To illustrate how short-term weather fluctuations sit on top of a long-term climate trend, think of climate as the underlying baseline signal and weather as the day-to-day or year-to-year noise.

The graph below illustrates this exact relationship over a 50-year span:

Key Concepts Illustrated in the Graph:

1. Climate as a Continuum (The Dark Red Line)

 What it represents: The 50-year moving average or underlying trend in global/regional climate (such as mean temperature anomaly).

 The progression: It shows a steady, continuous progression over time. Even if individual years or months vary, the overall climate baseline moves predictably upward over multi-decade scales.

2. Weather as Short-Term Noise (The Light Pink Jagged Line)

 What it represents: Local atmospheric events, seasonal shifts, natural ocean oscillations (like El Niño/La Niña), and sudden weather fronts.

 The volatility: Notice how wildly the pink line swings from month to month and year to year. In any short window (e.g., Year 10 to Year 15), you will see sharp drops that resemble cooling or dramatic spikes that look like sudden extreme heat.

n.b. This was produced for me, at my request, by AI. (Gemini).

I wrote this in February 2018. It’s a bit long-winded but there may be indications that I was right

The reasons people gave for voting “Leave” in the EU Referendum fall broadly into two categories – though they overlap and both can be characterised under the slogan “Take Back Control”. The clinching argument which gave “Leave” their narrow victory was concerns about “Immigration”. The other argument – the one given by the more sophisticated Brexiteers – was about “Sovereignty”. Those who personally voted “Leave” , giving “Sovereignty ” as the reason, also tend to deny that immigration concerns were the principal reason “Leave” won. They are squeamish about associating themselves with a position which could be borderline racist, Islamaphobic  or xenophobic and for which the main proponents were UKIP and its even further to the Right fellow travellers. In particular the Leave.co.uk campaign led by Nigel Farage, Arron Banks and Kate Hoey. There is a strong dose of disingenuousness about all this. Some of the Conservative “Leave” campaigners jumped on the “Turkey  is joining the EU” meme – including the new Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt. The “Official” “Leave” campaign ran an advertising campaign saying this. It was, of course, a barely coded message about immigration, especially Muslim immigration. At least the advertising of Banks, Farage and co. was more open about its “Don’t open the floodgates to more migrants” pitch.

“Take Back Control”  was often linked to “our borders”. Essentially a positioning which says that “Freedom of Movement” – one of the “Four Freedoms” essential to the EU’s “Single Market” – meant that anyone from 30 countries (not just EU countries) could come and live and work in Britain as a right. And when here they would be treated as a British citizen in respect of (say) healthcare or welfare. The “Take Back Control” slogan and all its surrounding rhetoric implied that FoM is a bad thing and we should have full control of our borders again and not have who enters Britain decided but Brussels. In fact studies show that the presence of European nationals is strongly net positive to the UK economy. But such truths were casualties in the febrile and often squalid times of the Referendum.

A Sovereign nation certainly controls its border itself unlike the 28 countries of the European Union, along with Switzerland, Norway and Iceland which are open to citizens from across the continent. But it is surely the case that the 27+3 nations that will continue to be open if Britain leaves have made a conscious decision to do so. In effect they have pooled their Sovereignty on this matter.  And for good reason. The Single Market offers huge mutual benefits and the freedom of movement of two factors of production – Labour and Capital – is an integral part of this.

Those who voted “Leave” citing “Sovereignty” no doubt had control of borders as one of the reasons but, they argue, it goes beyond that. “Isn’t it better that Britain takes its own decisions rather than having slavishly to follow the same path as 27 other countries?” There is a strong nationalistic element to this reminiscent of Flanders and Swann’s “The English, the English, the English are best – I wouldn’t give tuppence for all of the rest”. In essence where a decision needs to be made and who makes it is more important than the quality of the decision – or so this implies.

Rationally in most cases it really doesn’t matter where a decision is taken or who takes it so long as we perceive the outcome as being beneficial to us. To me two of the most important developments of the past decade or so were taken thousands of miles from Britain’s shores. Amazon and Apple launched products and service which literally changed my life. To be able to buy virtually anything online from  Amazon at a fair price and have it swiftly delivered to my home is a boon. And to be able to make this purchase lying on a hotel bed (as I am now) using my iPad?  Well ! Exactly the same applies to political decisions. If the European Parliament approves a regulation that benefits me does it matter that it was taken in Brussels rather than Westminster. Of course not. In a global, interdependent world the best decisions on crucial matters are better taken cooperatively. The English are not necessarily best.
The EU recognises that local matters should be resolved locally. “Subsidiarity” is a key EU principle. The idea that you take decisions at the lowest level practical is inherent in how the EU works  – far more so than in England where (unlike Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) we have few political institutions below Westminster to devolve decision-making to.

The other benefit of joint sovereignty in certain areas is that there are more checks and balances .and greater pooling of experiences. If the EU proposes a new regulation there are 28 nations to consider it from their own experiences. If the British Government proposes a new law no such checks exist. It may take longer at an EU level, but any significant new regulation will have been considered from a broad not narrow perspective.

The mention of Amazon and Apple – and I could have chosen a hundred or more examples – was just to illustrate that 21st Century life is complex and major influences on our lives come from people or organisations we only engage with indirectly. This may seem a statement of the obvious – it is – but this fact is at the heart of any discussion about “Sovereignty” , or should be. At a basic level many of us would like the maximum of control over our own lives. It is possible to do this – perhaps by moving away from the complexities of modern living to some cottage in the country, growing our own vegetables and making our own entertainment. Even if we do that we cannot truly escape. We still have to pay our taxes and fulfil some bare minimum citizen obligations. The world is always with us.

In modern history some of the greatest horrors come from when peoples , or specific groups of people, are forced to do something against their will. Ethnic cleansing. Fleeing war or a natural catastrophe. It is natural to want to choose what we do and when we cannot do that for whatever reason we are aggrieved. And in a democracy it is likely that legitimate governments will pass laws that some citizens will object to. Here the concept of the “greater good” applies. You won’t please all the people all the time but so long as a particular law or regulation benefits significantly more people than those who object to it it’s probably worthwhile. So long as the democratic process was fair and followed and the consequences properly managed.

Which brings us back to the decision-making process in governance. Can we accept that in principle it really doesn’t matter who takes a decision or where it is taken – only whether it was a quality decision? Are lower level decisions always better than higher level ones or does there need to be a pragmatism which accepts remote decision-making if the outcomes are desirable? I think the answer is obvious. Major social, economic environmental and other changes can only really be taken at a high level. You couldn’t have had London boroughs opting out of the “Clean Air Act” at will. There had to be a decision at a much higher level of Government if the fogs and smogs of 1950s London were to be eradicated. Which they were.

Politics has always been in part about the struggle between freedom and compulsion those polarising goals of the Right and the Left. The battleground is at the heart of political discourse. The gut cry “Too much regulation stifles our freedoms” is not a modern idea. In power parties of whatever political persuasion will always have to consider whether more or less regulation is desirable – there is rarely a credible ideological answer (or even guideline) to help resolve these questions. That regulation has generally increased in the post war decades is broadly true. This is in part a response to lifestyle changes and in part a consequence of having a better understanding of science. The “Clean Air Act” was necessary because people were dying prematurely and unnecessarily from pollution. The heavy regulations applied to smoking and tobacco were the same. Public health was the driver.

As citizens our first obligation is to obey the law. Even if we disagree with it. The “greater good” argument should persuade us if we take our citizenship seriously. But how the law should operate and what new laws should apply (or existing laws be relaxed or changed) can be contentious. Perceived fairness is crucial – are those to whom a new law will apply being treated “fairly” ? If we are non smokers we probably don’t care that much about tobacco duty increases. But, I would argue, we should care that smokers are being treated fairly – smoking is a legal pursuit. We accept discriminations across society that are for the “greater good”. The banning of smoking in public places was certainly discriminatory – but few or any would now argue that it was the wrong thing to do. My 40-a-day mother would be astonished if she was here. But she isn’t. She died prematurely of cancer in 1978.

Modern life is not only complex but we also live in a world of far greater interdependence than even our closest forefathers. “No man is an island entire in itself” wrote John Donne 300 years ago but the apotheosis of this appeared in the twentieth century and has grown exponentially. Even an island race is no more entire in itself, and certainly not one as large and diverse as Britain. The primary context in which we live and work is now a global one and, especially, European. The British economy is inextricably part of the greater European one. The drivers are freedoms that we and fellow Europeans have created for our mutual benefit. Crucially three of Adam Smith’s four “Factors of Production” can and do move freely across the 28 countries. Labour, Capital and Enterprise move according to classic economic supply/demand drivers. A Greek Bank can invest in a Swedish car plant without restriction if its sees a good return. A Swedish student can study in Athens. A Greek Doctor can work in Britain’s National Health Service. And so on tens of thousands of times over.

Change can be stressful and some manage it better than others. Whilst Britain is certainly not a closed society it can be insular – more so, perhaps, than those among our fellow European nations with contiguous borders. The joy of driving across national borders without the need to stop for any customs or other checks has been a part of mainland Europe for decades. They don’t talk about “going abroad”  – that concept doesn’t exist. That doesn’t mean that going from (say) Germany to France isn’t noticed. Of course not. The distinctive cultures of the two countries is enjoyed, even celebrated but moving between them is no big deal. But those 21 miles of sea between Britain and “Europe” though no longer any sort of physical barrier thanks to the Tunnel are still a psychological barrier. We do go “abroad”.

The biggest divide in Britain is not North/South or even Class – it is between those who see nationality as horizontal – and those who see it as vertical and hierarchical. The latter group were the ones satirised by Flanders and Swann.  They are often older, less educated and far less travelled. They see nationalities as having a hierarchy with Britain at the top. They often put Anglophone Countries next –  indeed many  of the Eurosceptics who became Brexiteers are supporters of the mythical “Anglosphere” a concept not acknowledged by anyone in the countries like Australia or New Zealand who the Eurosceptics say would be part of it. It’s all bunkum. Those of us who see nationality as horizontal don’t deny differences of culture and behaviour – we just don’t think British culture and the way we behave are better than those who are different.

So “Sovereignty” or “taking back control” is a consequence not of logic but of bias. The idea that decisions that Britain takes on her own are likely to be “better” than those taken co-jointly with others is based on the same highly questionable ideological slant that sees nationality as vertical and hierarchical. It conflicts with the adages like “Two heads are better than one “ or “A problem shared is a problem halved”. It is proudly individualistic , even nationalistic, rather than collegiate and trans-national.

What we are dealing with in the “Sovereignty” question is not empirical. You cannot “prove” that “taking back control” will produce better outcomes (or that the opposite will for that matter). The issue amounts to this. Should Britain really become the only country in Europe outside the EU and it’s close associates like Norway and Switzerland in the Single Market because of some highly spurious claim that we need to “restore our Sovereignty”. Can we really be that foolish?

A key United States stat is ‘income share of top 1%’. The US IS TWO NATIONS. Rather as England was in Victorian times. Here’s what Disraeli said in “Sybil”:

“Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws. THE RICH AND THE POOR.”

When you average the rich and the poor you get numbers that are representative of neither. Many of us have seen the lifestyle of those Americans with money. Especially on the East and West coasts and in islands of wealth like Florida or Vegas. But go to the poorer parts of the great cities or the boondocks and it’s a different story.

The median family income in Massachusetts is $100k, in Mississippi it’s half that. With far more limited welfare support than in Europe there are Victorian levels of poverty almost everywhere. The conspicuous consumption of the rich, starting in the White House, would make Louis XVI blush ! Batten down the hatches you fat cats.

Throughout his push to return to Westminster and challenge for national leadership, Andy Burnham and his allies repeatedly pushed back against the narrative that he was actively scheming to overthrow Keir Starmer.

Despite the public denials and dismissals of “plotting,” Burnham openly mounted a direct challenge by running in the Makerfield by-election with the explicit platform to “change Labour.” Following his landslide victory in that by-election, the political momentum became insurmountable, causing Starmer to resign and clear the path for Burnham to step into No. 10.

By highlighting that he was outside the Parliamentary Labour Party, Burnham attempted to defuse accusations of “backstroom plotting” and “scheming,” framing the unfolding crisis as an internal Westminster issue rather than something he was actively orchestrating from afar.

So the obvious conclusion we must draw is that we will shortly have an unelected Prime Minister whose accession to the job was a direct consequence of plotting and manoeuvres that he drove. Further that he is denying this obvious truth with provably mendacious statements. I can find no precedent in modern British history of such scheming and denial.

I agree he’s “consequential” , he was first in Iain Dale’s list of the most influential people on the Right back in the day. Ahead of David Cameron who was then Prime Minister! But over Farage’s political career it’s impossible to find one thoroughly worked through policy proposal of any significance. His appeal has always been to the gut not the intellect.

Farage is a Conservative Nationalist who puts the nation state (Britain) ahead of the reality that the modern world is increasingly interdependent. That positioning has a marketable faux-patriotic appeal. And there is plenty of brand symbolism around. 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 .

Whilst the trends around the world, especially in Europe, have been towards transnational cooperation Farage has soapboxed independence, always with an appeal to the spurious “benefits” of sovereignty. This translates into a covert (sometimes more overt) xenophobia.

The EU Referendum outcome showed that the (then) UKIP position can have popular appeal and the subsequent rise of Reform under Farage has confirmed this. Populism doesn’t need or get policy depth, it survives and prospers with slogans. Farage drove established Parties to do the same . Remember the decidedly cerebral Rishi Sunak stood at a podium with “Stop the Boats” on the lectern!

History teaches us to beware the demagogue. In truth that is what Farage is (though there is a hilarious hint of Roderick Spode about him as well). The jury is out.

Kemi Badenoch has explicitly stated exactly that Britain is Multiracial not Multicultural. During a major policy speech on British integration and identity, she directly addressed the distinction between race and culture, outlining her stance on how the country should approach immigration and social cohesion:

“I have long argued that while Britain is a multi-racial country, we must not be a multi-cultural one. Some people think this is a controversial position because they do not understand what culture is. Culture is not your skin colour… Culture is much deeper than that. It is behaviours. It is norms. It is expectations.”

In her rhetoric, Badenoch separates the concepts to make a case for assimilation rather than coexistence of competing cultural frameworks. She argues that a country can be successfully diverse in terms of race and ethnicity while still uniting around a single, shared national culture.

My comment:

I think Mrs Badenoch is profoundly wrong, simplistically and ignorantly so. Of course Culture is not your skin colour but race, which generally is signalled by skin colour, is very definitely an element of your cultural identity.

Since settling permanently in Britain Badenoch (nee Adegoke) has very much assimilated marrying a banker of Scots heritage and living a life with few if any hangovers from her own Nigerian heritage. In effect whilst she cannot deny her race (nor would wish to) she wishes to be seen as culturally British which she is, of course, perfectly entitled to do.

A way back I worked in Shell with a colleague whose name was Clarence Eng. As his surname hints Clarence was 100% of Chinese heritage. But his parents had fled China for Britain at the time of the Mao revolution in 1948. Clarence had been brought up in a typical British middle class environment, including boarding school and Cambridge. He referred to himself as a “banana” – yellow on the outside and white on the inside. The equivalent for someone of African heritage would be “coconut”.

We risk entering squally waters here. But the key point is choice. You can, as Kemi and Clarence have done, essentially move on from your heritage and 100% adopt a traditional and conventional British way of life. Be monocultural Kemi might say approvingly. But she would also say pretty much explicitly that you should reject other cultural choices. So the Notting Hill Carnival is presumably anathema to her.

The problem is not peculiar to Britain. Alan Gamlen, director of the Australian National University’s Migration Hub, said “monoculturalism” was the idea that everyone followed a uniform set of norms and rules for behaviour. That included the foods they ate, the clothes they wore, the gods they worshipped, the language they spoke, and more. This standard is not only highly prescriptive but actually counter-productive. And impossible to enforce.

There is also rather an ironic paradox in the idea of enforcing a uniform cultural standard. Britain’s culture is far from unitary even if we exclude the variations brought by the Windrush generation of immigrants, etc. In Scotland there is a distinctive culture which is not really a subset of British culture. We share a language (with differences!) but many of the cultural behaviours are different. This is even more so in Wales where Cymraeg is extensively spoken and brings inevitably with it cultural variation.

In truth race brings culture with it as does, for example, religion. There is no denying the cultural distinctiveness of the Jewish communities of North London. They do not conform to Kemi Badenoch’s idea of what British behaviours, norms and expectations are. So what? They obey the law and no doubt are as proud to be British as they are to be Jewish.

Badenoch says we “must not” be multicultural (her words). The reality is that we indisputably already are and a multiracial society like Britain will inevitably be multicultural as well. Here’s one list:

• British Indian community
• British Pakistani community
• British Bangladeshi community
• Black British Caribbean communi
• Black British African community
• British Chinese community
• British Irish community
• British Jewish community
• British Turkish community
• British Arab community
• British Polish community
• British Romanian community

Etcetera !

What about the strong cultural distinctiveness of Sharia or Jewish law? (Beth Din). The one obligation that everyone in Britain shares is to obey the law. If a cultural group has behaviours that are extra legal then English law prevails. For example our legal system accommodates religious norms in various ways — kosher and halal food standards, faith schools, religious marriage ceremonies — and Sharia councils and Jewish Beth Din must fit within that tradition of legal pluralism. What they do not constitute is a parallel legal system with coercive power. Both institutions ultimately illustrate the same principle: English law is sovereign, but it leaves space for religious communities to govern their own internal affairs voluntarily.

Britain is undeniably a pluralist and multicultural society within which many different cultures co-exist peacefully ( mostly!). The Leader of the Opposition needs to learn this.

It is completely natural to look at tattoos and feel a bit perplexed if you don’t have them yourself. For a long time, Western society viewed them through a very narrow lens—marking them as a sign of rebellion, counterculture, or specific professions like sailors and soldiers.  

Over the last couple of decades, however, tattoos have undergone a massive cultural shift. Today, the psychology, sociology, and demographics behind tattoos are widely researched.  

1. Why Do People Get Tattoos? (The Psychology)

Psychological research shows that the motivations for getting tattooed have evolved from wanting to “rebel” to wanting to “author” one’s own identity. Psychologists cluster the primary motivations into a few key areas:

 Narrative and Identity Construction: For many, the body is a canvas to tell a personal story. Tattoos frequently serve as external markers of internal experiences—commemorating a major milestone, a personal triumph, or a philosophical belief.  

 Healing and Post-Traumatic Growth: A growing body of psychological research highlights tattoos as a therapeutic tool for emotional recovery. Following trauma, illness, or bereavement, getting a tattoo can be a way to reclaim agency and control over one’s own physical body, turning invisible emotional pain into a visible symbol of survival.  

 The Desire for Uniqueness (Distinctiveness): Psychological studies measuring personality traits show that individuals with tattoos often score slightly higher on the “Need for Uniqueness” scale and “Openness to Experience.” It’s an aesthetic choice to stand out in a highly uniform world.

 Aesthetic Adornment: Just as someone might choose a specific clothing style, hairstyle, or jewelry to feel confident and attractive, many people simply view tattoos as beautiful, permanent art pieces that improve their body image.  

2. Tattoo Demographics in the UK

If you feel like you are seeing tattoos everywhere in the UK, your observations are backed up by data. Tattoos are no longer restricted to any single social class, regional background, or gender. They have firmly entered the British mainstream.  

Data from major polling firms like YouGov and Ipsos paint a clear picture of who is getting inked:

By Age: The Middle-Age Boom

While Gen Z and Millennials embraced tattoos early on, the sharpest growth in recent years has actually been among middle-aged adults. Around 37% of British 35-to-54-year-olds have at least one tattoo—matching the exact percentage of 16-to-35-year-olds. It has become a common way to mark mid-life milestones, 50th birthdays, or retirements.  

By Gender: A Surprising Shift

Historically a male-dominated practice, contemporary UK surveys show that women are now just as likely, if not slightly more likely, to have tattoos than men, frequently opting for fine-line, minimalist, or highly illustrative custom designs.  

By Region and Profession

Geographically, tattoos are ubiquitous across the UK, though major urban hubs boast the highest density of studios. London, for example, is a global epicenter for tattoo artistry, driven heavily by creatives and tech sector workers.  

The old social barrier of the “unprofessional tattoo” has largely dissolved in British working culture. While corporate finance or corporate law can still be conservative, fields like education, healthcare, tech, and creative media heavily feature visible body art.

The Reality vs. Perception Gap: A 2025 study published in the Journal of Research in Personality found that while people frequently judge a person’s entire character based on their tattoos, those assumptions are almost always wrong. The only trait that accurately aligned with reality was that people with unique or unusual tattoos genuinely are more open to new experiences.

Ultimately, tattoos have transitioned from a subcultural stamp of non-conformity into a deeply personal, mainstream form of self-expression. For the person wearing them, it is rarely about shocking the public—it is usually about looking down and seeing a meaningful map of where they have been.

Keir Starmer wasn’t ousted by his own Party for what he did or didn’t do, but for what he is, and what he isn’t. He is a quintessentially North London middle class professional, and a very successful one.

Public Prosecutions is not a job area requiring charisma or communication skills , other than cerebral ones. Guilt is determined not on belief or even principle but on facts.

In the world of politics facts are often unclear and disputed. Success is within the constraints of what is “possible”. Bismarck said further that “politics is not an exact science”. But Starmer’s previous world had to be. English law never had a “Not proven” verdict. And they’ve removed it in Scotland. It has to be binary.

But politics is not binary as well as not being exact. Which brings complex factors into play. “People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war, or before an election” (Bismarck again). In the legal system lying is perjury and an offence. In politics lying is sometimes downgraded to just being “economical with the actualité”. Ask Tony Blair.

Despite being surrounded by liars Starmer wasn’t very good at it. For the likes of Boris Johnson (a journalist not a lawyer) truth was negotiable. Starmer did try political pragmatism (i.e. misleading us with borderline untruths ) but didn’t have Boris’s skillset.

If you’re going in opposition to lambast others for having the dark arts then when in office playing them (badly) yourself you invite the charge of hypocrisy. Starmer had a bewildered look at times as he tried to play a game the rules of which he didn’t understand, and was possibly even unaware.

Rab Butler, an able and principled politician, called his autobiography “The Art of the Possible” an acknowledgement, perhaps, that able though he was his principles were not bendable enough to reach the very top. Starmer on the other hand tried to be Groucho Marx (“These are my principles , but if you don’t like them I have others”). It didn’t work.

Violet Elizabeth couldn’t face up to the fact that she’d blown it. Another once best friend Mark Field did offer to try and comfort her (again) but she decided , probably correctly, that that was a bygone that could be left to be a bygone. She tried praising Donald Trump but he wasn’t having it either “I thought you were a goddam Liberal” he said (he was right of course. And she was also a republican in those days.)

Violet Elizabeth could never be fully part of the established Tory gang. Too girly, and not very good with a catapult. And as, sadly, age and failed ambition began to take its toll life has become a struggle. As she herself put it “I want to be a good girl, but it’s so difficult!”

Second careers (I speak from experience) can be enjoyable and liberating. You’ve nothing really to prove. Your first career track record is for all to see. Your pension is banked. And now, give or take a bit, you can do what you like. As Harold Pinter put it “I can’t be sacked, because I haven’t got a job”. Unless, of course, like Sir Keir Starmer you choose at nearly 60 to aim at the most difficult job in the country.

Fame of course is the Spur. As Milton put it “Fame is the spur that the clear spirit doth raise. That last infirmity of noble mind. To scorn delights, and live laborious days.” Starmer had indisputably a “noble mind” in his previous incarnation. You don’t become a Human Rights lawyer if you have ignoble thoughts. And you’d think scorning delights and choosing to live “Laborious” days (capitalisation intended) was not really what you’d want in your seventh decade.

There is a certainty to legal processes of which Starmer was obviously aware and skilled in managing. In politics there is no such certainty. The illogical (Brexit, Truss…) is just as likely as the logical. A charlatan like Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage is as likely to succeed as someone more principled.

And politics is a career choice and usually an early one. Johnny come latelies rarely achieve anything. It’s also grubby. Starmer saw this in his appointing of Mandelson. He thought that lacking in the dark arts of politics as he personally was he’d choose someone who wrote the dark arts rule book. A catastrophic error of judgment.

Wrong man, wrong time, wrong place. Compare, for example , with his Labour PM predecessor. Gordon Brown was on a hiding to nothing. But his political nous and deep political experience combined with his astute management skills during the global economic crisis rightfully gained him many plaudits. He wasn’t far away from winning the 2010 election and forced the Conservatives into Coalition. Brown could have won despite everything.

I’ve seen people fail when they reach the top in business and sport and The Arts because in the top job a different skill set is required than is needed as you climb the greasy pole. Another problem is that if you’ve genuinely succeeded in something (like Starmer in the Law) it can give you a false sense of infallibility. Even arrogance. When you’re the head honcho you have to earn respect – it doesn’t come automatically. Unless you’re in North Korea. David Cameron got that wrong as well. Enjoying the fruits and the status of office he assumed the people would follow him in the Referendum. They didn’t. Starmer thought his overwhelming General Election win guaranteed him four or five years in office. It hasn’t.

Failure is more likely than success in the top job. Sadly for Sir Keir that was true. But then arguably only Harold Wilson has left office in modern times with his reputation intact. Even the Blessec Margaret had to slink away…