Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

Governments are terrible at picking winners and even worse at choosing losers. Net zero and interventionist “Keynesian” policies in Canada and the UK have proven that government intervention has created a worse outcome than anyone would have expected. The result is higher costs, distorted incentives, and weakened productivity growth, with increased dependency on fossil fuels to attend to peak demand, exactly what Austrian economists predicted.

What has been sold as a recipe for prosperity and “green growth” has in practice eroded affordability while failing to deliver stronger, sustainable expansion.

It is not surprising to see that the world’s examples of green interventionism, the UK and Canada, have become economic failures. Years ago, some argued that these policies needed time to prove their success. Now, it is not even debatable that the stagnation and recession in the UK and Canada are self-inflicted.

Net zero in Canada and the UK is not a single policy but an entire regime of targets, regulations, limits, subsidies, and new bureaucratic requirements.

The Canadian federal plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 combines rising carbon taxes, prescriptive regulations, technology mandates, and public investment schemes intended to steer capital away from fossil fuels and into politically selected “green” projects.

In the UK, the government’s “Net Zero Growth Plan” is also built on regulatory limits, spending commitments, and industrial policy designed to phase out conventional energy and reshape entire sectors through top-down planning.

This is a classic example of interventionism. The state attempts to override market price signals and entrepreneurial judgment to engineer a politically preferred energy and industrial structure and achieves the opposite of what it wants to deliver. Rather than relying on decentralized knowledge, competition, technology, and creative destruction, dispersed among millions of consumers and firms, net zero regimes assume that politicians and regulators know exactly which technologies should win, what the “right” energy mix ought to be, and how fast the transition should occur.

In an open market, prices and profits coordinate production across time, and entrepreneurs interpret prices as signals about real scarcities and consumer preferences. However, net-zero policies deliberately tamper with these signals. Carbon taxes, subsidies, and regulatory mandates change relative prices not because underlying preferences or scarcities changed but because policymakers decided that certain activities should be penalized and others subsidized. All this is justified by a completely ideological and unreliable assumption of externality costs, where governments present themselves as the ones that know precisely what those alleged externality costs are and try to push a pricing signal imposed through ideology, creating enormous distortions that, ultimately, end benefiting the “old” and “loser” industries.

Governments are not worried about the failure of these policies. Bureaucrats always believe that interventionism did not work because there was not enough of it. Therefore, they impose additional burdens and regulations while portraying themselves as the solution to the inflation and stagnation problems they have caused.

In both Canada and the UK, this has pushed vast amounts of capital into projects that are unprofitable and can only subsist due to policy support rather than genuine market demand. “Green industrial strategies” crowd out investment in other sectors, especially in traditional energy and manufacturing, even when those sectors still deliver higher value at lower cost to consumers. Austrian theory predicts that politicized credit and subsidies will generate malinvestment: projects that look viable under distorted interest rates and prices but which fail to cover their costs once the policy support is withdrawn or the fiscal burden becomes unsustainable.

Canadian long-run productivity growth has fallen from annual rates above 3% in the postwar decades to less than 1% since 2000, despite repeated waves of policy activism and “pro-productivity” rhetoric. Chronic underinvestment in business capital and weak technological progress as key drivers of this decline, suggesting that the policy mix has not created an environment for genuine, bottom-up innovation. The more that investment decisions depend on regulatory favor and subsidy access, the less they depend on entrepreneurial assessment of consumer wants and long-term profitability.

Net zero has also harmed affordability in exactly the way Austrian economists would expect when governments interfere with relative prices. Carbon pricing, renewable mandates, and restrictions on fossil-fuel projects increase energy costs directly by making reliable sources of power more expensive or scarce. These higher input costs then cascade through the economy to transport, food, housing, and manufactured goods, eroding real wages and living standards.

In both Canada and the UK, affordability has become a central political issue. Households face higher utility bills, fuel costs, and housing expenses, while governments insist that the transition is “pro-growth” and “pro-jobs.” From an Austrian viewpoint, this contradiction is unsurprising: when the state deliberately raises the cost of dominant energy sources and limits investment in efficient, market-chosen technologies, the outcome is necessarily higher prices and reduced real income for consumers, especially for low- and middle-income households.

The C.D. Howe Institute has calculated the costs of justifying public “stimulus” projects based on their benefits, showing that a typical public-services stimulus in Canada needs to create at least 73 cents in benefits for every dollar spent, while many infrastructure projects must improve productivity by at least 61 cents per dollar just to be socially acceptable. This illustrates how difficult it is for discretionary fiscal programs to deliver genuine, net productivity gains, especially when they are designed around political objectives like net zero rather than around consumer demand.

Loose money, loose budgets, weak growth

Energy policy is just one aspect of the overall narrative. Canada and the UK have also pursued aggressively expansionary fiscal and monetary policies recently, justified in the language of Keynesian stabilization and “stimulus.” Central banks slashed interest rates and expanded their balance sheets, while governments ran large deficits to finance transfer programs, public investment packages, and targeted subsidies.

Such policies create an artificial boom by pushing interest rates below their market level, encouraging borrowing and investment that are not backed by genuine savings. When combined with interventionist climate and industrial policies, the result is a double distortion: not only is the cost of capital suppressed by central banks, but its allocation is further skewed by political targets and bureaucratic criteria.

The persistent weakness of productivity growth in both countries reflects the outcome. Despite waves of stimulus and intervention, neither Canada nor the UK has returned to the trend growth rates of earlier decades. Research on why productivity is stuck in advanced economies shows that slow business investment, poor use of resources, and uncertain policies are major problems—exactly what Austrian theory warns about when governments try to control demand and manage entire industries.

At the same time, the loose monetary and fiscal stance has fueled asset inflation and housing booms, worsening affordability while doing little to raise real wages in line with living expenses. For Austrians, this pattern is predictable: credit expansion inflates asset prices and encourages leverage, while deficit spending diverts resources from productive private activity toward politically selected uses, without solving underlying structural obstacles to innovation and entrepreneurship.

The “dynamics of interventionism” described by Austrian scholars such as Frank Shostak and Huerta de Soto captures what is now playing out in Canada and the UK. Initial interventions—carbon pricing, subsidies, ultra-loose money—create side effects such as higher energy costs, misallocated capital, and inflationary pressures. Rather than rolling back the original policies, governments respond with further interventions: price caps, windfall taxes, rent controls, targeted transfers, and new stimulus packages.

More layers mean more complexity, uncertainty, and lobbying, which sucks talent and capital out of productive activity and into regulatory arbitrage and rent-seeking. In the end, the private sector becomes less about serving consumers and more about navigating the policy maze, bidding for subsidies, and changing business models based on political risk, not market signals.

This process tends to push mixed economies toward either more radical intervention and taxation, because the accumulating distortions and contradictions become unsustainable. Rising public debt, chronic productivity stagnation, and growing discontent over affordability are all signs that the current policy mix in Canada and the UK is reaching such a breaking point.

An Austrian approach to the problems of growth, productivity, and affordability in Canada and the UK would start from the opposite principle: radically reduce the role of the state in credit allocation, industrial planning, and energy choices. The goal would be to restore genuine price discovery in interest rates, energy markets, and capital allocation, rather than using central banks and fiscal policy to engineer demand and support politically favored sectors.

That would require ending the “permanent emergency” stance in monetary policy and allowing interest rates to reflect real-time preferences and savings, rather than central-bank discretion; rolling back net zero mandates, technology bans, and targeted subsidies allow entrepreneurs and consumers to decide which energy sources and technologies best serve their needs at the lowest cost; and moving from government spending based on political choices to a system with clear rules and less government involvement that safeguards property rights, upholds contracts, and maintains low and steady taxes and regulations.

Under such a regime, capital would no longer be herded into fashionable, subsidy-dependent projects. Instead, entrepreneurs would once again be guided by undistorted profit and loss, discovering the production structures that genuinely align with consumer preferences and technological realities. Over time, such an approach is the only path consistent with higher productivity, faster real wage growth, and true improvements in affordability.

In short, the disappointing growth and deteriorating affordability in Canada and the UK are not market failures; they are the predictable result of layering net zero interventionism on top of already inflationary, deficit-driven macro policy. The solution is not more of the same but a decisive shift back toward sound money, fiscal restraint, and genuine economic freedom.

Tesla showed signs of regaining momentum in Europe during May, posting strong registration growth across several major markets, according to Reuters. New registrations climbed to 1,750 vehicles in Denmark (+136%), 1,690 in Spain (+113%), and 858 in Sweden (+71%), based on data released by local industry groups.

Reuters writes that the trend extended across the region. Norway recorded 3,345 Tesla registrations, up 29% from a year earlier, while France saw registrations rise to 5,446 vehicles—more than seven times last year’s level.

The gains come as demand for electrified vehicles continues to strengthen across Europe. Battery-electric, plug-in hybrid, and hybrid vehicles represented more than two-thirds of all new registrations in April, with total electrified vehicle registrations increasing roughly 21%, according to ACEA.

Industry observers note that Tesla is benefiting from the overall expansion of the EV market, particularly in Scandinavia, while countries such as Spain are beginning to catch up in adoption. Consumer incentives, emissions-focused policies, and elevated fuel prices are also helping accelerate the shift toward electric mobility.

The recent improvement follows a difficult period for Tesla in Europe. The company lost a significant share of the regional market in 2025 as competition intensified—especially from Chinese manufacturers—while a limited refresh cycle and controversy surrounding CEO Elon Musk also weighed on demand. Registration figures from Germany and the UK, Europe’s largest auto markets, are still to come.

Update: Vickrum Singh Digwa, 23, received a life sentence with a 21-year minimum on Monday for the murder of 18-year-old Henry Nowak.

Judge William Mousley describes Nowak as a “much-loved, kind, hard-working and ambitious young man, devoted to his family and with a bright future.”

Mousley includes agonizing testimony from Nowak’s family: Nowak’s death has caused his sister’s world to “fall apart,” she said; Nowak’s father describes his son’s death as a “life sentence” for the family.

The judge then details the extensive lies he believes Digwa told to evade responsibility for the murder.

‘His murderer was afforded decency. He was believed’

Henry Nowak’s father says the ‘contrast’ in the police’s treatment of his son and his murderer is ‘unbearable’ in a statement after Nowak’s killer was sentenced to 21 years in prison. pic.twitter.com/9w8A35hpMp

— GB News (@GBNEWS) June 1, 2026

As Daily Caller noted, Mousley more or less excused the actions of the responding police officers, writing they “honestly believed that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting Henry had committed an offence and arrested him.”

*  *  *

As Bruce Oliver Newsome detailed earlier via American Greatness, this had all the ingredients (except inverted) to become Britain’s white ‘George Floyd’ moment.

If police see racism before they see a man bleeding out, something has gone profoundly wrong with justice.

Police handcuffed and arrested an 18-year-old while he was bleeding out from multiple stabbings because the stabber, a Sikh, accused the victim, a white man, of racism.

The stabber showed no signs of being the victim of violence. He said the man lying in his own blood on the ground had knocked off his turban in a drunken racist attack. And for that, the police arrested and handcuffed the victim.

The victim had been stabbed once in the face, twice in the legs while trying to escape over a fence, and once in the lung. But somehow the police claim not to have been aware of his wounds.

Vickrum Digwa, the 23-year-old stabber, was carrying two blades: an 8-inch “shastar” openly, and a smaller “kirpan” around his neck and under his clothing. During the trial, the prosecutor said that Digwa had “been training with weapons since the age of 12,” slept with weapons, and used “loving terms” when speaking about the murder weapon.

Digwa’s defense barrister claimed religious allowance for openly carrying knives that are illegal for the rest of us to carry. And the judge instructed the jury to consider whether the stabber had a good reason, such as self-defense or religion, to carry his weapons. The national government says that courts should decide what is legal to carry. The police federation says there is no limit on the size of the blade that can be carried with religious allowance.

Police initially arrested and handcuffed the victim without treating his wounds and without detaining the stabber.

On Thursday, May 28, the stabber was convicted of murder. The court found that the stabber had certainly not told the whole truth. He had told arriving officers of racist provocation but denied stabbing anyone.

There is no evidence for any racism other than the retrospective verbal claims of the stabber and his brother, who arrived after the stabbings and who made a call to emergency services claiming his brother was a victim of racism. He too did not mention any stabbing.

The perp’s father and mother also showed up at the scene. The mother helped to conceal the weapons.

The victim did not know his murderer. The victim was walking home around 11:30 p.m. on December 3, 2025, from a night out with his university soccer team in Southampton. He was well-dressed and well-groomed. He had drunk less alcohol than would have put him over the driving limit. But Digwa claimed to be attacked by a racist drunk. And the police believed him.

What will the consequences for the police entail?

The police force (Hampshire) referred itself for independent investigation but is also making excuses.

They claim that the stabbings were not obvious to officers, despite a trail of blood, and despite the victim repeatedly saying he had been stabbed and couldn’t breathe.

The police force maintains that officers could not have known the victim was suffering from internal bleeding. Yet the victim had been stabbed five times, of which one stabbing went 8 cm (more than 3 inches) into his lung. The blade itself is 21 centimeters (8 inches) long.

The police force isn’t publicly pondering whether the police officers should have examined rather than arrested the victim.

The police force says the victim couldn’t have been saved, but the victim didn’t die for another hour.

The police force says it is the victim of the stabber’s lies and that its officers were obliged to act on the stabber’s false accusations of racial provocation. But aren’t officers trained in judgment, to use their freaking eyes, to not make hasty judgments, and to care for even the perps? Wasn’t the victim’s plight obvious and the other party’s rude behavior equally obvious?

Note that the police force didn’t refer itself for investigation until the day of the conviction, almost six months after the murder.

And the police force still hasn’t released bodycam footage, even though one justification for introducing bodycams was to reassure the public of impartiality in racially sensitive cases, following the BLM explosion in 2020. The trial has concluded, so there can be no concerns around contempt of court by releasing footage.

[ZH: police just released the bodycam – its not embeddable]

Note that in other cases, such as the stabbings of girls at Southport in 2024 and the rape of a child in Nuneaton in 2025, local police, courts, and national government fell over each other to cover up the non-white race of the perpetrators, to warn against white racist misinformation, and even to prosecute some of the supposed misinformers for supposedly promoting hate.

I bet the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) won’t be investigating what journalists and opposition politicians have already identified: the racism of anti-racism.

Matt Goodwin, an academic and candidate for Parliament representing Reform UK, writes that “Henry Nowak now joins a growing list of people that most people in Westminster have probably never heard of—Terence Carney, Thomas Roberts, Victoria Agoglia, Lucy Lowe, Charlene Downes, Wayne Broadhurst, Rhiannon Whyte, among countless more—all of whom happen to belong to the wrong identity group to be considered worthy of serious discussion and attention,” after being murdered or raped by immigrants or the progeny of immigrants.

The Critic’s Tom Jones tweeted that “were the races reversed, this could be a story from the Jim Crow South that became a cause célèbre of the Civil Rights movement.”

The Spectator’s David Shipley wonders whether the police are so primed to posture as anti-racist (that is: anti-white racist) that they were blind to the evidence on and from the victim because he is white and gullible towards the stabber because he is not white.

Ed West, author of the classic The Diversity Illusion, reports that even the prosecutor went out of his way to avoid accusing the perpetrator of racism. “This is not a case about Sikhism. This is not a case about racism. This is a case about murder.” But as Ed West notes, the same defender made this a case of anti-racism.

This is a case with a false accusation of racism and a false justification of anti-racism for homicide, including labeling the victim as racist partly because of his different color.

So isn’t that racist?

You won’t find such questions in the mainstream media. The Guardian does not report the police’s actions at all and was at pains to specify the justifications for carrying a kirpan.

Worst of all, where the BBC reports on the police force’s decision to refer itself for investigation, the BBC goes out of its way to claim that “Digwa . . . had used a blade he said he carried because of his Sikh faith.” In fact, the jury had not formally agreed with that claim from the defense.

Anti-racism is racism, and British police are racist.

The name of the victim is Henry Nowak. Say his name.

And remember his last words: “I can’t breathe.”

But protesters aren’t blockading the streets. Keir Starmer isn’t taking the knee. Politicians aren’t calling on the public to chant his name or his last words, unlike in the case of the career criminal George Floyd, who almost certainly died of a fentanyl overdose.

Asian rice prices logged their biggest monthly gain in nearly two decades in May, as a Gulf energy shock collides with an expected El Niño event later this year. The spike adds to the mounting risks of a broader food price shock that could emerge as soon as six months from now.

Any time rice prices spike, it is a major concern because the grain feeds more than half the world’s population, estimated at 3.5 to 4 billion people.

Thailand white rice, a regional Asian benchmark, surged 20% in May, the largest monthly increase in data going back to 2008, according to Bloomberg. Chicago rice futures rose 15% last month.

Seasonality:

BMI analyst Bin Hui Ong warned that an expected El Niño event later this year will unleash adverse weather conditions across major rice-growing belts in Asia, including hotter, drier conditions. She noted this adds further upside to rice prices in the months ahead.

It is not just the threat of a severe El Niño event on analysts’ radars. There are also continued elevated diesel and fertilizer costs tied to disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz. This will further weigh on rice production yields across import-reliant Asia.

Rice farming is already highly fertilizer-intensive, while irrigation systems often depend on diesel-powered pumps.

In Vietnam’s Vinh Long province, a farmer told Bloomberg that he plans to skip one of his usual three annual crops due to rising input costs and extreme heat.

Fertilizer prices in Thailand, Cambodia, and the Philippines have soared by nearly 50% since late February, according to the International Rice Research Institute.

The Philippines has warned that a strong El Niño could cut rice production by up to 700,000 tons, or 3.5% of its annual production target.

Already, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s FAO Food Price Index, which tracks monthly changes in the international prices of a basket of globally traded food commodities, is trending upward and risks a further leg higher.

Alexandra Prokopenko, a fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, warned in mid-March that disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz would spark shortages of energy and fertilizers, translating into higher food prices in “six to nine months from now.”

Related:

• We Are 6 Months From Global Food Shortages Because Farmers Are Facing A Quadruple Whammy Crisis

• Everyone Talks About The Cost Of Gasoline… Soon Everyone Will Be Talking About The Cost Of Food

Last month, ZeroHedge Debates held a roundtable to ask: How bad will the food inflation mess get?

View here:

Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld outlined where food inflation is expected to hit the hardest, on a country-by-country level, this year (see report)

By Michael Kern of OilPrice.com

A potential strike over wages could threaten smooth operations offshore Norway, Western Europe’s top oil and gas producer, at a time when the world is scrambling for oil and gas supply amid the Middle East crisis.

Almost 8% of oil and gas workers offshore Norway could go on a strike from June 5 if trade union negotiations with industry fail to reach an agreement in a government-brokered mediation process, according to data from the labor unions on Monday.

More than 600 workers out of about 8,100 in total offshore Norway could begin a strike later this week, Reuters reported on Monday, citing the office of the government-appointed mediator.

Negotiations between the offshore industry and the workers organized in the Styrke, Lederne, and Safe trade unions continue.

At the end of last week, talks between Offshore Norway, which represents the oil industry in the wage talks, and the unions broke down.

Offshore Norway and the trade union Styrke held negotiations on May 27 on the onshore base agreements, which cover approximately 875 employees at supply bases along the Norwegian coast. But they failed to reach agreement on a new collective agreement for supply base employees.

“By evening, the parties remained too far apart, and the negotiations ended in a breakdown,” Offshore Norway said last Thursday, citing disagreements over advance payment of sickness benefits, parental benefits, and care benefits.

While talks continue, the possibility of a strike is looming over the oil and gas operations offshore Norway. It’s not clear how a strike would affect Norway’s oil and gas output, if at all.

Norway produces more than 4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, with oil and gas nearly equally divided at 2 million boepd each. Norway is shipping crude as far as Asia, which struggles without a large part of the Middle Eastern supply. Norway is also Europe’s single biggest gas supplier, having replaced Russia in 2022 when Putin invaded Ukraine.

Authored by Felicity Bradstock via OilPrice.com,

• Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C are expected to play a major role in expanding Britain’s nuclear generation capacity and reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

• Both projects have faced concerns over delays and rising costs, with Hinkley Point C’s estimated price nearly doubling from its original forecast.

• The U.K. aims to increase nuclear capacity to 24 GW by 2050, supported by large-scale reactors and emerging small modular reactor technologies.

The United Kingdom is focused on diversifying its energy mix away from fossil fuels to boost energy security and support decarbonisation aims.

This includes expanding its nuclear power capacity with the development of two large-scale nuclear plants – Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C, as well as developing small modular reactors (SMR).

However, its nuclear ambitions have not quite gone to plan, following years of delays and rising construction costs.

Sizewell C in Suffolk, eastern England, received its planning approval in 2022, was greenlit in 2025, and is expected to be operational by around the late 2030s. Investment for the development comes from the government, EDF Energy, Centrica, La Caisse, and Amber Infrastructure Limited. The project is expected to create 17,000 jobs during peak construction, including 7,900 in Suffolk. Once operational, the nuclear plant will produce up to 3.2 GW of clean electricity to power up to 6 million homes.

The government expects the plant to cost around £38 billion to develop and says it could provide around £2 billion a year in savings from the electricity system, compared to using other low-carbon technologies. However, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the chair of the public accounts committee, which oversees the work of the National Audit Office (NAO), warned that “Sizewell C is a project of exceptional scale, complexity and significance for taxpayers… Experience from comparable nuclear projects in the UK and overseas highlights their vulnerability to delays and cost overruns.”

To date, the French nuclear firm EDF has invested £1.1 billion for a 12.5 percent stake in the project, while the U.K. government has invested £14.2 billion as the majority stakeholder. The NAO fears that if not properly managed, construction could run significantly over budget, as seen with other nuclear developments in recent years. This would make the break-even time much longer for consumers footing the construction costs through their taxes. 

The NAO has, therefore, urged the government to mitigate the risk by using “close monitoring, greater transparency to parliament, and by securing value for money from the significant public and private investment”.

Lessons for building Sizewell C come from the construction of EDF’s Hinkley Point C plant, the first nuclear plant to be developed in the U.K. in over a decade. Hinkley Point C was approved by the U.K. government in 2013 and was greenlit in 2016. It is expected to begin operations in 2030, a year later than originally planned.

The project has faced several delays and price increases, the most recent of which was announced by EDF in February, adding a projected £2.16 billion. The plant is now expected to cost around £35 billion in total, almost double the original £18 billion 2016 estimate. EDF’s CEO, Bernard Fontana, said the new forecasts were “more realistic” and said that the 2030 launch of operations was “within a range that has not changed” since 2024, when it said operations would start between 2029 and 2031.

Once operational, Hinkley Point C is expected to provide around 7 percent of Britain’s electricity demand. While EDF’s two U.K. nuclear projects could help diversify the country’s energy mix and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, critics worry that the development of the two plants will face further delays and come in significantly over budget. EDF’s only other nuclear project using the same reactor type, at Flamanville in France, became fully operational in December after a delay of over 12 years; meanwhile, costs soared from an initial estimate of £2.85 billion to over £11.4 billion.

In 2025, the U.K. was deemed the “most expensive place in the world” to build nuclear power plants in a government review.

This was largely owing to “overly complex” bureaucracy around the sector. Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce said that “radical reset” of the rules around nuclear power could save Britain “tens of billions” in costs and reverse the industry’s “decline” in recent years. This suggests that the government must work to streamline bureaucratic processes without compromising safety and consider other cost-cutting options to avoid cost increases in nuclear development.

At the time, the Taskforce chair, John Fingleton, stated, “Our solutions are radical, but necessary. By simplifying regulation, we can maintain or enhance safety standards while finally delivering nuclear capacity safely, quickly, and affordably.”

In 2024, the U.K. government announced a target to increase the country’s nuclear power capacity fourfold, to 24 GW by 2050.

This will be achieved through the development of Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C, as well as through the deployment of innovative small-scale nuclear technologies.

This is an ambitious target, but through the development of a wide range of nuclear technologies, it could be achievable.

Via The Cradle

Pro-Palestine streamer and commentator Hassan Piker was banned from visiting the UK by the British Home Office, ahead of his planned meeting with former Labour Party chief Jeremy Corbyn. Piker was also due to meet with Green Party leader Zack Polanski. “The UK has revoked my visa as well. All at the behest of Israel. The west is betraying ‘liberal values’ for a genocidal fascist foreign government. Soon we will all become Israel,” Piker said on X on 1 June. 

Cenk Uyghur, Piker’s uncle and host of the “Young Turks” political commentary program, said earlier that he was also denied entry into the UK. The Young Turks show has been highly critical of Israel. 

The British Home Office justified the move by declaring Uyger a “serious risk to the public order” following his claim that “Israel controls the American government through donations to 94% of Congress,” according to an X post made by the Young Turks founder.

“I’ve been banned from the UK. I tried to get on a flight to London to attend SXSW London and give a speech at Oxford. I’ve been banned for criticizing Israel. Are we free anymore? This is oppression of Western citizens by our own governments on behalf of a different country!” Cenk said on social media. 

“It’s an honor to have made Israel’s enemies list. I’m very proud to have fought against their genocide. The mighty United Kingdom is afraid of speech that shows you who’s responsible for those war crimes. But no amount of censorship will get us to stop telling the truth,” Uyghur added. 

Polanski condemned London’s decision to ban both commentators from visiting the UK. 

The British government is saying they’re banning me because I am “a serious risk to the public order” due to my criticism of Israel.

They say that my charge that Israel controls the American government through donations to 94% of Congress, while factual, is antisemitic…

— Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) May 31, 2026

“People often talk about dangerous road we’d go down under a Reform government – this is another clear warning we’re down there already.” He also demanded an immediate explanation from UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood. 

Corbyn, who was expelled from the Labour Party years ago over criticism of Israel and allegations of “antisemitism,” also strongly criticized the UK decision, saying on Monday that banning Uyghur and Piker was an “attack on the freedom to criticize Israel, as well as the UK government’s own complicity in genocide.”

British authorities have cracked down heavily on pro-Palestine activism in recent years. 

Last year, the UK proscribed activist group Palestine Action as a terror organization. Since then, thousands of people have been detained across the UK in connection with Palestine Action protests.

Corbyn calls the move “authoritarian”… 

Banning Cenk Uyghur and Hasan Piker from entering the UK is an absurd and cowardly decision from an increasingly authoritarian government.

Let us call this what it is: an attack on the freedom to criticise Israel, as well as the UK government’s own complicity in genocide. https://t.co/c6jUrF3prA

— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) June 1, 2026

The group has, for years, stood against Israeli occupation and UK military support for it. Earlier in 2026, several Palestine Action activists went on hunger strike over a $2.7 billion British military training contract to Israeli arms maker Elbit Systems’ British subsidiary.

The hunger strikers reached a critical phase before ending the strike in January, following the government’s decision to cancel the contract. The UK High Court ruled the July 2025 terrorist proscription on Palestine Action unlawful in February 2026. 

During the current but tenuous ceasefire, Iran has successfully managed to excavate multiple key sites tied to its missile program that were previously bombarded by the American-Israeli warplanes during the initial five weeks of Operation Epic Fury.

While the revelation is not exactly new, a fresh CNN report has confirmed through recent satellite imagery that more missile tunnels have been dug out than previously thought.

Tehran utilized basic construction equipment to dig out several missile launchers and reopen subterranean tunnels tied to its missile program. The visual analysis determined that Iran was able to successfully clear the entrances to 50 out of 69 targeted tunnels, alongside 18 distinct missile production sites.

“Iran has repaired other parts of the bases as well, including roads that the US and Israel bombed to prevent missile launchers from using them,” CNN wrote. “Satellite images show almost all these craters have now been filled, and at two sites, even repaved.”

This assessment heavily mirrors a series of leaked intelligence reports that have surfaced over the past month. CNN underscored that the US intelligence community currently estimates that Iran still has over 75% of its missile launchers fully available, and there’s been a constant production of drones ongoing throughout the ceasefire.

Sam Lair, a research associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies who analyzes told the outlet that “There’s nothing to prevent the launchers from being armed with the ample stockpile of missiles that the Iranians still have.”

He sought to highlight the limits of American firepower, in terms of damage, and given that it hasn’t been sustained:

“The US military is good at delivering tactical successes, and entombing and suppressing the Iranian missile force is a great example of that,” said Lair.

“However, if that isn’t accompanied by a set of reasonable strategic war aims and an achievable theory of victory, it can end up being a strategic failure.”

President Trump has been touting the near annihilation of Iran’s arsenal, and has lately said the rest of its launch sites could be taken out in a day if he gave the order. 

Despite that peace talks are not really going anywhere, and Tehran even announced they’ve halted as of Monday morning, the White House doesn’t look in any hurry to start dropping bombs again.

Iran is poised to fire far more long-range missiles at Israel and other Middle Eastern nations after rapidly digging out its buried arsenals – an effort that highlights the limits to US bombing strategy, experts said. https://t.co/Rny1xTfFKl pic.twitter.com/STJFMe6L2O

— CNN (@CNN) May 31, 2026

So far both sides have settled in for a long conflict, centered on blockading the Hormuz Strait, and in anticipating of outlasting the other side in terms of absorbing economic and political pain.

The Middle East continued to dominate market attention in May, as constant, daily, recurring hopes and media leaks and trial balloons for some kind of US-Iran deal meant that Brent crude oil fell -19.3%, marking its biggest monthly decline since March 2020 as the pandemic lockdowns began. Those hopes for an end to the conflict meant that fears about stagflation eased dramatically, which pushed yields lower and supported risk assets as well. Indeed, the S&P 500 was up another +5.3% in total return terms to a new record, with chip stocks doing particularly well as excitement around AI returned. For instance, the Philadelphia semiconductor index rose another +22.2% in May, taking its YTD gains to a record +81.5% (in 2000 Semis got there faster but… well, you know the story).

And in South Korea, the KOSPI was up another +28.5% in May, taking its own YTD gains to +102.4%. Admittedly, it wasn’t all good news, and sovereign bond yields briefly hit multi-year highs towards mid-May. But as hopes for a US-Iran deal rose, bonds also recovered into month-end as oil and inflation concerns fell back again.

Before we get into the details, a quick summary from Deutsche Bank’s Henry Allen how for markets, May played out like a three-part story:

• The first part started strongly, as an Axios report on May 6 said the US and Iran were close to a one-page memo to end the war (it’s almost a month later and the two sides still haven’t agreed on any memo). Oil prices fell sharply, with Brent crude down from $114/bbl on May 4 to $100/bbl on May 7. So stagflation fears eased considerably, particularly as the US jobs report featured another upside surprise for payrolls.
• The second part was more pessimistic, as Trump posted that Iran’s proposal was “TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!” So that raised fears of an escalation, whilst a strong US core CPI print added to concern about more persistent inflation, particularly with the Strait of Hormuz still blocked.
• This period saw bond yields hit multi-year highs in several countries. On May 19, the 30yr Treasury yield closed at a post-2007 high of 5.18%, 10yr bund yields hit a post-2011 high of 3.19%, and Japan’s 10yr yield hit a post-1997 high of 2.78%.
• The third part saw optimism return, as multiple reports suggested a US-Iran deal was again close. In fact, oil prices ended the month at a one-month low, the S&P 500 posted 7 consecutive gains, and the 10yr Treasury yield fell for 7 consecutive sessions for the first time in over a year. So the full numbers pointed to a decent performance overall.
• While events in Iran continued to dominate attention, the other big story in May was the return of AI excitement, with chip stocks massively outperforming. For instance, the Philly semiconductor index was up another +22.2%, and the KOSPI was up +26.2% in USD total return terms. That took their YTD gains to +82% and +94% respectively, after just 5 months of the year. In fact, in local currency terms, the KOSPI is up more than +100% YTD. So, despite all the geopolitical volatility this year, the AI story is still center stage for financial assets.

With that in mind, here is a high-level macro overview of the month that was. 

Markets got May off to a strong start, with oil prices coming down as hopes grew for an end to the conflict. Most notably, Axios reported on May 6 that the US and Iran were close to a one-page memo that would end the war and set a framework for more nuclear negotiations. So that raised hopes that the war might soon be over, and Brent crude oil fell from $114.44/bbl on May 4th, to $100.06/bbl on May 7. Then shortly after on May 8, there was then fresh support from strong US data, as the jobs report for April surprised on the upside. That included a +115k increase in payrolls, which on the current series of revisions is the first time since 2024 that payrolls have been above +100k in consecutive months.

But despite that optimistic start, sentiment began to turn again towards the middle of the month. That was primarily driven by geopolitical developments, as Trump posted on May 10 that the proposal from Iran was “TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!” That raised fears of a fresh escalation, and Trump said on May 11 that “the ceasefire is on massive life support”. So with no sign of a peace deal and the Strait of Hormuz still blocked, oil prices began to recover again. Moreover, Trump openly speculated about an escalation, saying on May 19 that “I hope we don’t have to do the war, but we may have to give them another big hit”.

For markets, matters weren’t helped in this period by a strong US core CPI print on May 12, which raised fears about more persistent inflation, particularly as oil prices kept moving higher as well. Indeed, on May 18, the 6-month Brent future closed at $92.76/bbl, which was its highest level since the conflict began. So investors were pricing in a more protracted period of high oil prices that extended to the end of the year.

That backdrop meant that bond yields reached new highs in multiple countries. For instance, there were several records set on May 19, as the 30yr Treasury yield closed at a post-2007 high of 5.18%, the 10yr bund yield closed a post-2011 high of 3.19%, and Japan’s 10yr yield closed at a post-1997 high of 2.78%.

Meanwhile in the UK, a few days earlier on May 15, the 10yr gilt yield had also hit a post-2008 high of 5.17%. That came as speculation mounted around PM Keir Starmer’s position after the governing Labour Party lost seats in the local elections. In turn, that triggered multiple ministerial resignations, including Health Secretary Wes Streeting. Shortly after, a by-election was then called after an MP stood down, and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham announced he’d be standing for Parliament. That initially saw gilts lose ground, as Burnham had previously said that the UK shouldn’t be “in hock” to the bond markets, and had suggested that defence spending should be considered outside the fiscal rules. However, Burnham later ruled out changing the fiscal rules, which led to a clear rally for gilts. So coupled with easing fears of stagflation, the 10yr gilt yield actually fell -20bps over May as a whole, closing at 4.81%.

But even though sovereign bond yields hit multi-year highs in the middle of the month, more positive sentiment returned towards the end of May. That was driven – again – by multiple reports suggesting that a US-Iran deal might be moving closer. For instance on May 27, Iran’s state TV reported on an unofficial draft for an interim peace deal, raising hopes that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen. Then on May 28, an Axios report said that a deal had been reached on a 60-day memorandum of understanding to extend the ceasefire, with negotiations also starting over Iran’s nuclear program. And a similar message was then reported by other outlets. So that led to a decent fall in oil prices towards month end, meaning Brent crude ultimately closed at $92.05/bbl, its lowest level in over a month. And markets more broadly ended the month very strongly, with the S&P 500 up 7 days in a row, whilst the 10yr Treasury yield also fell for 7 consecutive sessions for the first time in over a year.

Which assets saw the biggest gains in May?

• Equities: It was generally a strong month for equities, as hopes rose for some kind of US-Iran deal. In total return terms, the S&P 500 was up +5.3%, the STOXX 600 rose +3.2%, and Japan’s Nikkei was up +11.9%. Meanwhile, South Korea’s KOSPI surged another +28.5%, taking its YTD gains to +102.4%.
• Sovereign bonds: As fears of stagflation receded, sovereign bonds advanced, particularly in Europe. So Euro sovereigns were up +1.1% in total return terms, and gilts rose +2.0%. US Treasuries saw a smaller advance as investors brought forward expectations for Fed rate hikes, but they were still up +0.1% in total return terms.

Which assets saw the biggest losses in May?

• Oil: The prospect of a US-Iran deal meant Brent crude fell -19.3% in May, marking its biggest monthly decline since March 2020 when the pandemic lockdowns began.
• Gold: With real yields moving higher and fears about inflation receding, gold prices fell back for a third consecutive month, falling -1.7% to $4,540/oz.
• Bitcoin: it was a dismal month for the crypto currency which swung higher in April, defying the initial post-war gloom in gold and other anti-fiat assets, but then erased almost all April gains, to trade down almost 4%.

Finally, here is a visual recap of the best performing assets in May (in domestic and USD terms).

… and YTD.