Israel’s ground invasion of Lebanon appears to be underway as US-Israeli aggression threatens to pull the entire region into open war. Israel mobilised 100,000 reservists on 2 March and issued threats to civilians. Hezbollah, their primary adversary in southern Lebanon, has said the age of patience is over.

Hezbollah is a Shia political party and paramilitary force. It is distinct from the Lebanese army and has seats in the country’s parliament. The US and Israel launched unprovoked attacks on Iran on 28 February. Hezbollah is a regional ally of the Iranian regime.

Middle East Eye (MEE) reported on 3 March that Israeli forces had pushed deeper into Lebanon:

In a statement on Tuesday, Katz said that he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had authorised the army to “advance and hold additional dominant terrain in Lebanon”.

He said the aim was to “prevent the possibility of direct fire on Israeli communities”.

Advertisement

MEE added

The Lebanese group began launching rockets at northern Israel on Monday, which it said was in retaliation for the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Israel responded with heavy air strikes in southern Lebanon and in Beirut’s southern suburbs, killing dozens and triggering a fresh wave of displacement.

Hezbollah said the ‘era of patience’ is over:

BREAKING: Hezbollah official says’ era of patience has ended’

🔴 LIVE updates: https://t.co/ZGG7iEbuuE pic.twitter.com/9v5ITQrPCf

Advertisement

— Al Jazeera Breaking News (@AJENews) March 3, 2026

And there were reports an Israel tank was hit by a guide missile near the border:

Israeli media reported that an Israeli tank was struck by a guided missile along the border with #Lebanon. pic.twitter.com/NtkSPBfamz

— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) March 3, 2026

Displacement crisis

Reports suggest locals are fleeing north in droves. The Intercept’s Seamus Malekafzali warned:

The whole displacement crisis has become a footnote amidst all of this.

Almost everyone I know in Lebanon is posting appeals to find housing for their relatives, or relatives of friends, who have become displaced from south Lebanon and south Beirut amidst the intense IDF attacks. The whole displacement crisis has become a footnote amidst all of this.

— Séamus Malekafzali (@Seamus_Malek) March 3, 2026

Israel has also intensively bombed Beirut:

Israel claims it is responding to Hezbollah firing rockets into its territory on 2 March:

Yesterday, Hezbollah chose to join the Iranian regime in their terrorist fight against Israel.

Today, they have begun to see the consequences. pic.twitter.com/shNsoo85Ec

— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) March 3, 2026

In theory, Hezbollah breached a US-brokered ‘ceasefire’ with Israel which had held since their last war in 2024. In practice, the US has given Israel carte blanche to strike Lebanon ever since. Israel has done so constantly since the deal was struck.

You can read about the secretive Israel-US ‘side letter’ pact here. And our extensive coverage of Israel’s ceasefire breaches here.

Let it be open war

Middle East Observer reported Hezbollah is moving to a war footing:

⚡️🚨 Deputy Head of the Political Council of Hezbollah, Mahmoud Qomati:

The enemy wanted it to be an open war, so let it be an open war pic.twitter.com/vRUE4eTy07

— Middle East Observer (@ME_Observer_) March 3, 2026

The Lebanese government has also banned Hezbollah’s “military activities”:

#Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun says the decision to ban #Hezbollah’s military activities is “irreversible,” as the Iran-backed movement claimed responsibility for new attacks targeting Israeli positions.https://t.co/qBhrAV36M7

— Al Arabiya English (@AlArabiya_Eng) March 3, 2026

And Lebanese forces in the south have been seen pulling out in anticipation of an Israeli assault:

⚡️🚨 Under the orders of the Lebanese Government, The Lebanese Army withdraws from borderpoints to allow the safe entry of the Chosen People of God’s army and the occupation of Lebanese territory. The Lebanese Government consider the lives of Israeli soldiers as sacred and worth… pic.twitter.com/IeakWNTafS

— Middle East Observer (@ME_Observer_) March 3, 2026

The legacy media seems to be mincing its words about Israel’s actions. Associated Press (AP) reported on 3 March:

The Israeli military said it has sent additional troops into southern Lebanon and took new positions on several strategic points close to the border, while Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency said the Lebanese army was evacuating some of its positions along the border.

They posted on X:

The Israeli military says soldiers are operating in southern Lebanon as part of a broader effort to increase security for residents in northern Israel near their shared border. It says troops are positioned at several points near the border in what it described as a “forward

But Middle East historian and author Assal Rad put more plainly:

So many words to avoid saying invasion. https://t.co/oPE4CG08H8

— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) March 3, 2026

Israel is now bombing Iran and Lebanon at the same time. It’s genocidal assault on Gaza and the West Bank is also still underway. Opening a new front in the war will stretch the settler-colonial state further, but only time will tell what the long term implications are.

Featured image via the Canary

The BBC’s Nick Robinson has asked a guest whether anti-war protests should be “allowed to go ahead” or treated as some kind of treason.

Robinson is a former Tory student president and has a long record as an establishment mouthpiece. In 2017, he blamed the collapse of public trust in ‘mainstream’ journalism on left independent media. In the run-up to that year’s general election, he projected faux-horror that Jeremy Corbyn should say that police cuts – and Britain’s foreign military interventions – were making Britons less safe. He also misquoted Corbyn and then tried to cover it up.

BBC stooge

Robinson is also craven on the topics of Israel and Islamophobia. After the Bondi beach attack in 2025, he scrambled to make clear that he hadn’t really meant to “equalise the suffering of Muslims and Jews”. And in 2024, when he slipped and asked then-foreign secretary David Cameron about Israel’s “attacks and murders” in Gaza, he rushed to X to make clear that:

I should have been clearer that I was not expressing my own view let alone that of the BBC when I used the words “murders”.

But he wasn’t finished. He also wanted to remind his critics that he had also pressed Cameron on the UK “support[ing] Israel in confronting Iran”:

In this 15 minute long interview I asked the Foreign Secretary why ministers had supported Israel militarily; why they didn’t go further & support Israel in confronting Iran.

That’s not how protests work, Nick

Which brings us to this morning, 3 March 2026. Robinson interviewed British-Iranian actor Elika Ashoori. He asked her, with no apparent sense of shame or embarrassment, whether protests against the (illegal) war on Iran should be “allowed to go ahead”:

Ashoori has publicly propagated US-Israeli talking points that the people of Iran celebrated Israel’s murder of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei and his family, despite abundant evidence of mass protests against the murder both in Iran and internationally. She claims to be anti-war. But she didn’t slap Robinson down and tell him not to be such a warmonger and stooge for the terror states that are attacking her country.

No. Instead, she appeared to agree with Robinson’s proposition, implying that attacking Iran was the only option because the “situation” of the Islamic Republic has been “ignored for so long”:

I have been against war all my life. But the war has happened and the reason it has happened is because this situation has been ignored for so long.

In response to Robinson asking her to agree that she wants the Islamic Republic “destroyed”, however, she did at least note that its destruction would not lead to democracy. But, she did not contradict his suggestion of a ban and appeared to endorse it by saying that people should be “studying” Iran instead of protesting against the attacks.

The Starmer regime continues to wage war on freedom of speech and protest in the UK. This applies nowhere more than against speech and protest against Israel’s murders and land theft. Establishment stooges and enablers are all too happy to smooth the path for both kinds of war.

Featured image via the Canary

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has slammed prime minister Keir Starmer’s weakness as war criminals Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu wage war on Iran. He rightly said the UK overwhelmingly opposes the reckless, unprovoked, regime-change war. But establishment voices, including Reform’s Nigel Farage, think differently.

Zack Polanski, “The majority of people in this country do not want our UK bases used by US military (to attack Iran)”

“Starmer can’t stand up to Trump” pic.twitter.com/6AFkt608KG

— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) March 2, 2026

The UK opposes US-Israeli terror in Iran

As is often the case, it seems the far right wants war and everyone else doesn’t. Even Labour voters, despite the flailing leadership of Trump–bootlicker Keir Starmer, oppose it:

Britons likewise oppose the government’s decision to allow US aircraft to use UK airbases to launch attacks against missile sites in Iran

Support: 32%
Oppose: 50% pic.twitter.com/ZQylMG6yQv

— YouGov (@YouGov) March 2, 2026

So that’s half the people surveyed that oppose US-Israeli terror in Iran, which has already killed 555 people (including “about 180 young children”). And while many people want the UK to step carefully to avoid provoking the volatile Trump or appearing to support Iran’s government, they’re pretty confident that the UK should just stay out of it.

Israel-lover and posh-boy Trump-imitator Nigel Farage, however, unsurprisingly seems to think the UK should waste money and risk lives on another unwinnable conflict abroad. But considering the amount of opposition in British society to such military interventions, some suggest this position could end up being a problem for Farage:

Farage’s commitment to backing UK involvement in another US led war could prove to be his biggest mistake yet. https://t.co/Hr2O0ZWc1b

— Sangita Myska (@SangitaMyska) March 2, 2026

The establishment media doesn’t seem to be far behind either. It’s already debating, for example, whether the increasingly authoritarian Labour government should ban anti-war protests:

https://t.co/vdwzickt9Q pic.twitter.com/9qeUXVLFgT

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 3, 2026

The Green Party – the UK’s main opposition to Reform in the polls – has been clear in its opposition of Trump’s illegal attacks on Iran. And as Polanski has said, political reactions show the choice voters face:

Reform are the party of foreign wars and high bills.

The Greens want de-escalation and energy security through renewables.

Solar and wind prices don’t fluctuate when rogue US presidents launch illegal bombing campaigns.

The choice is stark. Reform are the party of foreign wars and high bills.

The Greens want de-escalation and energy security through renewables.

Solar and wind prices don’t fluctuate when rogue US presidents launch illegal bombing campaigns. https://t.co/NwAAcehJir

Advertisement

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) March 3, 2026

There’s little faith that Starmer will stand up to Trump. But the Greens have been pushing him to anyway:

.@Keir_Starmer when you were running for Labour leader you promised to introduce this legislation to stop the UK being dragged into illegal wars – it’s time to show you were serious about that. https://t.co/0QTUeu97ki

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) March 3, 2026

If the UK really doesn’t want another repeat of disastrous past interventions, we need to say loudly and clearly: we do not want this war! And we need to make sure the government can’t ignore our voices again.

Featured image via the Canary

What does “stashing” look like?

What should I do if I’ve been “stashed”?

Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered her second Spring Statement on Tuesday afternoon. (Alamy)

4 min read2 hr

On Tuesday, the Chancellor made a House of Commons speech on the state of the economy, which contained no new policy announcements. 

It had been no secret that the government had wanted this year’s Spring Statement to be low on drama, with Treasury sources telling PoliticsHome in the run-up to today that the aim was for little excitement, in contrast to the chaos of the November Budget, which saw a U-turn on income tax and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) accidentally disclose details of government policy before Reeves could announce them to MPs. 

The Labour government has sought to stress the importance of economic stability at a time of international tumult. 

“My plan is the right one; I’m in no doubt about how great the rewards we can be if we stay the course,” Reeves told MPs in the House of Commons on Tuesday. 

“Stability in our public finances; interest rates and inflation falling; living standards rising; more children lifted out of poverty; more appointments in our NHS; more investment in our infrastructure; a growing economy; and more money in the pockets of working people.

“These are the right choices.”

However, while there were some signs of green shoots in the UK economy, the latest OBR forecasts, published on Tuesday, also highlighted some of the challenges facing the government, not least how war in the Middle East could soon impact prices in the UK.

What did we learn in the Spring Statement?

One piece of good news for the Labour government is that borrowing is expected to fall from 5.2 per cent of GDP in 2024-25 to 1.6 per cent in 2030-31, according to the OBR. This is faster than the independent watchdog previously forecast in November.

Inflation is also expected to continue coming down, from 3.5 per cent in 2025, to 2.3 per cent in 2026, to 2 per cent in 2027.

You can expect the Keir Starmer government to make a big deal of this projection, with tackling the cost-of-living being a key part of its agenda.

In less positive news, however, the OBR expects growth to remain broadly unchanged overall between now and 2030, at levels which the Chancellor herself admits she is determined to outperform. Growth has been downgraded from 1.4 to 1.1 in 2025 by the OBR, before hitting levels slightly higher than expected later in the forecast period.

The watchdog also said that unemployment would continue to rise and hit 5.3 per cent later this year, driven by a fall in demand for new hires. However, the level is expected to decrease every year until reaching 4.1 per cent in 2030.

Reeves told MPs: “I’m not satisfied yet with these forecasts; I know that the economy is not yet working for everyone, and that the deep economic scars left by the party opposite [Conservatives], and their mates in Reform, are still blighting the lives of too many people.”

The latest data on welfare spending will also provide a headache for Reeves. According to the OBR, welfare spending will rise by nearly 6 per cent to £330bn this year, driven by pensions and health-related benefits. It is expected to hit £407bn in 2030-31.

The government tried to reform benefits last year but was forced to abandon the plans in the face of a large Labour backbench rebellion. 

The elephant in the room

Crucially, the OBR analysis was carried out before the eruption of war in the Middle East, meaning its economic projections could quickly become out of date. 

The watchdog itself acknowledged this uncertainty in its report published on Tuesday, writing: “Conflict in the Middle East, which escalated as we were finalising this document, could have very significant impacts on the global and UK economies.”

The escalating conflict in the region, centred on Iran, has already resulted in major spikes in global energy prices. These rises could later be felt by consumers in the UK in ways similar to when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered significant inflation. UK wholesale gas prices had risen by around 100 per cent in the last 48 hours at the time of writing.

Reeves told MPs the government’s emphasis on economic stability was “even more important” given the rapid developments in the Middle East. 

“It is incumbent on me and on this government to chart a course through that uncertainty, to secure our economy against shocks and protect families from the turbulence that we see beyond our borders,” the Chancellor said.

Why would cooking pasta in cold water be better?

Why does the cold water method work?

Matthew Jeffery is one of Britain’s most experienced global talent and recruitment leaders, with more than 25 years advising boards and C-suite executives on workforce strategy, skills, and productivity.

Margaret Thatcher’s legacy is now claimed by almost every strand of British politics.

Conservatives invoke her as a model for renewal after defeat, Labour selectively borrows her language of growth and national confidence, and Reform UK increasingly argues that Thatcherism survives outside the modern Conservative Party altogether. At a moment when many centre-right voters feel politically displaced, the question has become unavoidable: would Margaret Thatcher, confronted with Britain’s political and economic circumstances today, have joined Reform UK?

The conditions behind Reform’s rise are real. Britain faces sluggish growth, historically high taxation, regulatory expansion and declining confidence in governing institutions despite more than a decade of Conservative-led government. Voters shaped by Thatcher’s emphasis on enterprise, ownership and limited government increasingly see a political system that appears managerial rather than reforming. Reform presents itself not simply as protest but as correction, claiming to complete an economic project left unfinished.

The question, however, is not whether Reform borrows Thatcherite policies, but whether it reflects Thatcher’s understanding of how political change is achieved. This article argues that it does not. Thatcherism was never merely a policy programme. It was a philosophy of how political authority should be exercised.

For many, Margaret Thatcher remains Britain’s greatest post-war Prime Minister. Bold in conviction and decisive in execution, she reshaped the economic and political landscape of the United Kingdom at a moment of profound national decline. She confronted inflation, restored fiscal discipline, curbed union dominance and re-established Britain as a serious economic power. Privatisation broadened share ownership, revitalised stagnant industries and encouraged individual aspiration. Britain moved from being labelled the “sick man of Europe” to one of the most dynamic economies in the Western world.

As Thatcher herself understood, ideas mattered only insofar as they could be translated into governing authority. Winning arguments was inseparable from winning power.

Understanding why Thatcher would not have joined Reform requires recognising what Thatcherism actually prioritised in practice. Britain again faces conditions that make many Thatcherite principles newly relevant. Lower personal and corporate taxation to stimulate enterprise, deregulation to unlock investment, and a reduced role for the state remain powerful tools for economic renewal. Expanding privatisation, cutting bureaucratic barriers and restoring competitiveness would help stem the accelerating flow of talent and capital to lower-tax economies abroad. Strong law and order, an economically grounded immigration system and sustained investment in defence would reinforce national confidence and security. These ideas are not relics of the 1980s but responses to enduring economic realities.

Thatcher would likely have viewed Brexit sympathetically in principle, grounded in her belief in sovereignty and democratic self-government. Yet she was never an isolationist. A committed advocate of free trade and global markets, she would have regarded Brexit primarily as an opportunity to expand international economic relationships. She may well have been critical of its implementation, particularly the slow pace of securing new trade opportunities and the failure to communicate clear economic benefits to the public. The concept aligned with her philosophy; the execution has struggled to demonstrate its promise.

The Covid pandemic profoundly altered Britain’s fiscal landscape. Extraordinary borrowing stabilised the economy but left a legacy of debt that constrained subsequent governments. Political leadership became increasingly cautious, prioritising fiscal management over structural reform. In doing so, successive administrations drifted away from a central Thatcherite insight: economic growth, not sustained tax burden, ultimately restores public finances. The absence of growth-driven reform prolonged stagnation and contributed to today’s political frustration.

Yet the debate about Reform UK cannot be resolved through policy comparison alone. Thatcherism was defined less by policy detail than by governing instinct.

Reform’s claim to Thatcherite heritage is not purely rhetorical. Its economic positioning has evolved through 2025 and into early 2026, with greater emphasis on fiscal restraint, deregulation and supply-side reform. Senior figures such as Richard Tice increasingly reference the financial liberalisation of the 1980s, while Nigel Farage has shifted messaging toward credibility, investment confidence and state reduction.

Recent Conservative defections have reinforced Reform’s attempt to project governing seriousness. Commitments to respect Bank of England independence, consult investors on fiscal rules and delay tax cuts until borrowing falls reflect an effort to appear economically responsible. Yet these developments also expose a paradox. As Reform absorbs figures associated with recent Conservative governments, it risks becoming less an insurgent alternative and more a reconfiguration of the political establishment it criticises.

The deeper distinction lies elsewhere. Thatcherism sought to transform an existing governing party rather than replace it. When Thatcher became Conservative leader in 1975, she inherited a divided and intellectually exhausted party widely viewed as unelectable. She did not abandon it in favour of ideological purity. She captured it, reshaped it and used it as a vehicle for durable reform.

Her conviction was clear. Political change required institutions capable of governing, and governing required broad electoral coalitions. External insurgencies, however energetic, risked dividing supporters of reform and unintentionally strengthening political opponents.

The early 1980s provide an instructive parallel. The Social Democratic Party’s breakaway from Labour generated enormous excitement and polling momentum. Many predicted a permanent realignment of British politics. Thatcher remained focused on party unity while managing internal ideological divisions. The SDP ultimately fragmented opposition support, contributing to her 1983 landslide victory. Thatcher understood electoral arithmetic as clearly as economic theory. Dividing the centre-right rarely produces reforming government.

Reform’s rise risks recreating a similar dynamic. Strong polling built largely on attracting Conservative voters may weaken the broader centre-right without replacing it as a durable governing coalition. Tactical voting behaviour among Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green voters further complicates Reform’s path to parliamentary power despite headline support.

Understanding this divergence requires recognising that Reform belongs to a slightly different political tradition. What might be termed Faragism places greater emphasis on democratic sovereignty and political realignment than on classical economic liberalism. Where Thatcherism sought primarily to free markets from state direction, Faragism seeks to restore political control to voters who feel existing institutions no longer represent them adequately. The overlap in rhetoric masks a difference in diagnosis.

Another distinction is less visible but equally important. Thatcherism did not emerge suddenly in response to political frustration. It stood within a long intellectual tradition that shaped both Conservative and liberal economic thought in Britain.

Thatcher’s ideas were grounded in a lineage stretching back well before the crises of the 1970s. Conservative philosophy from Edmund Burke emphasised institutional continuity and gradual reform, while Victorian liberal thinkers such as Samuel Smiles championed self-reliance, responsibility and social mobility through individual effort. Twentieth-century figures including Winston Churchill combined national confidence with openness to markets and international engagement.

Economically, Thatcher drew directly from modern liberal scholarship. She maintained personal correspondence with Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, whose work on monetary discipline, market competition and the limits of state planning helped shape the intellectual foundations of her programme. These ideas did not provide slogans but a coherent framework explaining why certain policies worked and others failed.

Because Thatcherism rested on an established body of thought, it possessed an internal coherence that extended beyond immediate political pressures. Policy decisions were anchored in a broader philosophy about markets, institutions and human behaviour.

Reform UK, by contrast, does not yet rest on a comparable intellectual inheritance. Its programme draws energy from political dissatisfaction rather than from a settled philosophical tradition. Without a clear intellectual lodestar, positions can appear reactive or internally inconsistent, visible in tensions between commitments to economic liberalisation and proposals that imply greater state direction or intervention.

This difference helps explain why Thatcherism prioritised predictable rules and institutional stability. It was guided by a theory of government as much as by electoral strategy. Movements built primarily around political realignment often struggle to achieve that same coherence because political energy alone cannot substitute for an underlying philosophy of government.

For Thatcher, ideas were valuable precisely because they enabled durable government rather than perpetual opposition. This principle shaped her reforms in practice. Privatisation dispersed ownership, monetary discipline constrained political spending, and deregulation removed barriers to competition. The financial reforms of the City of London were designed to free markets from political management rather than redirect them toward national objectives.

Reform’s programme, by contrast, combines liberalising economics with a stronger language of national economic direction. Proposals to reshape institutional mandates or prioritise domestic sectors introduce an element of political guidance that Thatcher would likely have viewed cautiously. Her nationalism rested on confidence that Britain could succeed through open competition in global markets, welcoming foreign investment and international integration. Reform’s rhetoric reflects a more defensive instinct centred on sovereignty and control.

The contrast can be summarised clearly:

Thatcherism vs Reform UK (2026)

Perhaps the most overlooked difference lies in political psychology. Thatcherism appealed primarily to aspiration. Council house sales expanded ownership, privatisation created individual investment in capitalism and tax reform aligned personal ambition with national success. Voters were encouraged to see themselves as participants in renewal rather than opponents of a failing system.

Reform articulates dissatisfaction effectively, but Thatcher’s achievement was to replace one economic settlement with another capable of commanding sustained governing authority. Thatcher entered politics to exercise power responsibly, not to express discontent more forcefully.

For that reason, Margaret Thatcher would not have joined Reform UK. Nor are voters who genuinely think in Thatcherite terms likely to find their long-term political home there. Thatcherism was never defined by rhetoric alone. It rested on trust in markets over governments, stability over impulse and governing authority over permanent insurgency.

Thatcher did not change Britain by standing outside power demanding ideological purity. She changed it by winning authority, building institutions capable of reform and persuading a sceptical nation to accept change. Thatcherism was never the politics of protest. It was the politics of government, grounded in ideas strong enough not only to win power, but to sustain it once won.

The Chancellor Rachel Reeves has delivered her Spring Statement. Here are a selection of responses from the Opposition and Think Tanks

Britain’s unemployment rate is forecast to climb to its highest level since the pandemic, according to the OBR, the budget watchdog, with their growth forecast cut for the coming year to just 1.1 per cent.

Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride attacked Reeves over her Spring Statement, warning that there is “no growth strategy at all”.

“Is that it? … What utter complacency. A Chancellor in denial. She speaks of stability. What planet is the Right Honourable lady on?… The Chancellor has the temerity to suggest that she is creating the conditions for renewed growth. She is rather like the dodgy estate agent standing in the crumbling building with the roof one, the windows gone, with the floor gone, and saying ‘just think of the potential’. But that potential has been undermined by the terrible state of our public finances.”

Shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith says:

“More gaslighting than Victorian London! The Chancellor is living in a fantasy world where unemployment isn’t rising and growth isn’t being downgraded.”

Joanna Marchong, head of communications and external affairs of the Adam Smith Institute, said:

“The Chancellor has convinced herself of economic stability based on deeply outdated forecasts. It is a Statement written by spin doctors, not economists. After last year’s Autumn Budget, Reeves needed to show that those sacrifices were not in vain and deliver growth. OBR forecasts, even though they don’t reflect current shocks, appear to show her rules are just about intact, but growth is lacklustre and the UK is far from credible. Markets are wobbling, and while the Spring Statement coincides with the unpredictable nature of war in the Middle East, this makes it even more vital that Reeves reforms the very anti-growth, anti-business measures she has introduced.”

Howard Cox, Founder of FairFuelUK, writes:

“This was a missed economic growth opportunity for the Chancellor amid a new damaging oil crisis. With refineries, oil tankers, and the Straits of Hormuz being targeted, oil prices will continue to climb relentlessly. A barrel of crude is, at the time of writing, already over $84 (13:00 March 3^rd). This will add 5-10p per litre in the next week or so. A sustained rise in Brent to $100 could add 10-20p per litre to petrol and diesel within weeks, based on historical patterns—similar to the surges seen in 2022 when oil hit $120 amid the Ukraine invasion. For over two decades, our clueless politicians have not planned to be self-sufficient in oil and gas production. They should be held to account for making the UK reliant on imports. FairFuelUK continues to call on Rachel Reeves to cut Fuel Duty, but at the very least keep it frozen for the lifetime of this parliament.”

Alan Mendoza, Executive Director of the Henry Jackson Society, says:

“The publication of the OBR’s latest forecasts alongside the Spring Statement makes the challenge unmistakable. Growth is weaker than expected, borrowing remains high and debt stays elevated. The OBR also warns of significant downside risks from global shocks – including conflict and energy volatility. In other words, geopolitical instability is now a direct fiscal risk to the UK. Yet there was no meaningful step change in defence readiness, no serious acceleration in rebuilding stockpiles and no clear plan to strengthen Britain’s defence industrial base. When growth is fragile and debt is high, strategic prioritisation becomes more important – not less. Investment in deterrence, supply chain resilience and sovereign capability is not discretionary spending; it is economic risk management.”