# Ceasefire signals, BP's turmoil and the UK governance problem _The oil market saw through the Iran ceasefire noise before the headline writers did. But it's BP's third chairman in three years that prompts Neil Woodford's bigger question: why UK corporate governance may be the reason Britain doesn't build companies like Nvidia._ Neil Woodford · 29 May 2026 · 5 min read ![Ceasefire signals, BP's turmoil and the UK governance problem](https://cdn.sanity.io/images/v3acfbvo/production/9d7aa6db04a300d9670d8976258f5bce40ab3eaf-2806x1866.jpg?w=1600&fit=max&auto=format) --- Yet again it's been a week dominated by a combination of it's on, it's off in relation to a resolution of the war with Iran, along with some stand-out performances from a number of picks-and-shovels suppliers to the AI industrial revolution, most notably SK Hynix and Micron. Despite the fact that on two occasions hostilities between the US and Iran, Iran and its neighbours, and Israel and Lebanon have broken out this week, the formal ceasefire is still apparently intact. At various points we have heard from both sides that an agreement is close but right now that outcome seems to be less likely. Interestingly, despite the recent escalations, the oil price has fallen this week and now sits at about $96 (Brent), significantly below the recent peaks of over $110. As I write, the headline story on Bloomberg news is entitled 'Iran, US accuse each other of truce breach, with no deal in sight', and yet the oil price remains well below its recent peak. Something tells me that the headline writers may not have all the information and that, despite the ominous signs, there is some prospect of an agreement. The two sides are still talking (at least through intermediaries) and it appears as if the US side is now being led by Marco Rubio rather than Vice President Vance. Late-breaking news – Bloomberg, which earlier carried the story about no Iran/US deal in sight, is now, only a few hours later, saying that Iran and the US have reached a 'tentative' agreement to extend the ceasefire and work towards an agreement to end the war. It goes on to say that shipping through the Strait of Hormuz would be unrestricted, with Iran required to remove all mines within 30 days. It would appear, if this is to be believed, that in this case the oil price was right and the news channels wrong! Elsewhere, the UK Labour Party omnishambles has taken a new twist. Andy Burnham is now set to contest (and, if the betting markets are to be believed) win the Makerfield by-election. He will then be eligible as an MP to challenge Keir Starmer and possibly Wes Streeting in a leadership contest that probably won't reach resolution until September. What policies and personalities Burnham will back, if he wins, is not yet clear given the degree of flip-flopping currently underway, but my guess is that the constraints that have acted as a brake on the incumbent administration will continue for the new one when it emerges later in the year. Whether these events will lead, as some expect, to an early general election is bound to be the next hot topic. My guess is that it won't, not least because a new leader/PM (if we get one) would be hard pushed to believe that he or she could improve on a 170-seat majority. Or, in other words, much to lose but little to gain politically. Whilst the Labour Party was grappling with its domestic crisis, another leadership omnishambles was revealed at BP, one of the UK's largest listed companies. This time, the board has unanimously voted to get rid of BP's Chairman, Albert Manifold, who had only been in place for eight months. This is the third Chairman at the company in three years, which has also had three CEOs over the same time period. Quite how the board thinks this is an appropriate way to govern one of the country's leading businesses is beyond me. Manifold was brought in last July to design and lead a major strategic change at BP, perhaps prompted by the arrival of Elliott IM, the activist hedge-fund group, on the share register. He appears to have done this pretty successfully whilst also persuading a new, high-profile CEO, Meg O'Neill, to join the company. The justification for the high-profile and embarrassing exiting of Manifold is vague but apparently involved issues with 'governance standards, oversight and conduct', which he has contested. The FT described this as Manifold's 'shouty' style ruffling the wrong feathers at BP, which, if true, will likely enrage shareholders given that he appeared to be pretty popular with them. Either way, it highlights again the rather extreme sensitivities in UK boardrooms to anything that comes close to the 'bullying' behaviour label. It leaves me wondering if BP is ungovernable, whilst also wondering about the resilience of people on these types of boards. The FT described the saga as 'quaint' in the context of corporate governance norms in the US, where 40% of large, listed companies have a joint CEO/Chairman (many of which I suspect might be a bit 'shouty') — something which, although not illegal in the UK, would be severely frowned upon here. Of the top 20 companies in the US by market cap, 60% have in effect a joint CEO/Chair role, which I thought was quite interesting, and highlights what on the face of it looks like a completely different approach to corporate governance on the other side of the pond. It's also the case that many of these businesses have founders that have continued to lead these businesses, sometimes over decades, which, again in the context of governance norms here in the UK, looks anomalous. Here, the median tenure of a FTSE 100 CEO is less than four years, and NEDs typically only have three-year contracts. Given that UK boards also admit to spending about 50% of their time on governance, compliance and regulatory issues (ESG, DEI etc., etc.), is it surprising that it's getting harder to find the talent to run these large publicly quoted businesses, or to find experienced people to take on the responsibilities of being a non-exec? I sense that it's becoming much more attractive, if you have an aspiration to climb the greasy pole, to lead a private business rather than a public one. This incident also got me thinking about whether these pretty fundamental corporate governance differences between the UK and the US might explain some of the different corporate outcomes in the US and the UK. It would be hard to prove, but common sense suggests that starting, building and scaling a business like Nvidia, for example, is not something that could ever be achieved by a democracy of execs and NEDs who spent half their time ticking governance boxes and only hung around for a few years. I suspect that building the largest company in the world requires a singular focus from an inspirational leader who probably drives his team as hard as he drives himself, and, I suspect, a decision-making process that bears little similarity to the one deployed in BP's boardroom. ## What to look out for next week Following today's relatively benign US inflation numbers, next week will see ISM data and a lot of labour-market data, but I suspect this may all be eclipsed by what appears to have happened in the conflict in the Gulf. In the UK, mortgage approvals, new car sales, PMI data and house prices will feature in what is a relatively quiet week. The corporate calendar is thankfully very quiet in both markets next week.