House of Commons? More like the house of horrors

Residual haunting is the idea that ghosts are doomed to repeat on loop the same events for eternity. The House of Commons at 12 o'clock on a Wednesday is a prime example of this; every week, the Prime Minister goes through the same set of stock responses regardless of the questions actually asked. His backbenchers seem to think this is impressive.
Try as she might, the Leader of the Opposition rarely manages to break the cyclical slurry of jargon. This week she came close, however. Mrs Badenoch went hard on Labour's internal divisions. She addressed a couple of her questions more or less directly to Big Ange. Given the Prime Minister's tanking personal approval, she may well be facing her for real this time next year. Later, she asked Labour MPs how they felt having been 'sent over the top' to defend the winter fuel cuts for pensioners before the Prime Minister's latest U-turn. On a good day, the Labour benches look like a catacomb composed almost entirely of the corpses of HR managers, but even they managed a little flicker of resentment at this carefully landed blow.
Mrs Badenoch had noticed the queasiness: 'He can't see them but they all look sick.' This raised the shackles of the LinkedIn vampires on the government benches. Cue great booing and shouting. Sir Lindsay Hoyle was forced to intervene, asking 'who wants to leave first?' in the manner of a school master teaching bottom set English on a Friday afternoon. The air of the delinquent school assembly continued as Mrs Badenoch asked all those who wanted the winter fuel cut to put their hands up. More squawks of indignation.
The Prime Minister simply ignored the question in favour of further boasting about his deal with the EU. 'I went immediately to Lidl and spoke to the staff there,' Oinky informed us. 'They love it!' Just imagine, one minute you're restocking the discount yogurts and the next you're confronted with The Living Adenoid. He was lucky someone didn't mistake him for a self-service checkout.
The Labour back benches took further poundings from both Reform and the Lib Dems. Lee Anderson accused the PM of 'fooling' his back benches over deportation statistics. This wouldn't exactly be difficult; many of his MPs are the sort of people who believe that they've taken 'gullible' out of the dictionary. As if to confirm this, the goon triad of Big Ange, Lucy Powell and Yvette Cooper nodded simultaneously – their heads wobbling in perfect unison like a row of bobble-head dogs in the back of a car.
Still, there might still be some hope for the Labour back benches: Alistair Carmichael, who presides over the environment and rural affairs select committee, ratted out a few of their number as not actually agreeing with the Government's suicidally vindictive tax on family farms. Mr Carmichael has the air of an Old Testament prophet and a voice like millionaire's shortbread. The Prime Minister, by contrast, has a voice like a sinus infection and the air of a traffic warden. The former's considered plea for reconsideration was batted off by the latter with more of those ghoulish recycled phrases. The sooner this residual haunting is exorcised, the better.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Guardian

31 minutes ago

• The Guardian

Europeans back higher defence spending amid Russia threat, poll finds

Faced with an unpredictable Donald Trump and an aggressive Russia, Europeans favour increased spending on defence and, in some countries, compulsory military service. A survey of 12 countries for the European Council on Foreign Relations showed majorities for increased defence spending in Poland (70%), Denmark (70%) and the UK (57%). Support was softer elsewhere, but large minorities in Germany (47%), Spain (46%) and France (45%) also backed bigger military budgets. Italy was an outlier: only 17% favoured higher spending, with 57% against. Europeans in several countries supported reintroducing mandatory military service, with the crucial exception of 18- to 29-year-olds – those most likely to be called up in any armed conflict. People in France (62%), Germany (53%) and Poland (51%) were the strongest supporters of military service. Opposition to the idea outweighed support in countries including Italy (50% against), the UK (53%), Spain (56%) and Hungary (58%). Older people were keenest on the draft. In Germany, for example, a net total of 49% of over-70s supported military service, while a net total of 46% of 18- to 29-year-olds opposed the idea. The research also found the European public divided sharply over Trump, whose return to the US presidency has scrambled traditional allegiances to Washington. Countries with traditionally strong ties with the US are becoming increasingly sceptical of the US system: in the UK and Germany, majorities of 74% and 67% think it is broken. 'EU-US relations are now increasingly ideological,' the ECFR's Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard wrote in a paper to accompany the findings. 'In many respects the relations of the far-right parties to Trump start to resemble the relationship of former communist parties to the Soviet Union in the cold war. They feel obliged to defend Trump and to imitate him.' European far-right parties, which often took inspiration from Vladimir Putin's Russia, now look to Trump's system as a model, the authors suggest. In contrast, voters for mainstream parties are critical of Trump and the US political system. Far-right and national populist allegiance to Trump exists, despite sizeable minorities of voters for those parties seeing his re-election as bad news for Americans. For instance, 34% of AfD voters in Germany, 28% of France's National Rally supporters and 30% of Reform UK voters consider Trump's re-election as 'very bad' or 'rather bad' for Americans. The findings come on the eve of a Nato summit this week where members of the alliance will be asked to raise defence spending to at least 5% of GDP a year by 2032. Spain has already rejected the target as 'unreasonable' and 'counterproductive'. Italy wants to delay the deadline until 2035. Voters in most countries polled are sceptical that Europe can be independent of the US. Citizens in Germany, Spain, Poland and Italy were more likely to say it would be very difficult or practically impossible for the EU to become independent of the US in defence and security. Only in Denmark did a slim majority (52%) consider it was possible for the EU to achieve autonomy in defence and security. Denmark, which is directly threatened by Trump's claims over Greenland, also showed the highest antipathy towards the US president: 86% believe the US political system is broken, while 76% rated Trump's re-election as a bad thing for US citizens. Several European publics support developing an alternative national nuclear deterrent that does not rely on the US, with the strongest support in Poland (60%), Portugal (62%) and Spain (54%). In Germany, support for such an idea was only 39%. The chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has proposed that his country could share nuclear weapons with France and Britain but also said this could not replace the US's protective shield over much of Europe. Sign up to Headlines Europe A digest of the morning's main headlines from the Europe edition emailed direct to you every week day after newsletter promotion In an encouraging sign for Kyiv, most Europeans oppose following the US if Trump pushes Ukraine to cede occupied territories or lifts economic sanctions against Russia. Even in Hungary, which has a government that has consistently slowed agreement on EU sanctions, 40% oppose copying any US move to lift sanctions, while 38% were in favour. In other countries there were strong majorities against emulating any pro-Russia policy on Ukraine that may come from the US. The report's authors suggest two explanations for this support for Ukraine. 'A benevolent interpretation is that Europeans support an autonomous European policy to support Ukraine and they don't want to blindly follow Trump's lead. But another reading of that data is that Europeans want Ukrainians to continue fighting on their behalf.' Leonard said: 'Our poll shows that Europeans feel unsafe and that Trump is driving demand for increased defence spending, the reintroduction of military service and an extension of nuclear capabilities across much of Europe.' Krastev, who is chair of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, said: 'The real effect of Trump's second coming is that the United States now presents a credible model for Europe's far right. To be pro-American today mostly means to be sceptical of the EU; to be pro-European means being critical of Trump's America.' Pollsters commissioned by ECFR spoke to 16,440 adults last month.

Times

an hour ago

• Times

Times letters: Britain and the tinderbox in the Middle East

Write to letters@ Sir, Sir Keir Starmer has called on Iran to 'return to the negotiating table' after the US bombed its nuclear sites. But treating Iran as a legitimate negotiating partner while it refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist only reinforces Tehran's rejectionist stance. History provides a clear road map: recognition leads to peace. Of the 164 countries that now recognise Israel, none are engaged in active warfare with it. Egypt's recognition in 1979 ended decades of conflict. Jordan's recognition in 1994 transformed enemies into sometime partners. The Abraham Accords demonstrated that recognition can unlock prosperity and co-operation even without resolving every regional grievance. Regional issues need and deserve resolution but they cannot be resolved in an environment where a significant power actively works towards the destruction of Israel. Negotiations remain preferable to conflict, but Israel needs to be involved in these talks as a recognised sovereign state. Without recognition and meaningful bilateral negotiations between Israel and Iran, the present situation will continue as a zero-sum game, which Israel simply cannot afford to lose. Tony Morcowitz Brighton and Hove Sir, When Sir Keir Starmer announced the Chagos Islands giveaway, he said that surrendering sovereignty was necessary because the UK had to be seen to uphold international law. Now he has gone on to publish statements in support of the US bombing of Iran. He is publicly supporting a flagrant breach of international law forbidding unprovoked attacks on other nations and, indeed, is speaking in defiance of advice from his attorney-general warning that any attack on Iran could be illegal. The government asserted that the international-law principles embodied by the Chagos deal would earn Britain respect in the 'global south', but in light of the UK's support for Israeli-American actions against Iran, all that the rest of the world will now observe is that Britain's commitment to international law is equivocal and inconsistent. Robert Frazer Salford Sir, International events emphasise the paucity of the UK's air defences, in particular the capability to counter attacks by ballistic missiles. Should the situation deteriorate to the extent that we are threatened, this will be critical, with Britain's best anti-missile defence platforms being six Type 45 destroyers, one of which is deployed with HMS Queen Elizabeth. Other Type 45s may or may not be available, with a number in refit, but ship-based systems are insufficient to defend the entire nation. Recent announcements on defence, from the strategic defence review through to promises to raise spending by a few percentage points in future, will do nothing to repair our non-existent integrated air defence. The government needs to act now and procure anti-ballistic systems. Group Captain Michael Norris St Austell, Cornwall Sir, In the raid on RAF Brize Norton (news, Jun 21), one of the engines on the Voyager aircraft was so badly damaged by the red paint sprayed on it by Palestine Action activists that it is said that the tanker is out of action and a new engine will cost £25 million. Surely this is nonsense: our planes are so vulnerable than an enemy would only have to drop paint over them to make them useless in war time? Brian RJ Simpson Gosport, Hants Sir, My father, Michael Beetham, was station commander of RAF Khormaksar in Aden, Yemen, in the mid-1960s, during a period of heightened tensions. As a small boy, I watched as he set off in the evenings to drive around the perimeter fence in his Land Rover. Sometimes he took me with him. He would stop and talk to personnel and inspect fences. He went on to be the longest-serving Chief of the Air Staff since Lord Trenchard, founder of the RAF. I wonder who carries out such checks these days at bases like Brize Norton? Alex Beetham Woodditton, Cambs Sir, There are many reasons why the House of Lords may not survive in its present form. Hubris is certainly one. For unnamed peers to tell The Times that they will use 'black arts' to 'kill off' the assisted dying bill and employ 'every means possible' to prevent it becoming law is hubris of the highest order (news, Jun 21). The Lords can and should seek to improve the bill through its scrutiny. That is indeed its role. But to seek fundamentally to thwart the will of the elected Commons is not. It is not just the future of the bill that will be at stake in this regard. So too will the future of an unelected second chamber. Sir Leigh Lewis Watford Sir, In just three days the concept of laws being based on Judeo-Christian principles has been removed by the House of Commons. Aborting a full-term unborn child will no longer be a criminal offence and assisting someone to kill themselves was approved. MPs have replaced a morality based on respect for life by a culture of death. Neither these changes were in the Labour Party manifesto and the House of Lords should therefore not feel constrained in refusing to endorse them. Nicholas Bennett Minister of health for Wales, 1990-92; Bromley, Kent Sir, I am horrified by the moral ambiguity demonstrated by the government. After endless debate, the third reading of the assisted dying bill has narrowly been passed, a compassionate piece of legislation that will give terminally ill people more control over their lives. By contrast, after only two hours' debate the government has amended abortion regulations to allow women to have a termination at any stage of their pregnancy, without fear of prosecution. The 24-week limit for legal abortion was set to protect viable foetuses. This amendment sanctions the murder of babies capable of leading independent lives. I hope there is sufficient wisdom among the members of the House of Lords to persuade the Commons to rethink the unethical decision they have made. Frances MacDonald Stratford-upon-Avon Sir, The reports that HS2 may now cost £100 billion came in the same week that Nice concluded the known benefits of the new Alzheimer's drugs lecanemab and donanemab do not justify the expense of funding them through the public healthcare system (news, Jun 19; letter, Jun 21). Given that the government is likely to have to make stark choices in its next budget, the choice of either cutting 30 minutes off journey times between London to Birmingham or extending the meaningful lives of thousands of people each year could not be starker. If Rachel Reeves's repeated statements that her decisions reflect the choice of the people are true, then let's ask them directly which they'd rather have. Dr Barry Johnson Sheffield Sir, Settle to Carlisle is now seen as one of the world's greatest railway journeys. However, the line started out in difficulty and there are some interesting comparisons to be made with HS2. The estimate to build the line was £2 million, but the challenges of building a route through the Pennines resulted in the cost and time to completion doubling. The line opened to freight traffic 150 years ago (passengers a year later). The final cost was about £500 million in today's money, and it took five years to build. Admittedly it is only 72 miles long (compared with 120 miles for HS2) and the hundreds of boys employed were paid half a crown (12.5p) per day. The railway today is a magnificent reminder of the vision of the Midland Railway Company, which sponsored it, and the tenacity and ingenuity of those who overcame the challenges of a hostile environment to build it. I wonder if in 150 years HS2 will be as popular — assuming of course that it is completed. Dr Bryan Gray Hunsonby, Cumbria Sir, It is nothing short of insanity that elite rugby union players are about to embark on a tour to Australia with the British & Irish Lions after another very lengthy domestic season, when there is clear evidence showing a dose-response relationship between head impacts and neurodegenerative disease. The longer and more intensely one plays contact or collision sports, the higher the risk of brain damage. The Lions tour — a gruelling and commercially driven tournament — is being promoted as a pinnacle of achievement. Where is the duty of care to players? Where are the safeguards and transparent risk disclosures? Rugby cannot continue to ignore the realities of repeated brain trauma in pursuit of nostalgia and profit. It must start putting welfare above spectacle. Alix Popham Ret'd professional rugby union player; Welsh international, 33 caps; Newport Sir, You report that the late Queen did indeed carry cash, for betting on the races (news, Jun 21). As a young journalist at The Sun in the Eighties I was sent to report on the Derby. The press box was next to the royal box and we all saw Her Majesty dash down to the front to watch a winner triumph. I was designated to ask her: 'Ma'am, did you have a bet on the winning horse?' I leaned over from the box to be faced by the back of Prince Philip, who was chatting to the Queen. My first attempt was ignored and feeling embarrassed and slightly annoyed I tried again. Philip drifted off and so I repeated the question. 'Did I what?' she replied frostily. Red-faced and sweating I stumbled through it again, when she graced me with a beautiful smile and said: 'Oh no, my dear, I never bet!' The next year a barrier was erected between the two boxes so that she would not be approached again. Muriel Freeman (née Burden) South Shields Sir, Car horns don't need to be loud to be effective (letters, Jun 17-21). When I was living in Bath in the early 1970s I drove an MGB, which I had bought from a friend. He had fitted a trio of strident air horns, but I discovered that if I pressed the button very gently the horns would emit a gasping or panting sound. Being very immature at the time I occasionally made this happen while waiting as a pretty girl crossed the road. This sometimes produced an amused response, but not always. One of the recipients of this attention, a particularly pretty girl, subsequently recognised me when we met at a party and she ticked me off for my uncouth behaviour, which I never repeated. In October we will have been married for 50 years. Richard Le Masurier Milford-on-Sea, Hants Sir, My husband was lucky enough to get ten birthday cards from me last year (letters, 18, 19 & 21). After forgetting to buy one for him I simply added 'and Wendy' to the cards he had received from other people. Wendy Rayner Huddersfield Sir, Dominic Sandbrook's article on class and how to define a gentleman (comment, Jun 21) reminded me of an events notice I saw when stationed in the British Army of the Rhine with the King's Own Scottish Borderers in the mid-60s. Those invited to a Minden Day dance were: 'Officers and their Ladies, NCOs and their Wives, and Other Ranks and their Women-Folk.' Bill Wells Wisbech, Cambs Sir, I've always felt rather proud of the fact that the Yiddish word 'mensch' means much the same as 'gentleman' but without any class implications — or gender implications either; a woman can be a mensch too. Or not, as the case may be. Margaret Lesser Bowdon, Greater Manchester Sir, Mark Twain, as is so often the case, hit the nail on the head. A gentleman, he said, is someone who knows how to play the banjo and doesn't. Dr David Bogod Nottingham Write to letters@

North Wales Chronicle

2 hours ago

• North Wales Chronicle

Farage plans to charge non-doms £250,000 fee which will be given to poor

On Monday, the party leader and MP for Clacton will reveal the policy which he said would 'encourage the return of wealth and talent to the United Kingdom', according to the Telegraph. The Labour Government abolished the non-dom tax status in April, which is where UK residents whose permanent home or domicile for tax purposes is outside the UK. Last year, former Conservative chancellor Jeremy Hunt revealed plans to scrap the tax status before successor Rachel Reeves sped up the process. Reform UK's policy would mean 'every high-net-worth newcoming (or returning leaver)' would pay a £250,000 one-off fee 'in return for a stable, indefinite remittance-style regime on offshore income and a 20-year inheritance-tax shield', Mr Farage wrote in an article for the Telegraph. All of this fee would be given to Britain's lowest-paid full-time workers through an automatic tax-free dividend via HMRC, the party leader added. In response, Labour said the policy was a 'golden ticket for foreign billionaires to avoid the tax they owe in this country'. Mr Farage wrote: 'Our policy is simple – Britain must be a place where success is celebrated, not punished with excessive taxes, crippling energy costs, or punitive inheritance levies. 'We will actively encourage the return of wealth and talent to the United Kingdom, on the clear condition that those who come here deliver immediate, visible benefits to our workers.' The plan would mean around 2.5 million 'hard-working Britons' would receive an 'annual cash bonus', the Reform UK leader claimed. He added: 'Our policy is not a 'golden visa' or a backdoor to citizenship. 'It is a one-time flat tax paid by newcomers in exchange for the certainty of a favourable tax status. 'Individuals will still be liable for all standard UK taxes on UK-sourced income, property and spending. 'But they won't be taxed on offshore income and gains for the duration of their agreed status.' A Labour spokesperson said: 'Nigel Farage can brand this whatever he wants – the reality is his first proper policy is a golden ticket for foreign billionaires to avoid the tax they owe in this country. 'As ever with Reform, the devil is in the detail. 'This giveaway would reduce revenues raised from the rich that would have to be made up elsewhere – through tax hikes on working families or through Farage's promise to charge them to use the NHS.'