced. 

In the immediate aftermath, my fight or flight instinct kicked in, so I chased after the culprit shouting ‘you fucker, you fucker’ at the top of my lungs. Given he was on a bike and I was on foot, I’m not quite sure what I was hoping to achieve. In the miraculous event I’d caught up with him, I’d probably have been treated to a gentle stabbing for good measure.

Sadly, my experience is now depressingly common. Nearly one in three people in the UK have had their mobile phone stolen, according to a new study by the fintech start-up Nuke From Orbit. The data reveals that 29 per cent of British adults have been victims, up from 17 per cent in 2023, and less than a quarter of those surveyed said their first instinct was to contact the police, instead choosing to contact their banks and mobile carriers.

Most popular

Jacob Heilbrunn

Will Trump really obliterate Iran on Tuesday?

Roger Kimball

Ignore the propaganda war

Charles Cornish-Dale

The peptides market is exploding – but are they safe?

Thankfully in my case, given how close I was to home, I was quickly able to mark my phone as lost via my laptop, suspending my cards within minutes. ‘Find My Device’ also showed that my phone had already made it to a phone shop in Brixton. Still full of high dudgeon, I headed straight for the store in question and had a testy exchange with the assistant, who I essentially accused of fencing stolen goods. Naturally, he denied it – but I have little doubt my phone was already in the back room being wiped.

The police, of course, were completely uninterested. My case was closed within 48 hours, despite the theft occurring on a road plastered with CCTV cameras. Figures from the Met show criminals stole more than 70,000 devices in London last year, an average of 192 a day. And those are only the reported cases. In fact, police now estimate phone theft to be a £50 million underworld industry, with most devices flogged or disassembled for parts in China. 

It is easy to lambast the police for having their priorities skewed: easy because it’s true. Had I reported a non-crime hate incident instead, would my case really have been closed within two days? Somehow I doubt it. Phone theft is sudden, shocking and sometimes violent – and it’s on the rise. It should be a priority for the authorities, not an afterthought. Sadly, it has become completely normalised in Sadiq Khan’s London.