The politics of ‘rocket boosters'

Sir Keir Starmer said the other day that he wanted to put rocket boosters under AI. It's not the only thing he wants to put rocket boosters under. In September he said that 'new planning passports will put rocket boosters under housebuilding'. He wasn't the only one. When it was his turn to be prime minister, Rishi Sunak promised to 'put rocket boosters' under construction in areas that were already built up.
Usually rocket boosters are put under things, but Sir Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, was more anatomical in his thoughts, praising a youth mobility scheme that would 'put rocket boosters up businesses in London'. Even so, in 2023 he thought his Ultra-Low Emissions Zone scheme would put rocket boosters under electric car demand.
My husband points out that if you put rocket boosters under things that aren't rockets it will destroy them. Boris Johnson was similarly literal in carrying through the metaphor. In his valedictory speech outside No. 10, he likened himself to a 'booster rocket that has fulfilled its function'. He certainly fell away, but perhaps he would want to think that, like the Space Shuttle rocket boosters, he can be recovered and used again. His successor Liz Truss believed it was 'the moment to put rocket boosters on the economy and get growth going'. However, it was she who blew up.
I find rocket boosters marginally preferable to turbo charging. Someone writing in the Telegraph before the last election was looking for 'the rocket boosters needed to jump-start the economy into growth'. Others rely on the old-fashioned kick-start.
Rocket boosters have been around since the 1940s. But rockets figured in political language long before they found their way into space. In 1782 Tom Paine said of Edmund Burke that, 'as he rose like a rocket, he would fall like the stick'. Rockets are dangerous things. In West Side Story Riff's advice is: 'Get cool, boy./ Got a rocket/ In your pocket,/ Keep coolly cool, boy.' But then, it's Riff who gets killed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Times

3 hours ago

• Times

What war in the Middle East means for your money

The conflict between Israel and Iran is the latest geopolitical shock set to hamper the outlook for the UK economy — and, ultimately, your bank balance. Since the attacks began on June 12, the price of oil has risen to a six-month high. Hopes for interest rate cuts have been dashed, fears of rising inflation have been amplified, and any respite from stock market turmoil appears to have been short-lived. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts This week the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, said: 'I'm always concerned about the effect of international issues on people back at home. You saw with Ukraine the direct impact it had on energy bills. Equally, with this conflict, you can see the effect it's having on the economy, particularly on the price of energy.' From petrol prices to pension pots, here's what you need to know: Iran is the third-largest oil producer among the 12 members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), and there are worries about how a wider regional war could affect the transport of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for about 25 per cent of seaborne crude oil transportation, according to the consultancy Capital Economics. The price of a barrel of Brent crude hit a six-month high of about $78 after Israeli attacks on Iran began, up from about $65 at the start of this month. That is bound to have a knock-on effect on motorists, said David Oxley from Capital Economics: 'A rough rule of thumb is that a $10 rise in the oil price will add about 7p to the price at the pump.' It normally takes about two weeks for oil prices to feed into pump prices, Oxley said. Motorists have, however, had some recent respite from the cost of living crisis as petrol and diesel prices hit their lowest in almost four years. Petrol cost an average of 132p a litre last month, the lowest since July 2021, while diesel was at 138p, the lowest since September 2021, according to the motoring organisation the RAC. While prices are likely to rise, they are not expected to reach the high of March 2022, when Russia's invasion of Ukraine caused the oil price to reach $127 per barrel. The price in sterling peaked in July of that year at more than £100 with pump prices hitting 192p per litre for petrol and 199p per litre for diesel. More than a million homeowners whose fixed deals come to an end this year may have their hopes of further interest rate cuts dashed. The lowest two-year fix was 3.72 per cent last month, but rates are starting to tick up again, according to the property portal Rightmove. The lowest two-year deal is now 3.82 per cent from Lloyds Bank for those with a Club Lloyds account. The lowest five-year fixed rate has gone from 3.78 per cent to 3.88 per cent, also from Lloyds. Lenders had been cutting mortgage rates to compete for business, but changed tack after inflation went from 2.6 per cent for the year to March to 3.5 per cent in April. This makes cuts to the Bank of England base rate less likely — the Bank generally keeps the rate high when inflation is above its target of 2 per cent. The Consumer Prices Index inflation figure for the year to May, released this week, was 3.4 per cent. Uncertainty around President Trump's trade tariffs and conflict in the Middle East has also dampened hopes of further base rate cuts. The Bank held rates at 4.25 per cent this week, which, although a lot higher than the sub 2 per cent rates many mortgage holders will have fixed at three or five years ago, is down from the peak of 5.25 per cent in August last year. Fixed mortgage rates are based on swap rates (the rates at which banks lend to each other, which are in turn based on forecasts of where Bank rate is expected to be in the future), which have edged up over the past week or so, suggesting that mortgage rates could follow. Homeowners who want certainty can lock in a new deal up to six months before theirs ends yet still swap if a cheaper deal comes along. Rising oil prices could also cause other expenses to creep up, particularly if the Iran conflict continues or escalates. Lotanna Emediegwu, an economics lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University, said that prolonged conflict could drive up energy bills. The price cap that limits how much suppliers can charge customers on standard variable tariffs will work out at an average bill of £1,720 a year for gas and electricity from July 1 (down 7 per cent from today's cap). At the moment analysts expect the cap to go up 2 to 3 per cent in October, but this could change dramatically. He said: 'Until recently, fuel prices had been rising less than other things, so actually mitigating some inflationary pressures. The recent conflict is expected to reverse this trend. 'The financial repercussions extend beyond immediate energy costs into transportation and logistics. Transport expenses are particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in fuel prices. This affects everything from airline fares to shipping costs for products, ultimately hitting consumer prices.' Before June 12, when Israel launched strikes on Iran, inflation had been expected to rise to 3.5 per cent by the autumn — now it could go further. A sustained $10 per barrel rise in the oil price typically pushes up annual inflation by 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points, according to The Economist, meaning that it could be closer to 3.7 per cent by September. Emediegwu said a prolonged blockade of the Strait of Hormuz shipping route could add a further 0.5 to 1 percentage points, which could take it close to 5 per cent. So far the stock market has been fairly resilient to the conflict in the Middle East. The UK's FTSE 100 is down about 0.77 per cent since the turmoil started, while the US's S&P 500 is down about 1.06 per cent. If a sustained conflict leads to an increase in the price of oil, stock valuations may fall — this is because higher oil prices lead to higher inflation, which means interest rates are likely to stay higher for longer, which makes it more expensive for companies to borrow money to grow and often curbs investors' risk appetite. Losers are likely to include airline and travel stocks, as well as so-called growth stocks, which include technology and healthcare companies. Many investors will have exposure to the US 'Magnificent Seven' tech stocks of Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, Tesla, Amazon, Meta and Nvidia. These companies are often valued on their future earnings potential, which means their stock price can be volatile if company results or wider economic conditions point towards a slowdown of earnings. The good news is that Iran and Israel are a very limited part of the global stock market, so direct exposure for most UK investors will be immaterial. However, Michael Field from the research firm Morningstar said that the risk is that wider markets get jittery about the potential for the conflict to escalate further. Investors should avoid making any kneejerk changes to their portfolio. Ultimately, while geopolitical tensions may create short-term turmoil, historically markets have been resilient in the long term. Jacob Falkencrone from the investment bank Saxo said: 'As an investor, your greatest tool is a disciplined approach — staying informed, remaining calm and focusing on your long-term investment goals rather than reacting impulsively to temporary shocks.'

Daily Mail​

5 hours ago

• Daily Mail​

Lords peers vow to fight law on assisted dying as they warn it may not 'see the light of day' despite narrow backing by MPs

Campaigners last night vowed to fight the assisted dying Bill in the Lords after MPs moved to legalise it in a historic vote. In a sign of the concern about the Bill, it passed through the Commons by just 23 votes yesterday – 32 fewer than when MPs backed it in principle in November. MPs questioned whether there was a clear mandate to introduce one of the most significant social changes in Britain for decades. And peers vowed there would be an 'attritional' fight when the legislation, decried as a 'bad Bill' after multiple amendments were laid and safeguards stripped out, moves to the House of Lords. One warned that it may not 'see the light of day'. The Commons voted 314 to 291 in favour of allowing terminally ill people to end their lives with the help of the State, meaning that when abstentions are included, a majority of MPs did not back the Bill. Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves voted in favour, while opponents included Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Tory leader Kemi Badenoch. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will undergo further scrutiny in the Lords, but peers said there was 'no constitutional reason' why it could not be amended significantly or even thrown out by the Upper House. Following an emotional debate in the Commons, Ms Leadbeater described the vote as a 'huge moment in time' and said it would 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo and offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people'. TV presenter Dame Esther Rantzen, who has terminal lung cancer and led the campaign for assisted dying, said: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death.' But leading opponent Danny Kruger – whose mother, Dame Prue Leith, was outside Westminster campaigning in favour of the legalisation yesterday – said the vote showed support 'is ebbing away very fast'. The Tory MP added: 'I'm hopeful now, inspired by that debate and by the falling away of support for the Bill, that the Lords will feel they have a real job to do – to examine closely how the Bill will operate and to introduce their own amendments to make it safer, or to reject the Bill altogether.' Tory peer and former Cabinet minister Mark Harper said it was possible the Bill may not 'see the light of day'. Lord Harper, who is against assisted dying, told the Mail: 'It's not a government Bill and it wasn't in anybody's manifesto, so there is no constitutional reason why the Lords shouldn't do its job properly and amend the Bill considerably if required.' Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson – a leading opponent of assisted dying – said disabled people were 'absolutely terrified' about the Bill as she vowed to add significant safeguards in the Lords. It is thought it will take four years to implement the Bill should it clear the remaining stages this year and receive royal assent, meaning the first assisted death in Britain would take place by 2029. This would mark the first time the State sanctioned a death since capital punishment was abolished in 1965, and the Government forecasts that up to 4,500 people could end their lives early each year within a decade. Under the legislation terminally ill people in England and Wales diagnosed with less than six months to live will be allowed to seek medical help to die Opening the debate in the Commons, Spen Valley MP Ms Leadbeater said her Bill proposed a 'robust process that goes further than any other piece of legislation in the world'. She added: 'Giving dying people choice about how they die is about compassion, control, dignity and bodily autonomy. Surely we should all have the right to decide what happens to our bodies and decide when enough is enough.' But after the vote, Tory MP Greg Smith said: 'It is not too late for us to step back from the brink and pull the plug on this Bill, which now lacks majority support in the Commons. I trust the House of Lords to scrutinise the Bill in depth and hope it will never reach royal assent.' Catherine Robinson, from campaign group Right To Life UK, said: 'The Bill leaves the Commons lacking a majority, with fewer than half of all MPs voting for it at its final stage. We will be fighting this Bill at every stage in the House of Lords, where we are confident it can be overturned given its continued loss of support.' The assisted dying Bill that returned to the Commons yesterday was significantly changed from the one presented to MPs at the second reading vote in November. Among radical amendments were the removal of the High Court safeguard – with a senior judge replaced by so-called 'suicide panels' made up of a lawyer, psychiatrist and social worker. The proposed legislation will allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death. Subject to approval by two doctors and an 'expert panel', the terminally ill person would take an approved substance, provided by a doctor but administered only by the person themselves. Religious groups expressed horror at the Bill's passing. Bishop of London the Rt Rev Sarah Mullally, who sits in the House of Lords, said her peers 'must oppose' the Bill due to the 'mounting evidence that it is unworkable and unsafe'.

Sky News

5 hours ago

• Sky News

Sir Keir Starmer tries to contain rebellion among Labour MPs over welfare reforms

Sir Keir Starmer had a series of one-on-one meetings with Labour MPs on Friday to try to contain a rebellion on the government's welfare reforms. Ahead of the assisted dying vote, the prime minister met privately with some of the dozens of MPs with concerns about the proposed cuts to sickness and disability benefits. The first vote on the legislation, which the chancellor says will save £5bn a year from the welfare bill, will be held in early July. The prime minister's involvement at this stage suggests a major effort is underway to quell a potential rebellion. Cabinet ministers say they do not expect mass resignations, but one junior minister told Sky News that opposition to the reforms was "pretty strong". One frontbencher, government whip Vicky Foxcroft, resigned her post yesterday, writing that she understood "the need to address the ever-increasing welfare bill" but did not believe the proposed cuts "should be part of the solution". Other junior ministers and whips have not, as yet, moved to follow her. But one government insider said: "It's difficult to tell if the mood will harden as we get closer. There's a lot of work going on." The package of reforms is aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work, but dozens of Labour rebels said last month that the proposals were "impossible to support". 1:34 Welfare secretary Liz Kendall is also meeting individually with MPs. She said earlier this week that the welfare system is "at a crossroads" and the bill was about "compassion, opportunity and dignity". Ministers are trying to convince MPs that a £1bn fund to support disabled people into work, and the scrapping of the Work Capability Assessment, a key demand of disability groups, make the cuts package worth voting for. They insist that 90% of current claimants of personal independence payment (PIP) will not lose the benefit. But disability groups say the cuts will have a "disastrous" effect on vulnerable people.