Other than as symbolism the truth is that it really doesn’t matter who wins the London Mayoral election. And it’s not just in London that it doesn’t matter. If Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson can each win two elections and do a “job” for eight years there’s surely something wrong with the job – and there is.

The elected Mayors are faux-democracy. Do we blame the Birmingham Mayor for the economic catastrophe in England’s second city? We shouldn’t. He had little or no freedom to act on the matter. To run something above all you need tax-raising powers. The Mayors don’t have them.

If you believe in subsidiarity – the taking of political decisions at the lowest practical level – the Mayors don’t do that. Yes there is the London Assembly, a largely impotent talking shop. By comparison with its nominal predecessors the LCC and the GLC it’s powerless and the Mayor with it.

Margaret Thatcher knew what she was doing when she abolished the GLC. She took power to where she thought it should be, with central government. Subsequently, for show, we’ve elected a Mayor in London and elsewhere and it’s made not a jot of difference to the quality of our governance. It’s a sham.

Lord Sikka, “Why is the Conservative government so relaxed about off shore tax avoidance?”

Baroness Vere, “The government is not relaxed about off shore tax avoidance.. All tax avoidance does need to be stamped out”

For 150 years Britain was driven by (largely) unchallenged Nationalism and its bedfellow Imperialism. We went it alone because we had the power and resources to do so. Military setbacks (Boer War for example) were rare and turned into victories. The Dunkirk spirit didn’t just happens after Dunkirk. Then the Great War happened and it gradually dawned on us in the trenches that we weren’t all powerful after all. We nearly lost that war and were rescued by our cousins from across the pond.

Those cousins assumed the world power role as Britain began gradually to decline. We had neither the military power nor the economic resources to challenge the rise of Hitler so chose Appeasement instead. When the inevitable happened and another war broke out we were alone and bravely the Few won the Battle of Britain. After that it was the big beasts of America and Russia fighting alongside us that preserved democracy – ironically we have Stalin to thank for us not descending into totalitarianism!

After WW2 we finally shed Empire – though the Land of Hope and Glory mindset hung around. The conspiracy theories are essentially a reaction to Britain’s decline. We have to blame someone. The EU (hence Brexit). Immigrants. Non religionists (hence antisemitism and Islamophobia). Not of course the heroes of Dunkirk and the Falklands. Put out more flags.

“The number of recorded antisemitic incidents across the country rose by 147 per cent in 2023, which itself was a record high.” The Times.

With a few exceptions distinguished members of Britains Jewish communities have been silent on Netanyahu’s war. It’s almost as if to be Jewish means you have to support whatever the Israeli government does. And that is surely a cause of antisemitism in all too many cases.

We may not like it but it’s a fact. These instances of antisemitism are mostly a direct response to Israel’s attacks on the people of Gaza. The conflation of “Israel” and “Jewish people” is inaccurate and ignorant, but it’s understandable, though shocking, why people do it. It’s not helped by Britain’s Jewish commentators almost to a man or woman failing to condemn Israel’s actions.

That Netanyahu was right to respond strongly to the Hamas attack on 7th October should not be in doubt. But the launch of all out war on the people of the West Bank is another matter. This prompted many people around the world to protest – a perfectly understandable and uncontentious thing to do. Except when to be anti the actions of the Israeli government (reasonable) turns itself into antisemitism (obscenely wrong).

With a few exceptions distinguished members of Britains Jewish communities have been silent on Netanyahu’s war. It’s almost as if to be Jewish means you have to support whatever the Israeli government does. And that is surely a cause of antisemitism in all too many cases.

I came across a delightfully elitist quote from the great Oscar Wilde today:“By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community,” he wrote.

Oscar was talking about journalism and you can see what he meant. Reportage has a role in journalism – telling us what is happening and what the great unwashed is thinking. And if you back that with “consumer research” you can give the research a statistical credibility. “Seventy percent of the population supports the Monarchy” – that sort of thing.

Wilde references education and ignorance suggesting that the opinions of those with a deficiency of the former and plenty of the latter we (regrettably) have to take note of. Or at least least “keep in touch” with.

Politicians do it all the time ‘The people support what we are doing” a populist politician will say to justify some illiberal policy. This reduces every issue to a pseudo referendum. Manifestos become less a statement of what is right and more a response to collective opinion whether right or not.

As Bismarck put it politics is the “art of the possible” – a matter of pragmatism, instead of idealism. The EU Referendum was a classic example of this. Those who understood the subject were overwhelmingly pro Europe. The higher the level of education a voter had the more likely they were to vote “Remain”. The converse of this, Wilde’s uneducated and ignorant, was also true.

Reducing political complexity by presenting the voter with a simple binary choice is a technique as old as the hills. At its most venal it descends into prejudice and blame throwing. This Nazi poster denigrates the WW2 allies implying that it was Jews who were behind them:

And yet the obscenity of Nazi ideology did not teach us to be more careful. This poster from Farage and the “Leave” campaign was only half a step removed from Goebbels:

One of the variants of Conservatism being peddled at the moments is “National Conservatism”, another is ‘Popular Conservatism”. They are both unashamedly populist movements in the tradition of hard Right parties of the past like the National Front and UKIP.

In the upcoming Elections in the United States and here we can expect Trump (if it’s him) and Sunak punting a “reductio ab absurdum” message full of faux-patriotism and blame calling. We’ve been there before. A political campaign based on nationalism and populist xenophobia is no doubt being carefully planned in Tufton Street and CCHQ.

NATO was established when half of post war Europe was under Soviet domination, including much of Eastern Germany. To protect the west from Soviet threat Europeans needed America. And it was in America’s interest peacefully to protect us. But times have changed.

Former Soviet dominated countries are now free. And Europe is economically united, a symbol of its cultural and historic common heritage. And European integration, the practical manifestation of a common bond and outlook, means that approaching a half of a billion people are meaningfully European citizens.

Cultural and Economic units such as the EU/EFTA also need to defend themselves. The case for a European Defence Force is overwhelming. It would be politically logical and accountable (to member States via the EU Parliament). There would be no reason why a Europe taking responsibility democratically for its own defence couldn’t negotiate mutually beneficial military alliances with other countries with which it has a common interest , especially former NATO partners like the United States and Canada and Britain.

Only a part of our hydrocarbon consumption is substitutable by renewables. Power generation certainly but there are limits. The capital cost of wind turbines is high and probably requires subsidy at a time when national exchequers in the West are struggling to balance their books. Also the effective lifetime of a turbine is unknown as is the maintenance cost over time. Solar has its place but you cannot replace a 3Gw power plant with solar panels.

Some parts of energy consumption are oil or gas specific and cannot change within known technologies. Indeed international trade is dependent on container ships which run on oil. So do ferries and cruise ships and the rest. The big new giant cruise ship runs on LNG , hydrocarbon Gas in other words. Air travel is oil specific and is growing. There is no alternative to oil other than making jet engines more efficient which has been happening successfully for a long time.

Commercial Road Transport (lorries and trucks etc.) is also (realistically) oil specific. Personal transport (private cars) can switch to battery power but that would bring other raw material challenges. And the range problem has not yet been solved.

In short those nations with substantial oil and gas reserves will be in the economic and political pound seats for a very long time.

This is the front page of The Times today (that’s in what was once referred to as a “newspaper of record”). Is the Monarch’s illness really such an important story that it warrants such blanket coverage?

Research suggests that the generation born in the new millennium are not as enamoured of the Royals as their parents and grandparents. And whilst other nations have monarchs as head of state (some even borrow ours) nowhere is there such sycophantic adulation as here.

The nations of the United Kingdom have interesting histories and our collective Imperial ambitions and “success” certainly made us a global power. Similarly the Industrial Revolution of the Victorian nineteenth century (warts and all) created a preeminent manufacturing and trading nation. In the 20th Century our military might and national courage helped us win two World Wars (with a little help from our friends). But now?

Some of the historic pomp remains though not much of the circumstance of the past. We are like a national Miss Haversham reluctant to discard our once finery despite the fact that we have been jilted. And that’s what the royals are – glitz and pseudo glamour without any substance. How preposterous is this image in the twenty first century?

The explanation for the ongoing obsession with this frankly dysfunctional family is that there isn’t much else. The Empire is long gone as is our industrial and military might.

In 1962 Dean Acheson memorably said that “ Britain had lost an empire and had not found a role. He added:

“Britain’s attempt to play a separate power role – that is, a role apart from Europe, a role based on a ‘special relationship’ with the United States, a role based on being the head of a Commonwealth which has no political structure or unity or strength and enjoys a fragile and precarious economic relationship – this role is about played out.”

And that was sixty years ago and in truth we have gone further backwards since with Brexit setting us apart from Europe and creating an insane anachronistic faux independence that makes us look ridiculous.

Ridicule is the only sane reaction to Little England and our silly delusional games. Hugh Grant’s Prime Minister in “Love Actually” said

“We may be a small country, but we’re a great one too. The country of Shakespeare, Churchill, The Beatles, Sean Connery, Harry Potter, David Beckham’s right foot, David Beckham’s left foot, come to that.”

That summed it up – though he didn’t mention The Queen or James Bond. Or Dunkirk, a crushing defeat that we incomprehensibly turned into a noble victory!

After we decided to be European we actually played the role rather well for a time. We celebrated joining the Union and Brits played a significant role in the governance of the uniting Europe . Then we blew it all.

This brings us back to what we are now. “Played out” as Acheson put it and absolutely without a “role”. So we substitute genuine significance with the illusory pretensions of Royalty. It goes down well in America the inventors of the soap opera. In truth we are more Schitts Creek than anything substantial. Living rather like Moira Rose on departed glories but still dressing extravagantly in denial about the loss of of meaningful fame.

I wish Charles Windsor well – my despair about the monarchy and its grossly inflated significance in the national psyche is not personal. But that royal obsession is a veneer below which we are, it has to be said, “played out”.

Netanyahu and his close supporters have made it clear that they intend to expand Israel permanently into Gaza and that is an objective of the response to Hamas. Israel has expanded during war – it’s doing it again, The irony that this ambition is analogous to Hitler’s seeking of Lebensraum is profound.

The frequent statement made on antisemitism is “I’m not an antisemite, but I oppose Zionism”. That statement is, in my view, not just a non sequitur but an antisemitic one.

The pure definition of Zionism is to support a Jewish homeland in the Middle East – and , for many, one where Israel was before the Yom Kippur war. Prior, then, to the substantial expansion of the State – for example the settlements in the Golan Heights.

Those of us who believe that Israel should withdraw from most of the land taken in or around 1973 are not opponents of Zionism and certainly not being antisemitic. Those of us who believe in a two State solution likewise. It is perfectly logical and principled to believe both in Zionism and Palestinian rights.

To move from opposing Israel’s land grabs over the years (and now) to being “Anti Jew” is intellectually bereft of logic. But, sadly, many do this. Many years ago when I visited Tehran frequently on business antisemitic and holocaust denial leaflets were placed in my hotel bedroom. And, yes, some of this’s protesting against Israel’s action today in Gaza are unquestionably antisemites.

The banality of evil is best understood by its ubiquity. It wasn’t a few villains committing monstrous crimes. It was a whole industry dedicated to the goal of genocide on an enormous scale. The microcosm of the family in “Zone of Interest” can be multiplied thousands of times. And where were those who blew the whistle or tried to stop the horror?

In effect The Holocaust was normalised and not just where it happened or just by those directly involved. You can’t construct gas chambers, operate them, bring victims to them and repeat daily without building a complex and managed infrastructure. The shock of “Schindler’s List” is that Schindler whilst not, quite, unique was one of the very few who resisted.

Frau Hoss of course knew what her husband was doing. And across Europe there were many thousands of Frau Hosses equally turning a blind eye. Murder on an industrial scale requires more than structure and organisation. It requires complicit shoulder shrugging by everyone from the industrialists of I.G.Farben to the drivers of the Auschwitz bound trains. 

And when we say “Never again” we should make sure that we don’t delude ourselves that death and destruction and murder of the innocents has stopped. Reports reach us every day confirming that it hasn’t. And, like Frau Hoss, some of us look the other way and tend our gardens.