Around the House: Starmer aide Liz Twist denies PM is remote - but says 'we can always do better'
Liz Twist told Tom Sheldrick things can always be better - but the PM doesn't ignore backbenchers - during a discussion in the July edition of Around the House for ITV Tyne Tees and Border.
You can see the latest edition of Around The House below on ITVX.
The next edition of Around The House is on Thursday 11 September.
Have you heard our new podcast Talking Politics? Every week Tom, Robert and Anushka dig into the biggest issues dominating the political agenda…
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
25 minutes ago
- BBC News
Fight against Birmingham City Council's youth centre plans
Birmingham councillors are fighting against the city council's divisive youth services plans, amid fears over young people's futures being "put at risk".The council, which is recovering from a financial crisis, has reviewed the service in an attempt to make savings and wants to offload four centres to a third-party are Clifton Road Youth Centre in Sutton Coldfield, Naseby Youth Centre in Alum Rock, Maypole Youth Centre in Druids Heath and Lozells Recreation Labour-run authority wants to retain ownership of four others – Shard End Youth Centre, The Factory in Longbridge, The Lighthouse in Aston and Concord Youth Centre. Two Green Party councillors are now challenging the council cabinet's decision and have requested a "call-in", asking for it to be looked at again this of them, Julien Pritchard, argued they needed "cast iron guarantees" that youth centres would "stay open as youth centres"."It's incredibly disappointing that Labour councillors approved this and put our youth centres at risk," he said. "If no partner organisation is found, then these youth centres will close. That's an incredible risk to be taking with young people's futures and our communities."Last year young people in Birmingham made their voices heard, protesting and writing to councillors about how vital their youth centres were. Those voices must be listened to."Concerns over the city's youth service have been a recurring theme since the council effectively declared itself bankrupt in September 2023. 'Lives being lost' Fears over Birmingham's youth service have also been voiced by campaigners, including Alison Cope, whose teenage son Joshua Ribera was killed in a knife attack in 2013."Parents, schools and youth services are all struggling already," she warned last year."What is the priority for Birmingham? What does the council want? Does it want Birmingham to be a place where people feel welcome and safe to travel?"They are going to make cuts but let's make sure it's not going to result in lives being lost."The call-in request will now be considered at a council scrutiny meeting on Friday. Despite concerns, Mick Brown, the Labour cabinet member for children and families, recently said the plans provided a "clear and balanced approach" to managing the authority's youth service."[They propose] retaining key buildings in council ownership where direct delivery remains essential," he said during a cabinet meeting last month."But we're also ensuring we explore options like transferring other sites to trusted third-party providers who will continue to deliver youth services from those locations."This is about modernising our approach, ensuring that money we spend delivers the maximum value for our young people."He said that every site identified for transfer had at least two viable partner organisations. Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
What's the best thing world leaders could do now? 'Let go' and 'embrace uncertainty'
If there is one thing that has marked the first year of Keir Starmer's premiership, it is a propensity for control – whether it's managing his own party, cracking down on civil liberties and protest, or instilling fear and anxiety in marginalised groups. For a centre-left party, the authoritarian strain Starmer has shown isn't exactly in line with the 'change' from the Tories that was promised. Governments seek to control populations, politicians seek to control their parties: this is nothing new and has been explicitly promoted since Machiavelli's The Prince was published in 1532. When leaders understand holding power as an end in itself, and see the method as controlling those they have power over, they block themselves from being able to bring about real change, because not 'losing control' becomes more important than any change they seek to create. And attempting to tightly control outcomes is ill suited to an increasingly complex and unstable world. At the same time, a different mode of control exists across the institutions that implement government policy. It is rules-based, promoted by steeply hierarchical structures fostering compliance, with rigid frameworks and inflexible mindsets, alongside a culture of overconfidence. These dynamics might seem benign or indeed necessary for a functioning bureaucracy. However, if out of balance, they can stifle the creative thinking and collaboration required to tackle complex challenges. Whether it is running consultations without the intention of deep engagement or listening, or an inability to incorporate the climate crisis into economic frameworks, by seeking to maintain control, institutions fall short of making meaningful change. Or to put it bluntly, key performance indicators and top-down thinking, combined with overzealous control freakery in government, will not have a chance of tackling climate breakdown, the cost of living crisis, the mental health epidemic or the loss of trust in politics. This situation of overlapping crises is what academics like to call a polycrisis, characterised by radical uncertainty and wicked complexity. Coming out of the pandemic, there has been increased discussion among policymakers recognising the need to acknowledge uncertainty. The value of this is clear: a report commissioned by the European Environment Agency and published in 2002 examined more than 100 years of policymaking, highlighting areas where uncertainty was not sufficiently acknowledged or taken into account when key decisions were made, such as during the BSE crisis. The authors concluded that, on many occasions, what was missing was the need for more humility in public policymaking about what was not known, stating: 'Decision-making is faced with the continual prospect of surprise. This is the condition formerly known as ignorance.' When institutions don't acknowledge what they don't know, they are left exposed and unprepared, and leaders obsessed with control and certainty block themselves from taking seriously differing perspectives. These dynamics are not well suited to a world that is being upended, with fascism and ecological collapse on our doorstep. However, the need for certainty and control isn't confined to the halls of power. Across psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, evolutionary biology and strands of spirituality, it is recognised that our brains are wired for certainty. Neuroscience studies show that the brain responds to uncertainty as a fear-based threat, triggering the threat response centre called the amygdala. There is an evolutionary survival reason for this, to detect and react to danger: 'How will I protect myself if I don't know what's coming at me?' Humans' over-alert threat response is also shaped by culture and society. We have a political-media establishment that is happy to pump out ready opinions that are not only factually baseless and untrue, but also provoke our threat response. And in times of economic decline and uncertainty, there is an opportunity for far-right groups to hijack and trigger emotional and psychological reactions towards marginalised groups. When imaginary fears are adopted and promoted by those in power, this isn't a mistake: it is a way to control. The dominant mode of power that continues to operate in society, and certainly in the Labour party today, is 'power over', which is built on control, domination and coercion. Leadership exerts pressure and stress, which can often make our amygdala threat response fire off. People become paranoid and go into overdrive trying to control everything. To an extent, I understand these responses. As an overconfident 27-year-old when I took on a director role, I certainly had an urge to control everything. I had to work hard against that tendency in order to lead in a collaborative way. The phrase 'holding uncertainty' was useful for me, because it meant I didn't always trust my first reaction in situations, or the narratives my brain was telling me. It reminded me to take on board different opinions, rather than simply dismiss them. Of course I made mistakes, but I was also open to examining my own controlling and perfectionistic tendencies. 'Embracing uncertainty' or 'letting go' has been mostly limited to the pages of self-help books, but letting go on an individual level doesn't make sense if you can't pay your rent, or your family is getting deported. However, if we apply it to our institutions, power centres, systems and structures, it can be a direction of travel against authoritarianism, moving us towards co-creation, pluralist thinking that goes beyond siloed categories, and building coalitions against the far right. We are a quarter of the way through this century, and the IPCC climate change report says that global temperature increase could be up to 5.7C by 2100, making much of the world unliveable. At the same time, fascism is on the rise. Renewing our democracies, shifting to a healthier culture, tackling the climate crisis and reorienting the economy will only happen if we shift our culture and institutions away from control. We need to let go. What have we got to lose? Fran Boait is a leadership coach, freelancer and writer
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Britain's AI hopes face harsh reality of high electricity costs
LONDON, Aug 7 - Britain's ambition to rev up its economy and tap the AI revolution faces the harsh reality that the abundant, clean and reliable electricity supply this requires is unlikely to materialise any time soon. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has laid out several major industrial policies aimed at reviving Britain's sluggish economy, including by pouring investment into the artificial intelligence industry, which the government says would increase productivity and create over $50 billion of gains per year. Data centres that power AI are, however, highly energy intensive, often requiring a stand-alone source of energy to operate. Electricity demand in the UK is set to grow from 319 terawatt hours in 2024 to 450 TWh in 2035, according to grid operator NESO, with power demand from data centres expected to triple over that period. But the government's current plans, opens new tab to meet these needs by modernising and expanding the country's ageing power system, particularly through low-carbon energy, could, paradoxically, complicate these efforts by further increasing Britain's already lofty energy costs. UK domestic power prices are among the highest of any developed economy. Wholesale electricity prices rose by 40% in the first half of 2025 from a year earlier to an average of $115 per megawatt hour, largely due to increased use of gas-fired power generation amid cold weather and reduced wind output, according to the International Energy Agency. That compares with average prices of $100 per MWh in Germany, $73 in France and $48 in the United States. The British government says it wants to reduce energy prices by minimizing the grid's reliance on volatile natural gas prices, boosting renewable power generation, battery storage solutions, transmission infrastructure and grid connections with neighbouring countries. But these upfront investments will – at least initially – raise the cost of energy for consumers. Offshore wind is the flagship of Britain's renewable energy strategy. The government aims to boost offshore wind generation capacity to 43-50 gigawatts by the end of the decade, from around 15 GW currently. Yet rising construction and financing costs led the government last month to increase the ceiling for the guaranteed price offered for offshore wind projects, or strike price, in this year's auction by 11% from the previous round. That followed a 66% rise in last year's auction. The actual strike price in the upcoming contract for difference (CfD) auction that starts this month could well be lower than the government ceiling. Danish developer Orsted in May halted the development of the 2.4 GW Hornsea 4 offshore wind project due to rising costs. Nuclear power is another low-carbon option the UK is exploring. The government announced on July 22 that it had secured investments to develop the Sizewell C nuclear plant in eastern England, Britain's second new nuclear plant in as many decades, which is expected to be operational by 2030. Nuclear power has the advantage of providing steady, low-carbon energy. But the current development cost of 38 billion pounds ($51 billion) for Sizewell is nearly double the initial estimate made earlier this decade, bumped up by inflation and higher material costs. Such cost overruns are quite common in nuclear projects. Focusing energy policy primarily on offshore wind and nuclear thus could further increase power bills, making British industry less competitive and voters less supportive of the energy transition. So does the government have any viable alternatives? Andrew Birch, CEO of OpenSolar, argues that Britain should fully liberalise its power market. This would mean removing subsidies such as CfDs and allowing the market to determine which forms of energy can most efficiently meet consumer needs. The idea has its merits, but given the crucial importance of energy to Britain's economy and security, particularly amid the energy transition and AI race, the government is unlikely to be willing to give up control. Another option would be transforming the UK's outdated, highly centralised power system into a digital operation built around many small generators and battery storage farms. That would have the added benefit of increasing the grid's efficiency. However, it would require billions of pounds in upfront costs. Of course, all of the infrastructure and investments could be assessed through general taxation rather than via energy bills, reducing consumers' sticker shock each month. But the only thing voters hate as much as high energy prices is higher taxes, so this option is unlikely to have significant political support. That would leave greater private-public partnerships and government debt-financed investment as possible solutions. The latter would need to be communicated clearly with markets to avoid any sustained backlash. UK investment in renewables, nuclear, batteries and transmission – if properly planned and executed – could ultimately pay off, but given all the challenges, the major benefits likely won't be seen for at least another decade, and this spells trouble for Britain's power-hungry AI ambitions. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tab your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
