He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I think there will be a couple of others.
Louise Haigh will get a mid-level to senior cabinet post. I'd put her back to Transport like a shot.
And Anneliese Midgley, who I could see getting some sort of interdepartmental role as a fixer, as she is very well connected. Cabinet Office?
That's not really based on my deep knowledge, but more on listening to (I hope) informed commentary.
The best thing about moving Miliband to CofE is that he would no longer be able to cause economic damage at Environment.
Whilst the economic damage done at Environment can barely be underestimated I fear that as Chancellor he would have even more opportunities to damage our economic future.
Yes, you’re right. I can’t think of any job where he wouldn’t cause damage.
TRUMP SPARKS DIPLOMATIC CRISIS WITH ITALY: Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani has canceled his planned June 21–22 trip to Washington after President Trump insulted Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, claiming she “begged” for a photo with him at the G7 and that he “felt sorry for her.”
Meloni released a video firing back at Trump’s comments, calling them “completely fabricated.”
“I am frankly appalled,” she said. “I don’t know why the President of the United States behaves this way towards his allies.”
She added that Trump appears to show more accommodation toward “the enemies of the West” than America’s allies and concluded by saying: “Italy and I never beg.” https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/2067940653401596320
Politico have an interesting article on a similar theme, 2nd term Trump is losing support from nationalists across the world as he has switched from nationalism in his first term to imperialism today.
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I think there will be a couple of others.
Louise Haigh will get a mid-level to senior cabinet post. I'd put her back to Transport like a shot.
And Anneliese Midgley, who I could see getting some sort of interdepartmental role as a fixer, as she is very well connected. Cabinet Office?
That's not really based on my deep knowledge, but more on listening to (I hope) informed commentary.
Yes I can see both of them getting mid level appointments. They are the key members of Burnham's inner circle.
From what the NS was saying about Louise Midgeley, she is a little like a Mandelson without the vanity, the aspiration to be a rich global mover and shaker, and the dodgy moustache. She apparently landed the nomination in Knowsley, now one of the top 10 safest Labour seats in the country, from a standing start whilst not having much support from the leadership.
The most frustrating thing about O&G is the amount of focus it gets despite it being, in the grand scheme of things, a rounding error to the economy and our energy security - particularly looking forward over the next 50 years.
It’s the equivalent of the left wittering on about the monarchy. Sure, it’s absurd and you wouldn’t design it that way, but it’s a waste of time and energy when there are much more important topics to deal with.
Scotland is generating 40TWh of electricity a year - double our consumption, and that’s before you take into account curtailment. The UK already has 100 GWh of battery capacity and on current trends/planning will have well over 500 GWh by 2030 (including V2G). We have barely any solar and yet we’re already peaking at 15GW.
On May 26 his body was found on a Norfolk beach. He had fallen from a coastal path that runs past Sheringham Golf Club. Although he was depressed, it is entirely possible that this was an accident, given that one of his poems refers to his typically reckless habit of urinating from the top of a cliff. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2026/06/17/peter-pegnall-poetry-education-norfolk-seamus-heaney/ (£££)
We know no king but the King in the North, whose name is Burnham.
I am old enough to remember when Burnham was a ridiculous figure of fun who had 'blown it' and been done up like a kipper by masterful statesman SKS at the Labour Party conference.
Funny that righties are telling us that Badenoch has progressed from being an inexperienced foot-in-mouth no-hoper to Mother Theresa inside a year but Burnham can't possibly have changed or improved over the last few years.
"It;'s also worth noting that the International annual rate of jobs decline in mature oil fields is set at somehwere between 2-4% so from 1980 to 2030 the natural decline would be from about 130k to around 50k on a 2% decline. or roughly where we will are now regardless of Government policy."
Sorry but I do laugh when people make such ill informed comments.
What the hell has the decline in jobs in mature oil fields got to do with anything. Of course they decline. But then you find NEW oil and gas fields to replace them. There is still an estimated recoverable 15 billion BOE equivalent in the UK sector - set against total UK production since the start of the North Sea of 37 billion BOE equivalent. So there are decades of oil and gas still to be developed. Oh and every prediction ever made for the North Sea since it started has underestimated the reserves.
Those job declines are by no means inevitable except due to political decisions
His comment about basin collapse was interesting, but he failed to observe that it's more likely to happen if new drilling and extraction is discouraged.
No it is going to happen at some point because regardless of new drilling there will be eventual decline and what we need to do is accept that and prepare as best we can before it happens. New development will delay it but it is going to happen.
It's a bit like sending reinforcements to a position you can't hold.
You can delay it but you risk losing more men when it falls.
Best to send only enough to hold long enough to prepare a btetter line of defnce and then get as many out first before it falls.
I don't have a problem with some new marginal developments if they make sense, but ignoring the long term outcome becuase you don't want to face it, is burying your head in the sand.
Peter.
No burying of heads in sand - I think Richard is far more familiar with both the geology and economics of the N Sea, than either you or me (certainly me).
Much like fisherman who say there's "Plenty of Fish !" when there isn't there is nothing stopping people knowledgable about an Industry being as prone to believing what they want too over whats' true.
Nuclear, Coal, Oil & Gas, Fisheries, any community with it's core livelihood under threat, they all put forward every argumnet they can think of, even if contradictory.
I was once involved in a school amalgamantion where the parents argued the village needed the school because;
a) There was planning for lots of houses so they needed a school and
b) Without a school the village would die!
Really? If they are going to build all the house then clearly the village isn't going to die . If the village dies they won't build the houses.
The two schools we're less than a mile apart and the bridge between the two villages was less than 100 yards long!
Two great communities full of good intelegent people, but who none the less, they would have backed pretty much anything to keep their school open.
Peter.
In the case of the North Sea, we have the Norwegians as the example of a different approach. On some cases their fields are actually continuous with the U.K. side - so, in theory, they will end up extracting material from the U.K. geographic zone.
So, what works for them…
Your not seriously suggesting we can just extract oil from further and further away for ever are you.
Are you trying to delay the inevitable or just trying to deny it?
Peter.
You do not seem to understand.
The oil and gas is there. Right now, the Norwegians are extracting and continuing to work on extracting.
These are economically proven reserves. The cost for extraction is, largely, known.
The Norwegians are choosing to allow the extraction. The U.K. government is not.
The Norwegian policy has been to maximize hydrocarbon revenues, while accelerating the transition to a post hydrocarbon world. It has -I think- been a rather more successful policy than our own.
Economically successful, certainly. Environmentally successful? Maybe not. Despite their widespread adoption of EVs, Norway still has much higher emissions of CO2 per capita than the UK, and their part in maintaining the supply of oil has probably made it more difficult for other countries to wean themselves off the black stuff.
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I don't think Burnham needs to, or wants to, accommodate Starmer. I also don't think Energy Sec meets Streeting's abundant ambition or is something he has any interest in. An interesting appointment for him would be Home Sec. He has views on the far right that could be included in his brief. Mahmoud hasn't shone in the role and most of the Labour party hate her - she can be got rid.
The others are possible, but Burnham would be coming into leadership unencumbered by many obligations to incumbents and with the explicit mandate to clear the Starmer dead wood. He has 400 MPs to choose from and a fair amount of talent. I wouldn't be surprised to see him clear the decks, just as Johnson had little regard for incumbents from the Cameron era.
The most frustrating thing about O&G is the amount of focus it gets despite it being, in the grand scheme of things, a rounding error to the economy and our energy security - particularly looking forward over the next 50 years.
It’s the equivalent of the left wittering on about the monarchy. Sure, it’s absurd and you wouldn’t design it that way, but it’s a waste of time and energy when there are much more important topics to deal with.
Scotland is generating 40TWh of electricity a year - double our consumption, and that’s before you take into account curtailment. The UK already has 100 GWh of battery capacity and on current trends/planning will have well over 500 GWh by 2030 (including V2G). We have barely any solar and yet we’re already peaking at 15GW.
We’ll look back at threads like this and laugh.
Indeed. It's a debate I've nearly stopped engaging in.
From what I see, Miliband has been doing some very important things such as sorting out the order in which projects get their "grid connection" slots to make it "who is ready first" rather than "in order of when they asked". The latter apparently lead to a lot of "shadow applications" to guarantee the slots, which mean there was a 6-7 year backlog comprising solar capacity equivalent to a couple of times our peak electricity demand.
Interesting that Starmer seems determined to stay on. Almost like he hopes the plotters will back off if they have to get their hands dirty.
I suspect he is bewildered by it all.
Know a few people in this mould. Always worked hard. Top marks at School and Uni. Mostly worked in the public sector or adjacent. Can't understand why they get passed over/lose their jobs when they haven't done anything wrong, according to their conception of morality and success (i.e. working had)....
“But I followed the Process. Yes, plane crashed and everyone died. But my documentation was impeccable.”
It is possible Starmer is just going through the motions here to keep the ball in the air over the weekend and come Monday the men in boiler suits will have a chat and he will announce a date for standing down.
I suspect the argument now is how long can be negotiate so he has a swan song summer of international visits etc.
He’d be OK, and would probably enjoy, being next FS. Surely that’s the deal?
He has to find room for Rayner and Streeting (and himself). i think Reeves, Cooper and Lammy are for the chop.
The simplest and least disruptive is; Rayner -> Deputy PM replacing Lammy (but Burnham first see below) Miliband -> COE replacing Reeves Streeting -> Energy replacing Miliband Starmer -> Foreign Sec replacing Cooper. Everyone else stays in place pro temp.
But a first step could be Burnham -> deputy PM replacing Lammy with Starmer staying in place for a few months to provide a managed handover. This would a Blair/Brown type of relationship with an agreed timetable to minimise disruption.
The alternative is a nasty civil war with senior ministers taking sides. I think Burnham, being a friendly accommodating chap, will seek to persuade Starmer to take the least disruptive route, and be rewarded with the role of Foreign Secretary - which I think he enjoys most and most suits him.
Check back here later to see what actually happens.
I think there will be a couple of others.
Louise Haigh will get a mid-level to senior cabinet post. I'd put her back to Transport like a shot.
And Anneliese Midgley, who I could see getting some sort of interdepartmental role as a fixer, as she is very well connected. Cabinet Office?
That's not really based on my deep knowledge, but more on listening to (I hope) informed commentary.
The best thing about moving Miliband to CofE is that he would no longer be able to cause economic damage at Environment.
Comments
https://www.midjourney.com/medical/blogpost
They are using the Butterfly ultrasound transceiver arrays, which is proven technology.
The proof of principle, which was published in Nature, used a single ultrasound transmitter and an array of 512 receivers,
https://coilab.caltech.edu/documents/34537/Garrett-2026-NatureBME.pdf
They will be using 40 of the Butterfly arrays, which each contain 8960 transceivers.
https://www.butterflynetwork.com/iq3
https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw18792/Peter-Mandelson
It’s the equivalent of the left wittering on about the monarchy. Sure, it’s absurd and you wouldn’t design it that way, but it’s a waste of time and energy when there are much more important topics to deal with.
Scotland is generating 40TWh of electricity a year - double our consumption, and that’s before you take into account curtailment. The UK already has 100 GWh of battery capacity and on current trends/planning will have well over 500 GWh by 2030 (including V2G). We have barely any solar and yet we’re already peaking at 15GW.
We’ll look back at threads like this and laugh.
On May 26 his body was found on a Norfolk beach. He had fallen from a coastal path that runs past Sheringham Golf Club. Although he was depressed, it is entirely possible that this was an accident, given that one of his poems refers to his typically reckless habit of urinating from the top of a cliff.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2026/06/17/peter-pegnall-poetry-education-norfolk-seamus-heaney/ (£££)
NEW THREAD
The others are possible, but Burnham would be coming into leadership unencumbered by many obligations to incumbents and with the explicit mandate to clear the Starmer dead wood. He has 400 MPs to choose from and a fair amount of talent. I wouldn't be surprised to see him clear the decks, just as Johnson had little regard for incumbents from the Cameron era.
From what I see, Miliband has been doing some very important things such as sorting out the order in which projects get their "grid connection" slots to make it "who is ready first" rather than "in order of when they asked". The latter apparently lead to a lot of "shadow applications" to guarantee the slots, which mean there was a 6-7 year backlog comprising solar capacity equivalent to a couple of times our peak electricity demand.
Perhaps Ed Milliband will be kept at Energy !