Keir Starmer's ageing visibly, overwhelmed by events and has no plan but to blow your money. It's pathetic to watch. He's finished: DANIEL HANNAN
Sir Keir Starmer seems smaller, greyer, older. Marginalised on the world stage, under siege from Labour MPs, unable to push through even the tiniest reforms to slow the growth in public spending, the PM comes across as… well, spent.
In just over a week's time, he will mark his first anniversary in No 10. Can it be just 12 months ago that his election was hailed as a return to normality and seriousness?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Number of Brits who see US as a global threat doubles since Donald Trump came to power
The number of Britons who see the US as a serious threat to global security has skyrocketed since Donald Trump entered the White House in January, new research shows. Even before the president bombed Iran at the weekend, almost three quarters of those asked — 72 per cent — named the US as a threat to world peace in the next decade. Researchers said the figure, which has doubled since last autumn, when it was just 36 per cent, was an 'all time high'. And it rivals China, on 69 per cent, Israel, on 73 per cent, and North Korea, on 77 per cent, although the highest was Russia on 90 per cent. In recent months, Trump has alarmed the international community on a number of occassions, including when he raised doubts about his willingness to defend European countries and when held a televised showdown with Ukrainian President Zelensky in the Oval Office. The latest British Social Attitudes (BSA) report, by the National Centre for Social Research, shows fears over the US' role in the world is split along political party lines. Labour and Green supporters are more likely — by 81 and 96 per cent — than those who back the Conservatives or Reform UK — 68 and 41 per cent — to consider the US a serious threat. The survey also shows that increased public concern over potential threats has led to a significant increase in support for defence spending. Almost one in ten — 9 per cent — believe defence should be the top priority for extra government spending, the highest figure ever recorded in the survey. Again, however, there are marked differences by party, with Conservative and Reform supporters more likely to be in favour than those who back Labour or the Greens. Gianfranco Addario, research director at the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), told The Independent the research did not go into the reasons why those who took part believe the US to be a significant threat, but said 'that would be very interesting to explore'. He added: 'The escalation of recent international conflicts is clearly reflected in the attitudes of the British population, who have never been so supportive of military spending and so concerned about serious security threats since the British Social Attitudes survey first addressed the subject in 1985. 'Perception of the US as a security threat has increased since the 2024 presidential elections and the first 100 days of the Trump administration, reaching an all-time high. 'The Labour government's approach to addressing these concerns, particularly in navigating internal party divisions while aligning with public sentiment, will be crucial in determining its success in managing the country's security and defence policies.' The British Social Attitudes survey has been conducted every year since 1983.
Reuters
33 minutes ago
- Reuters
Israel-Iran war highlights Mideast's declining influence on oil prices
LONDON, June 25 - The contained move in oil prices during the Israel-Iran war highlights the increasing efficiency of energy markets and fundamental changes to global crude supply, suggesting that Middle East politics will no longer be the dominant force in oil markets they once were. The jump in oil prices following Israel's surprise attack on Iran was meaningful but relatively modest considering the high stakes involved in the conflict between the Middle East rivals. Benchmark Brent crude prices, often considered a gauge for geopolitical risk, rose from below $70 a barrel on June 12, the day before Israel's initial attack, to a peak of $81.40 on June 23 following the United States' strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Prices, however, dropped sharply that same day after it became clear Iran's retaliation against Washington – a well-telegraphed attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar that caused limited damage – was essentially an act of de-escalation. Prices then fell to below pre-war levels at $67 on Tuesday after U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. The doomsday scenario for energy markets – Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of the world's oil and gas supplies pass – did not occur. In fact, there was almost no disruption to flows out of the Middle East throughout the duration of the conflict. So, for the time being, it looks like markets were right not to panic. The moderate 15% low-to-high swing during this conflict suggests oil traders and investors have slashed the risk premium for geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. Consider the impact on prices of previous tensions in the region. The 1973 Arab oil embargo led to a near quadrupling of oil prices. Disruption to Iranian oil output, opens new tab following the 1979 revolution led to a doubling of spot prices. Iraq's invasion of neighbouring Kuwait in August 1990 caused the price of Brent crude to double to $40 a barrel by mid-October. And the start of the second Gulf war in 2003 led to a 46% surge in prices. While many of these supply disruptions – with the exception of the oil embargo – ended up being brief, markets reacted violently. One, of course, needs to be careful when comparing conflicts because each is unique, but the oil market's response to major disruptions in the Middle East has – in percentage terms, at least – progressively diminished in recent decades. There are multiple potential explanations for this change in the perceived value of the Middle East risk premium. First, markets may simply be more rational than in the past given access to better news, data and technology. Investors have become extremely savvy in keeping tabs on near-live energy market conditions. Using satellite ship tracking and aerial images of oilfields, ports and refineries, traders can monitor oil and gas production and transportation, enabling them to better understand supply and demand balances than was possible in previous decades. In this latest conflict, markets certainly responded rationally. The risk of a supply disruption increased, so prices did as well, but not excessively because there were significant doubts about Iran's actual ability or willingness to disrupt maritime activity over a long period of time. Another explanation for the limited price moves could be that producers in the region – again, rational actors – learned from previous conflicts and responded in kind by building alternative export routes and storage to limit the impact of any disruption in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, producing around 9 million bpd, nearly a tenth of global demand, now has a crude pipeline running from the Gulf coast to the Red Sea port city of Yanbu in the west, which would have allowed it to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. The pipeline has capacity of 5 million bpd and could probably be expanded by another 2 million bpd. Additionally, the United Arab Emirates, another major OPEC and regional producer, with output of around 3.3 million bpd of crude, has a 1.5 million bpd pipeline linking its onshore oilfields to the Fujairah oil terminal that is east of the Strait of Hormuz. Both countries, as well as Kuwait and Iran, also have significant storage facilities in Asia and Europe that would allow them to continue supplying customers even through brief disruptions. Perhaps the most important reason for the world's diminishing concern over Mideast oil supply disruptions is the simple fact that a smaller percentage of the world's energy supplies now comes from the Middle East. In recent decades, oil production has surged in new basins such as the United States, Brazil, Guyana, Canada and even China. OPEC's share of global oil supply declined from over 50% in the 1970s to 37% in 2010 and further to 33% in 2023, according to the International Energy Agency, largely because of surge in shale oil production in the United States, the world's largest energy consumer. To be sure, the global oil market was well supplied going into the latest conflict, further alleviating concerns. Ultimately, therefore, the Israel-Iran war is further evidence that the link between Middle East politics and energy prices has loosened, perhaps permanently. So geopolitical risk may keep rising, but don't expect energy prices to follow suit. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tabyour 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
South Wales Argus
35 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
World leaders gather to discuss defence amid Israel-Iran tensions
Sir Keir Starmer is among those in The Hague for a gathering of the alliance, having called on the Middle Eastern nations to maintain the pause in hostilities. In a conversation with the French and German leaders at the summit on Tuesday, Sir Keir 'reflected on the volatile situation in the Middle East,' according to a Downing Street spokeswoman. The leaders agreed that 'now was the time for diplomacy and for Iran to come to the negotiating table', the spokeswoman added. It comes as intelligence reports in the US suggested that the American attack on Iran's nuclear programme over the weekend have only set it back by a few months, rather than destroyed it as Donald Trump previously suggested. The White House pushed back on the reports on Tuesday evening, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying it was 'flat out wrong'. 'The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear programme,' she said in a statement. Mr Trump also condemned the leak in a post on Truth Social, calling the US raid 'one of the most successful military strikes in history'. 'THE NUCLEAR SITES IN IRAN ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED! BOTH THE TIIMES AND CNN ARE GETTING SLAMMED BY THE PUBLIC!' he wrote. Earlier on Tuesday, Sir Keir had said that the US had helped in 'alleviating' the threat of nuclear capability for Iran with their strikes on Saturday. Asked on his visit to The Hague whether he personally felt safe with Mr Trump in the White House and why others should, the Prime Minister told Channel 5 News: 'Look, I think what we've seen over the last few days is the Americans alleviating a threat to nuclear weaponry by the Iranians and bringing about a ceasefire in the early hours of today. 'I think now what needs to happen is that ceasefire needs to be maintained, and that will be the focus of our attention, our engagement, our discussions, because that ceasefire provides the space for the negotiations that need to take place.' Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said on Tuesday the US had helped in 'alleviating' the threat of nuclear capability for Iran (Kin Cheung/PA) After the ceasefire was initially struck early on Tuesday, Israel claimed Iran had violated the deal by carrying out strikes after it came into force. Mr Trump called for Israel to withdraw its warplanes, and claimed both it and Iran 'don't know what the f*** they're doing' as he departed for the summit in the Netherlands. The UK has continued to evacuate Britons out of Israel, and a second flight left Tel Aviv on Tuesday. The Foreign Office confirmed the plane had left Israel and said further flights would be considered depending on demand. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have said that MPs should be given a vote in the event of any future deployment of troops. The party's foreign affairs spokesman Calum Miller said: 'With the Middle East in the throes of an all-out regional war, we are reckoning once again with the prospect of the UK becoming embroiled in foreign conflict. 'No one knows the fragility of peace in that region, or the price paid for our safety, better than our British troops. It's critical that, if they are asked to put their lives on the line for the UK in active conflict zones, this decision is subject to the strongest democratic scrutiny our country can offer.'
