
Inside the mind of Benjamin Netanyahu
I served as the bodyguard to three Israeli prime ministers. There was Shimon Peres, part-man, part-tornado, a 70-something who I could barely keep up with when I was an ultra-fit 22 year old.
Another, Ehud Barak, then the most decorated soldier in Israeli history, became a successful Labour Party politician and eventually prime minister when the dust had barely fallen off his epaulettes.
And then there was the third prime minister I protected, the man who I escorted around Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and accompanied into the world's power centres to meet popes, prime ministers and presidents; the man who more than any other Israeli has determined the path of my country in this century: Benjamin Netanyahu.
In Ashkelon, the city between Tel-Aviv and Gaza where I grew up in the Seventies, I dreamed of becoming a video-game designer. At night, my father, born in Romania, told me stories about the Holocaust he had somehow survived.
When I was eight years old, the threat to Israel came from Iraq, not Iran. In the summer of 1981 Israeli Air Force F-16 jets bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor a few miles south-east of Baghdad. Israel's prime minister, Menachem Begin, who, like my father escaped the Holocaust, created the 'Begin Doctrine', which stated that no Arab country was allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Like all Israelis, I served three years in the IDF. Wondering what to do after my release, I saw an advert in a newspaper for a posting as an air marshall. The job was to provide security on Israeli national airline flights. But you could also travel the world. There was still plenty of time to study. I applied for the job.
When the training finished I was pulled into a room. Clearly, I had done something right because I was asked by an official from the security agency Shin Bet if I would like to become the bodyguard of Yitzhak Rabin, who was then prime minister of Israel.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Two years previously, on 27 August 1993, Rabin had shocked the world when he announced that months of negotiations had been held between representatives of his government and senior members of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) in sequestered locations around Oslo.
I was stunned. The negotiations were kept secret from the Israeli media, kept secret even from Rabin's cabinet. The PLO had agreed to officially recognise Israel and commit to ending terrorist campaigns in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel itself. In turn, Israel would recognise the PLO, and its leader, Yasser Arafat, would be allowed to establish a Palestinian Authority in Gaza and in the West Bank. Peace between Israel and the Arab world seemed tangible. Shimon Peres, then Rabin's foreign minister, spoke euphorically of 'a new Middle East'.
By the time I was asked to be his bodyguard in 1994, the Oslo Accords and Rabin were under immense pressure. Hamas launched suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. These fuelled protests against Rabin's government. Demonstrators burned images of him and called for his death. The protests were prolonged and intense, a toxic watershed in our history. The Israeli public began to turn on the Oslo process, as tides of violence washed over the country.
I was daunted by the opportunity to serve my country in such a precarious moment. It was not part of any plan I had for myself. Somewhere in the back of my mind I assumed that I would still end up creating video games.
I signed the Shin Bet's four-year contract. I believed in Rabin and the Oslo process. Although I would be robbed of the chance to meet him, I could tell Rabin was a special prime minister: he was extremely wise, detail-oriented, and passionate about security.
I had everything mapped out. Rabin would make peace with the Arab world while I stood by watching over him. Then I would become a software developer. My nerves ebbed away. This was a unique opportunity. I was barely 22 years old.
Most Israelis who were alive then remember where they were when it happened. I was with my parents; we were watching Crocodile Dundee in their apartment. It was a Saturday evening in November 1995. The next day would be my first on the job protecting Rabin with the Shin Bet.
Paul Hogan's face abruptly vanished from the television screen. The channel cut to the news. Earlier that evening Rabin had addressed a pro-Oslo rally in central Tel Aviv. 'I always believed the majority of the nation wants peace, is prepared to take risks for peace,' he told the crowd. 'Violence eats away at the foundation of Israeli democracy. It must be denounced, condemned, isolated.' It was to be his last speech.
As he left the rally Rabin was shot three times by a violent right-wing extremist who opposed the peace process. He died hours later in Tel Aviv's Ichilov Hospital, his lungs punctured by bullets.
At some level I've never accepted Rabin's death. I always wonder what would have happened if I had been there, through some scheduling change. Could I have saved him? Where would Israel be today if he had lived?
These thoughts came years later. My mind blanks when I try to remember those first weeks with the Shin Bet. The personal protection unit would spend the next year barely sleeping, attempting to rebuild our systems from scratch.
I was entering a new world in insane circumstances. By 1996 I was sitting in the back seat of a silver Cadillac the Shin Bet used to transport Israeli prime ministers. Rabin was gone. Netanyahu sat beside me, staring ahead.
Netanyahu and Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov answer questions before a meeting. Photo by Reuters
You have to remember that the politicians you see on television or on a social media feed are not like that in real life. What you see on a screen is a show that is put on for your entertainment.
When their lives depend directly on your decisions, you begin to understand them differently. Foibles appear that are not displayed on the show. I can still remember Bill Clinton, who was at the time the most powerful man in the world, with the ability to destroy the planet several times over with his fleets of strategic bombers and nuclear submarines, asking me, his security guard and escort for the day, permission to go to the toilet. I let him relieve himself.
Shimon Peres became prime minister immediately after Rabin's assassination. Netanyahu was the opposition leader, tarnished, Israelis like me thought, by attending rallies where calls for Rabin's murder had been made throughout 1995. It always made me think of a phrase in Hebrew, from 1 Kings 21:19: 'Have you murdered and also inherited?'
I had never met anybody like Peres. A simple, humble man who slept for two hours a night, refreshing himself with 20-minute naps in the back of the official Cadillac. His wife, Sonia, drove a tiny car and worked anonymously in a hospital with children and the disabled. Peres was one of the last links back to Israel's founding generation, an established legend when he fought an election against Netanyahu in May 1996.
On the security detail we went to bed on election night thinking Peres would win. When we woke up, Netanyahu was the prime minister.
We already knew all about Bibi, or at least we thought we did. When you're running personal protection with the Shin Bet you might spend two days with the prime minister and then maybe three days with the leader of the opposition.
I thought I understood Netanyahu back then. He was flashy. A marketer. You have to remember that this was the late Nineties, scarcely a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The most successful politicians in the world were Clinton and Tony Blair. They looked comfortable in a new global world. They looked good. I could tell that Netanyahu wanted to be like them.
Today, when his politics are closer to fascism, it's easy to forget that this version of Netanyahu was essentially a liberal. He was friendly with the courts and the media. In my pocket I kept a small Shin Bet book, filled with picture after picture of potential assassins to look out for. One of the men in that book, Itamar Ben-Gvir, is today the Minister of National Security in a coalition government led by Netanyahu. In 1998 we thought that Ben-Gvir, an extreme religious right-winger, was more likely to try to kill an Israeli prime minister than work with them.
Netanyahu was the youngest prime minister in our history, the first born in an independent Israel. He had incredible confidence. After a meeting with Clinton – to his credit Netanyahu continued the Oslo process – the president, worn down by hours of Netanyahu's energetic brinkmanship, remarked: 'Who the fuck does he think he is? Who's the fucking superpower here?' Netanyahu was prepared to give swathes of territory away to the Palestinians. At the Wye River Summit in October 1998, I watched him race around in a golf buggy with Yasser Arafat. The memory still bewilders me now, almost 30 years later.
My job was planning. Routes. Logistics. I could never rest. Israeli politicians and diplomats have been the most threatened on planet Earth since at least the Seventies. You feel the weight of this responsibility. It's not about individual prime ministers. They are symbols. You are not protecting a person: you are protecting all of Israel.
I began to suspect that Netanyahu was not ready for the job. There were constant family problems. Sara, his wife, was ambitious but fragile. She was a young mother, trying to raise her two children but Netanyahu needed her to be a diplomat and a performer, like Bill needed Hillary. Sara became miserable. Over the years she became more and more influential. One of those young children, Yair, sees himself today as a potential successor to his father.
But the greatest pressure on Netanyahu came from his father, Benzion. A historian and a failed political player, the Benzion I saw was a wise old man who treated his son with enormous indifference. Benzion's speciality was Spanish Jewry. In The Origins of the Inquisition in 15th Century Spain, Benzion argued that Spanish hatred of Jews was based in race hatred – directly tying it to a thread that led all the way forward into the Holocaust. Anti-Semitism was eternal. Militant vigilance against this hatred was the levy every single Israeli leader would have to pay.
Even when Netanyahu became prime minister, Benzion made it clear he disapproved of almost everything about him. The son believed that the father, who had failed to keep several academic jobs in Israeli universities, had been failed by the country. Over time, I began to see this as the core of Netanyahu's psychology, the reason why he began to attack elites and the media and the courts, the shame and insecurity and pessimism of the father handed down to the son like an heirloom. None of this was Bibi's fault. It was just the way the family was.
There was only one small sign of the man that Netanyahu became. I escorted Sara and him to expensive restaurants where they ate together late at night. The first time they left without paying the bill, the owners usually didn't mind. The second time they were puzzled. By the third time the Netanyahus left without paying, they were angry, literally chasing them in some cases out of the restaurant.
You watch this as a young man and turn it over in your mind. Why didn't he pay? He could have afforded to. Decades later you know that you were watching a little thief in the process of becoming a big gangster.
You might think that you hate Benjamin Netanyahu. Trust me, if you spent five minutes in a room with him you would come out raving about how wonderful he is. He would lie to your face again and again and again. You wouldn't even realise. He can summon entire make-believe worlds out of words better than anyone alive today. The only comparison that makes sense to me is with cult leaders. Deep down, the cultists know they are being fooled by the leader. They don't care though, because the illusion is too beautiful to abandon.
There was a famous Likud rally in Tel Aviv in 1999. Netanyahu was fighting for his political survival against Ehud Barak. Polls showed – and they were right – that Netanyahu had no chance of winning the election. Nevertheless, there was Bibi at the rally, firing up the crowd, leading them in a Hebrew chant: They are afraid, they are afraid.
The crowd chanted over and over as I stood there, scanning it for threats. I have had the privilege of seeing political leaders from all over the world in the most intimate and the most public settings. I had never seen a campaigner rally a crowd like that. I have never seen anything to match it since.
After my contract ended I left the service. I became a software developer. I lived in China and opened a business in India. Netanyahu returned to power in 2009 and has only left office, very briefly, once in the last 16 years.
The showdown with Iran is something most Israelis support. Since the revolution in 1979, the Iranian regime has made no secret of its desire to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. To allow them to have nuclear weapons would be to invite a second Holocaust.
Netanyahu sees his destiny at this moment. To protect Israel from the eternal hatred identified by Benzion in his historical works. To prevent the Holocaust my father survived from happening again. Netanyahu is cynical about many things, with an electoral coalition powered by pandering to the ultra-orthodox and the most extreme settlers in the West Bank. He is not cynical about Israel though. He believes he has been ordained to save the country.
Such beliefs are the stuff that catastrophic leaders are made from. Netanyahu has tried to undermine the independence of our Supreme Court for years, with moves that would shame any country that calls itself a democracy. He surrounds himself with fools and lackeys like Bezalel Smotrich, the finance minister, a man who could not run a restaurant, let alone an economy. He never believed that Hamas was a threat, allowing millions of dollars to flow into the group in the years leading up to 7 October. And has waited until the last possible moment to stop Iran, allowing them to come within months of securing weapons that could wipe out me, my children and my entire family, along with the rest of Israel. The hostages remain in Gaza.
Netanyahu thinks historically. He knows how history is written thanks to the example of his father. He knows that if he leaves office now he will go down as the most catastrophic leader in Israeli history. He is nothing like Churchill or Bismarck. Great leaders prevent the situations like the one Israel finds itself in today.
I know Benjamin Netanyahu. Over the years, like many leaders, he has become terribly lonely. There are few people he can trust or turn to any more. Just Sara, who has grown more unstable as the years have passed, and Yair, the son who dreams of replacing his father in power. The saddest part is that he could have stepped down long before now without destroying Israel. Today, as we watch the skies nervously, we wonder what comes next. The end of Netanyahu's political legacy or the end of democratic Israel.
[See also: Is Trump the last neoconservative?]
Related

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
UK politics live: Rachel Reeves says she was ‘clearly upset' but it was her job to support government at PMQs
Rachel Reeves has appeared in public with Sir Keir Starmer a day after breaking down in tears alongside the prime minister in the Commons. The pair were both at the launch of the government's 10-year plan for the NHS in London. Speaking to broadcasters following following the launch, Ms Reeves declined to give the reason behind her tears. 'Clearly I was upset yesterday and everyone could see that. It was a personal issue and I'm not going to go into the details of that,' the chancellor said. 'My job as chancellor at 12 o'clock on a Wednesday is to be at PMQs next to the prime minister, supporting the government and that's what I tried to do. 'I guess the thing that maybe is a bit different between my job and many of your viewers' is that when I'm having a tough day it's on the telly and most people don't have to deal with that.' She appeared to reject suggestions that her tears at PMQs were related to a conversation with Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle or another member of government. Welfare reform has been postponed, but it isn't going away Welfare reform has been postponed, but it isn't going away Editorial: Labour's overhaul of the benefits system failed because it was clearly a raid by the Treasury looking for savings at speed. The government should produce a Beveridge report for the 21st century – or risk a future, right-wing government taking up the challenge Holly Evans4 July 2025 05:00 Rachel Reeves's brave face cannot mask the challenges she now faces If there were any doubts about Sir Keir Starmer 's plans for Rachel Reeves, the prime minister and his chancellor have gone all out to try and put them to bed. A day after she sat crying through Prime Minister's Questions on live television, the chancellor sat smiling and cheering through the prime minister 's speech outlining a 10-year plan for the NHS. For his part, Sir Keir shouted 'wahey' as Ms Reeves got to her speech to lay the financial framework for the plan. Reeves's brave face cannot mask the challenges she now faces The chancellor has come out fighting after her teary PMQs moment... but much tougher challenges now await Holly Evans4 July 2025 04:00 For crying out loud: Are you ready for the 'politics of pain' about to hit us? Keir Starmer promised that the last Budget would be 'painful'. In a speech in the Downing Street garden in August, two months earlier, he tried to manage expectations, saying that the state of the public finances was 'worse than we ever imagined', and asked people to 'accept short-term pain for long-term good'. It was a forlorn hope. Far from 'accepting' the pain, public opinion turned against the government further after Rachel Reeves announced £25bn a year of tax increases, rising to £40bn a year by the end of this parliament. Business leaders reacted particularly badly to the rise in employers' national insurance contributions, causing the chancellor to over-correct when she addressed the CBI the following month. She told representatives that she was 'not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes'. Read the full analysis from John Rentoul here: For crying out loud: are you ready for the 'politics of pain' about to hit us? I once accused the PM and his chancellor of being too gloomy, writes John Rentoul. Turns out they were not gloomy enough – and they'll have to lead the nation through another vale of tears Holly Evans4 July 2025 03:00 Which tax rises could Rachel Reeves introduce to pay for the £5bn welfare U-turn? This week's embarrassing climbdown on welfare saw the government's benefits reforms gutted almost entirely, while savings from the bill were slashed from £5bn to nothing. In the wake of the U-turn, there are now growing questions over how the government will raise the money to fill the black hole in the public finances. Ministers have already squeezed significant savings out of their departments in cuts that were unveiled at last month's spending review, meaning there is now a mounting expectation that the chancellor will be forced to raise taxes instead. Which tax rises could Rachel Reeves introduce to pay for the £5bn welfare U-turn? Labour's pledge not to raise taxes on 'working people' leaves the chancellor with a limited number of workable options to fill the £5bn hole in the public finances left by this week's welfare climbdown Holly Evans4 July 2025 02:00 Ex-Labour MP Zarah Sultana to set up new party with Jeremy Corbyn A former Labour MP has announced her intention to co-lead the formation of a new political party with Jeremy Corbyn, the ex-Labour leader. Zarah Sultana, whose Labour whip was suspended last year, confirmed her resignation from Sir Keir Starmer 's party. In a statement posted on X, Ms Sultana, who represents Coventry South, stated the initiative would also involve "other independent MPs, campaigners and activists across the country". Ex-Labour MP Zara Sultana to set up new party with Jeremy Corbyn The independent MP lost the Labour whip last year when she voted to abolish the two-child benefit cap Holly Evans4 July 2025 01:00 Kemi Badenoch's lack of empathy over Rachel Reeves's tears will come back to haunt her The trouble with Kemi Badenoch is that if she sees someone lying on the ground, she can't resist the temptation to kick them. She lacks empathy, to put it politely. There she was at Prime Minister's Questions, facing an open goal for a change, and attacking the prime minister, who, even three days later, can look after himself. Then she spots the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, her lip quivering, seemingly on the brink of crying. Straight in goes the Badenoch boot – she said Reeves looked 'absolutely miserable' and described her as Starmer's 'human shield'. After Starmer failed to confirm Reeves in post for the rest of the parliament – a tall order for any appointee – Badenoch piled on the punishment: 'How awful for the chancellor that he did not confirm she would be in post.' Badenoch's lack of empathy over Reeves's tears will come back to haunt her Neither her party nor the public seems to like the Badenoch style, writes Sean O'Grady. Her tasteless lack of empathy for the chancellor is indicative of a leadership marked by arrogant dismissiveness Holly Evans4 July 2025 00:00 The markets have spoken – and it is they, not the prime minister, that saved Rachel Reeves The markets have delivered their verdict. They want Rachel Reeves, and no one else will do. If the chancellor needed saving, they've done the job, boosting her political clout in the process. The events of the last 24 hours have been quite remarkable, almost on a level with the Truss mini-Budget, when the City's appalled reaction resulted in the near collapse of several big pension funds, and ultimately led to the end of a premiership before a now-infamous lettuce had rotted. The tearful expression on the face of a visibly upset Reeves, and a less than ringing endorsement from a prime minister who had previously said she would be in place for the full parliament, triggered a panic, with some of the biggest movements in UK government bond prices recorded since the 'Trussterf***' Budget. The markets have spoken – and it is they, not the PM, that saved Rachel Reeves In its response to the chancellor's possible resignation, in the face of market jitters the City has made it clear that she is Labour's only candidate for No 11, says James Moore – and any attempt to replace her could prove very expensive for the country Holly Evans3 July 2025 23:00 Labour respond to Zarah Sultana resignation Responding to Ms Sultana's statement, a Labour spokesperson said: 'In just 12 months, this Labour government has boosted wages, delivered an extra four million NHS appointments, opened 750 free breakfast clubs, secured three trade deals and four interest rate cuts lowering mortgage payments for millions. 'Only Labour can deliver the change needed to renew Britain.' Holly Evans3 July 2025 22:28 MP Zarah Sultana resigns from the Labour Party MP Zarah Sultana has said that she is resigning from the Labour Party to 'co-lead the founding of a new party' with Jeremy Corbyn. Ms Sultana, who has sat in the Commons as an independent MP since she had the Labour whip withdrawn last year, represents the Coventry South constituency. She said in a statement posted on X that she was 'resigning from the Labour Party'. 'Jeremy Corbyn and I will co-lead the founding of a new party, with other independent MPs, campaigners and activists across the country.' She said that 'Westminster is broken but the real crisis is deeper' and the 'two-party system offers nothing but managed decline and broken promises'. She added: 'A year ago I was suspended by the Labour Party for voting to abolish the two-child benefit cap and list 400,000 children out of poverty. I'd do it again. I voted against scrapping winter fuel payments for pensioners. I'd do it again. Now, the Government wants to make disabled people suffer; they just can't decide how much.' She urged people to 'join us'. Holly Evans3 July 2025 21:33 MP likens Government to flat-earthers over refusal to compensate Waspi women Sir Keir Starmer's Government has been likened to flat-earthers by one of its own MPs, over its refusal to compensate women affected by state pension age changes. Labour's Rebecca Long Bailey said the arguments against compensation for the 1950s-born women are 'bizarre' and akin to those made by people who believe the Earth is flat. The Government last December ruled out a compensation package for women born in the 1950s, whose state pension age was raised so it would be equal with men. This is despite Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves being among the senior ministers to support the Waspi campaign when Labour was in opposition. A report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) had recommended the UK Government pay compensation to women born in the 1950s whose state pension age was raised so it would be equal with men. The watchdog also said the women should be paid up to £2,950 each, a package with a potential total cost of £10.5 billion to the public purse, as poor communication meant they had lost out on the chance to plan their retirement finances. Holly Evans


The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Labour's reform agenda is over. The rebels are in control
It is one year today since this country elected the Labour Party as the antidote to what had become a chaotic Tory term in office. The idea, which seemed fairly sound at the time, was that Ms Reeves and her Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, were so boringly competent that we could all get on with our lives and not really worry about what was going on at Westminster. Read more by Andy Maciver How wrong we were. How many people could honestly make the case for this being a more stable foundation for growth than that which was being provided by Rishi Sunak and Sir Jeremy Hunt, the Tory predecessors in these posts? The money markets certainly do not seem to be convinced of that particular case. Generally speaking, three things have conspired against Sir Keir and Ms Reeves. The first is that Labour's win 365 days ago was far more slender than its parliamentary majority would suggest. At only a little over one-third of the vote, this was no great endorsement of Labour by the British people. Indeed, fewer people turned out to vote for the party than had done so in 2019, when Jeremy Corbyn was leader. Sir Keir polled over four million votes fewer than Boris Johnson in that election. Indeed, it is fair to say that if it had not been for Nigel Farage's Reform party eating so much of the Tory party's lunch, Sir Keir may not have had a majority at all. Secondly, Mr Farage has become Sir Keir's worst nightmare. Britain is no different, really, from the other liberal democracies around the world who are being gripped, to one degree or another, by global populism. Trust in the Tories and Labour has effectively evaporated, for perfectly understandable reasons. This country has never recovered from the financial crisis of 20008/2009 in the ways that matter to real people. There has been no meaningful economic growth for over 15 years, and a very meaningful rise in the cost of living in that time. Brits are completely out of hope, and we can hardly blame them for turning to someone who – love him or hate him – talks straight. Those two characteristics are outside of the direct control of Sir Keir and Ms Reeves, but the third characteristic is not; they have made a rotten job of government during this first year. Indeed, it is hardly a stretch to wonder whether this government is already broken beyond repair, whether Ms Reeves will last the summer, whether Sir Keir will make it to the end of year two, and whether Labour will see out a full term of office. It is important to Britain that Labour spends time in government. In particular, at times when either we need to tighten our national belt, or when we need to reform our public services, Labour is best placed to do it. The Conservative Party often has the political will to do both, but has long lacked the political permission, particularly when it comes to public service reform. The Labour party normally has the political permission to do both – with the NHS in particular generally considered to be safe in the hands of the party which invented it – but often lacks the political will. It appeared, on July 4 2024, that much like at the outset of the Blair/Brown era 30 years ago, we had a Labour leadership which had both the permission and the will to rewire the country. A year later, it is in tatters to such a degree that it can most likely never be remade. This will have consequences. The Government has spent the year proposing a series of relatively mild welfare reforms, albeit often badly targeted and always badly communicated. We can debate until the cows come home about whether or not Sir Keir emphasised the moral imperative of welfare reform more than Ms Reeves emphasised the financial imperative, but that doesn't matter now. When I was growing up, we had the working class and the middle class. I never really understood which of those baskets I fell into, and perhaps that was prescient, because they have effectively now been merged. In today's Britain, we have the working class and the welfare class. Not so much haves and have nots, but works and works not. Can Wes Streeting hold firm? (Image: PA) What Labour appeared to be attempting to do was to distinguish between those on welfare who needed it, and those who simply wanted it. There are plenty of the former category, and they are the essence of why we all pay tax. Most of us contentedly provide a safety net for those amongst us who cannot provide it for themselves, whether because of age, or illness or disability, or indeed because their genuine attempts to find work have not yet yielded success. What few, if any, of us consented to, though, was paying for a system which incentivises often young, often able people to seek benefit dependency, from which evidence shows they will likely never recover. International evidence shows us that this is a peculiarly British problem, and a very expensive one at that. That agenda is now over. What's next? Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, appeared to be the most reform-minded of the new Cabinet. Ruthlessly honest in opposition about the scale of change needed for a taxpayer-funded health service to survive, the reality of government has hit hard. There have now been two fiscal events, both of which ploughed tens of billions into the NHS black hole, and which Mr Streeting knows as well as anyone is effectively money down the drain. I would like to think that Mr Streeting will hold firm, but I doubt it. The Labour rebels are in charge now, and the same people who said no to welfare reform will also say no to healthcare reform. I am predisposed towards optimism, but the outlook for the public finances and the public services is so bleak that I can muster absolutely none. Andy Maciver is Founding Director of Message Matters, and co-host of the Holyrood Sources podcast


The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Oil price volatility concern as North Sea job losses mount
'I think it is true when the Prime Minister says energy security is national security,' he said, adding: 'Over 40% of our energy demand was imported last year and I think in an uncertain world, you know that's the wrong place to be.' The reliance on imports leaves the UK vulnerable to a disruption to supplies, reckons Mr Whitehouse. He claims the country is depriving itself of huge amounts of economic value that are enjoyed instead by countries it buys oil and gas from. Imports may result in an increase in emissions compared to UK sources when related production and transport operations are taken into account. 'If we do it here in the UK that protects jobs, puts real value into our economy and we deliver that with a lower carbon footprint so I think the case for having home-grown oil and gas is compelling,' said Mr Whitehouse. READ MORE: As Chevron closes Aberdeen office, what now for North Sea jobs? Scale of SNP Government climate change failings underlined by experts Israeli-owned firm takes control of UK's biggest gas field The oil and gas industry veteran noted that an expert report for OEUK published in June found that up to 7.5 billion barrels of oil and gas could still be produced from UK waters. The figure is around 3.2 bn barrels higher than current government estimates. OEUK has highlighted the fact that the Climate Change Committee, which advises the Government, has forecast that in a scenario where the UK meets all its climate targets on time homes and businesses will still use between 13 and 15 billion barrels of oil and gas. The potential additional 3bn barrels production that OEUK thinks is possible could be worth £165 billion to the UK economy in total and support thousands of jobs. Under Mr Whitehouse's leadership OEUK will focus much of its effort on campaigning for cuts in oil and gas taxes as the Government prepares to publish the results of a review of the fiscal regime. North Sea firms complain the tax burden has increased significantly since the windfall tax was introduced by the former Conservative Government in 2022. The rate of the energy profits levy has been increased since then, most recently by the Labour Government in the Budget in October. While the tax was imposed after oil and gas firms posted bumper profits, Mr Whitehouse claimed it has caused lots of damage. He said one way of highlighting that would be that fact that in 2019 the former Oil and Gas Authority predicted that over 6bn barrels of oil and gas would be produced from the UK North Sea between 2025 and 2050, with over 10bn possible. That compares with the successor North Sea Transition Authority's forecast of around 3.5bn. 'The underlying geology in the North Sea hasn't changed but the environment and the uncertainty has and the windfall tax has played an important role in that, it is deterring investment' claimed Mr Whitehouse. 'As we look forward to the second half of the year we are seeing a rapid drop off in terms of rig activity in the North Sea.' OEUK chief executive David Whitehouse claims oil and gas firms can play a key role in the development of renewables assets off Scotland (Image: OEUK) The Government has come under pressure to bring forward the date for the ending of the windfall tax to 2026 from 2030. Chancellor Rachel Reeves gave no ground when she published the results of the key Comprehensive Spending Review in June. However, Mr Whitehouse hopes that OEUK could still win concessions. 'The Treasury has some very thoughtful mechanisms which mean that in the event that prices spike the tax on the sector would increase,' he observed. There are details to be considered but OEUK wants the successor regime to be implemented in 2026. Mr Whitehouse is confident that the resulting boost to activity would allow the Government to recover more revenue than it lost as a result of easing the tax burden. He noted: 'In a regime where you're paying high tax that is causing investment not to happen … that does reduce your economic growth actually, it also ultimately reduces your tax receipts.' OEUK welcomed the results of the review of the field development consenting process the Government published this month – although energy minister Ed Miliband's plans to stop issuing exploration licences for new areas is a cause for concern. The consenting review was launched after a Scottish court ruled the Conservative Government was wrong to approve plans for the controversial Rosebank development off Shetland - because the assessment process failed to take into account the emissions that would result from use of the oil concerned. Under the Government's plans firms will be required to submit environmental impact assessments in respect of proposed field developments that do consider such emissions. 'We welcome that the guidance has come out, it is an important step to projects moving forward,' said Mr Whitehouse. The regulatory change could have positive implications for the planned Rosebank, Jackdaw and Cambo developments, all of which are opposed by environmentalists. READ MORE: North Sea jobs cull looms after blockbuster oil and gas deals Mr Whitehouse hammered home claims that the UK needs to ensure that it has a strong oil and gas supply chain if it is to make the most of the potential of low carbon energy generation and carbon capture and storage technology to support the net zero drive. Oil and gas firms have the expertise required to develop offshore facilities such as windfarms and some have shown they are willing to invest directly in developments. OEUK's membership includes firms that are active in renewable energy generation, hydrogen production and carbon capture and storage. It evolved out of the former Oil and Gas UK. 'If we manage the opportunity right and in a pragmatic way, which is support for oil and gas while we still use it then we see significant opportunities, particularly floating wind, carbon capture,' Mr Whitehouse said. 'I think there's huge opportunities for Scotland the wider UK … not just storing emissions from UK industry but storing them from Europe.' In June the UK Government confirmed it would provide £200m funding for the Acorn carbon capture and storage project, which will involve capturing industrial emissions and transporting them for storage in depleted North Sea reservoirs. It also announced £500m funding for UK hydrogen projects and a £1bn offshore wind supply chain initiative. Mr Whitehouse said OEUK very much welcomed the announcements concerned, which should help to generate momentum in the low carbon sector. However, noting that the number of jobs created in the sector so far has remained lower than expected, he cautioned: 'It is good to have ambition. It is good to set targets. But for those targets we need to make sure that they become real, that … people can feel that there are genuine delivery plans that sit underneath them.' The prize could be huge if politicians and industry play their parts effectively. That will require people to recognise that the UK will need oil and gas and the related supply chain for years as it builds out the low carbon generating systems it is hoped will eventually meet its energy requirements. Noting that 90,000 jobs are supported by the oil and gas sector, Mr Whitehouse appeared optimistic about the future despite the concern about the geopolitical outlook. 'I think over the coming decades, I would like to see that integrated energy sector significantly increasing the number of highly skilled, well-paid jobs,' he said. However, the prediction came with the caveat that 'it's that integration that I think is going to be the path to success'.