It was Muhammad Ali who started it. “I am the Greatest” he announced as a personal brand signature and the world, pretty much, bought it. Whether he was “The Greatest” was a subjective call – it always is. But we still do it, all the time.

There is now a mnemonic for it – the Greatest Of All Time or “GOAT” . And newspapers actually have serious articles as to whether somebody is the “GOAT”. Take football. There is a debate as to whether Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo is the GOAT. This daft discourse conveniently ignores the fact that before these two modern players appeared on the scene there were a few decent kickers of the ball around – Pele, Maradona, Bobby Charlton anyone?

And it is the historical comparison that makes the GOAT invalid. We might debate whether Messi or Ronaldo is the greatest of our times . A pretty sterile debate in my view but at least there’s a context. But Ronaldo versus, say, his countryman Eusebio? They played in different eras and you just can’t make a qualitative judgment. Even when you try and get quantitative (goals scored per game, for example) there’s no real credible comparative measure. Times change.

A few years ago a music magazine asked top conductors to name the “Greatest Symphony”. They chose Beethoven’s 3rd, the “Eroica” – but, in my view, this is just as defective as comparing footballers. I can tell you my favourite Symphony (Rachmaninov’s 2nd actually) but it would be silly for me to claim that it’s the greatest of all time.

Back to sport and to cricket. The statistics suggest that the GOAT batsman was Donald Bradman. His average in Test Matches was 99.94 and the next highest is 61.87. Conclusive surely? but according to this survey he was only the seventh greatest and the GOAT was Sachin Tendulkar. You see the problem ? It’s subjective and recent players, ones we’ve actually seen, are magnified whilst more distant individuals are reduced in size.

In British politics the “Greatest Prime Minister” game is often played and Winston Churchill usually wins. Well he did lead Britain with distinction in Wartime of course. But he was actually for four years – 1951-1955 – a pretty dreadful peacetime PM.

The problem with all this GOAT nonsense is that when we seek to be objective the statistics are only part of the story and when we acknowledge the subjectivity we recognise that it’s all personal opinion. The other problem is that it’s a waste of time!

Many years ago now I stayed in a four star hotel in Cyprus. It had a pleasant swimming pool surrounded by loungers. On one of the loungers a couple was having sex. Now whether there was actual penetration wasn’t clear but there was certainly some enthusiastic humping. When a waiter brought me a drink I asked him about the couple’s exhibitionism. “Russians” he replied, as if that was an explanation.

My point is that what in my youth would be inconceivable (not just lounger activity) is now quite common. How we explain this to children I’ve no idea. As soon as they are able to use a tablet or a smartphone they can find their way to a porn site. On television they can watch explicit simulated (presumably) sex on the BBC no less – “Normal People” for example which was at times full frontal as well as almost soft porn. “Sex Education” on Netflix is similar – it opens with what I understand is some “Classic Cowgirl” action.

I doubt that there’s more sex today than there was in the past or more extramarital for that matter. We’re just more open about it. On balance that seems to me to be a good thing. “Normal People” is actually both a moral and a loving story despite (maybe because of) the bonking. “Sex Education” is very funny and, I thought, harmless.

Sally (not her real name) a good female friend of mine half my age talked openly about her sex life to me as, I think, a sort of therapy – for her! Her love life was entirely recreational and remarkably varied. Fifty years ago that fabulous film “The Graduate” had the following exchange between Ben Braddock (Dustin Hoffman) and the husband of Mrs Robinson (his much older lover):

• Benjamin : Listen to me. What happened between Mrs. Robinson and me was nothing. It didn’t mean anything. We might just as well have been shaking hands.
• Mr. Robinson : Shaking hands? Well, that’s not saying much for my wife, is it?

This is hilariously funny but like my friend it recorded the recreational nature of many sexual experiences. In “Normal People” the relationship between Connell and Marianne is much deeper than the purely physical almost from the start. The sex aside we are almost in Jane Austen country. I found it utterly charming and a remarkable mix of modern sexual freedoms and timeless romance.

So what am I saying? Well that it’s good that the taboos are broken and that there is openness. Back to Sally. She fell in love, got married and now lives a monogamous life. I make no value judgment about this but she said to me “Sex with someone you love is different, and better”. Call me a big softie but that brought a tear to my eye.

Yes Johnson is on trial, and so he should be. But the key point is that the assumptions on which our unwritten constitution has always been based are no longer valid. Pompous though it may sound a key assumption was goodwill, honour and a bias towards the truth by our elected representatives both inside and outside Parliament. That bias no longer exists.

Yes the truth always has many faces and a belief in it has been under question and tested before. Saddam Hussain did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction but we were told by the Prime Minister that he did and a war was fought on that premise. A Foreign Secretary resigned because of an honest disagreement over Iraq as earlier one had over what he saw as his personal failure over The Falklands.

Today Minsters only seem to resign if they are photographed groping a colleague in a cupboard. Failure to tell the truth is no longer a resigning offence. Which brings one back to the constitution. If precedents are not followed, if the sort of “case law” that precedent is is not applied and if there are no written rules – no statutes – then those in charge today feel empowered to do what they like.

A written constitution is a legally applicable document that has to be followed unless amended. Without one we rely on people to be “Honourable” and even refer to them in Parliament by this designator. In the past they mostly were. And when they weren’t and lied (it happened) they went. No longer.

“Brexit was about taking back control. About asserting our own sovereignty and deciding our own destiny. The freedoms of Brexit should be about innovations justifying British exceptionalism on the basis of moral leadership, not moral delinquency.” David Davis in “The Times” today.

And there you have the fraud of Brexit neatly described by a Brexiteer for once honest enough to tell, the truth. Sure he might say that one bit of moral delinquency doesn’t make the whole project delinquent. He would be wrong to do so.

At this time we can see the horrors of nationalism in sharp relief as Putin and his gang murderously try to assert their will on Ukraine. But let’s be under no illusion. Russia’s drivers are part of the same narrow nationalism that drove the “Leave” campaign and drives Britain’s populist government today.

The reality of the modern world is that unless we build alliances, participate in cooperative treaties, recognise the international element in most of what we do we will blunder into an isolated faux-freedom state which we may call “deciding our destiny” but in reality is nothing of the sort. Russia is largely “free” to do as it wants so long as it has a thick enough skin. Britain thinks it can do the same. We can’t.

The Rwanda scheme is as delinquent as Putin’s attack on Ukraine, morally anyway. It’s wrong not because most of us, including Mr Davis, see that it is. It’s wrong because the civilised world condemns this “exceptionalism” as much as it condemns Putin. Nice company we keep.

I thought that the Netflix documentary on Jimmy Savile reasonably answered the question “What happened?” but struggled to address “Why did it happen?” Savile’s manipulation of those in power and the famous over decades was recorded. That the famous used him to confer a sort of glory by association we saw. Savile was famous, he was (apparently) doing good – so Margaret Thatcher and the Prince of Wales and the BBC and the rest wanted some reflected glory for themselves.

But did all the middle class worshippers at the Savile shrine really want to suggest that by links with the working class Savile they themselves would acquire some of his common touch? His origins were plebeian, but his lifestyle and behaviour certainly were not. The famous acquiesced to his rules and his eccentric norms – in a way we all did just by watching the TV programmes. The class element of those norms was there, but Savile was hardly a working-class hero. His nominal allegiances – Class, Yorkshire, Catholicism – were almost incidental.

Jimmy Savile was a member of MENSA which means that his intelligence was in the top one percent of the population. How he applied that intelligence was not really addressed. He created an identity which churned cash for himself but also for others. The “others” included those that exploited him commercially as well as the charities which benefited from his efforts. He called himself “tricky” – we might call him conniving and mendacious. But he got away with it, and some.

One missing element was an explanation of why he was what he was. No criminal psychologists explored his mind or his behaviour. No man is entirely a “one off” – even Savile. Another omission was an in depth examination of management failure – how on earth was it allowed to happen, for so long and in so many different places? I’m none the wiser.

It was as recently as 2006 that the “Me Too” movement started and this triggered revelations about many sexual offences committed by many in The Arts, some very well known. And in Britain in the world of pop music, in which Savile moved for much of his career, sexual relations between the famous and their fans, sometimes underage, was common and had been for years.

The case of DJ John Peel is relevant. In The Guardian in 1975, Peel said of young women, “All they wanted me to do was abuse them, sexually, which, of course, I was only too happy to do…one of my, er, regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older.” Peel said that he “didn’t ask for ID”. Ten years earlier a work colleague of mine had endured his teenage daughter attaching herself as a “groupie” to a well known pop group – it was not an innocent attachment.

The point about Peel and countless others is that casual consensual sex between the famous and their fans was the norm for decades. That Savile was part of this is no surprise but, of course, his behaviour went way beyond brief liaisons in a dressing room after a gig, and much of it was far from consensual. The scale of Savile’s criminality was extraordinary and long-standing. How did he get away with it for so long?

One victim in the Netflix documentary said when asked why she didn’t blow the whistle on Jimmy Savile “Who’d take our word against the word of someone so famous and establishment he’s even close friends with the royals?” This I think gets to the heart of it. James Levine was the Director of the Metropolitan Opera when he abused young men. Rolf Harris was famous and had painted a portrait of the Queen. Gary Glitter was a high profile rock star. Harvey Weinstein was an Oscar winning producer. Kevin Spacey a well known actor and director when at The Old Vic Theatre. In every case like these there must have been to some extent a conspiracy of silence.

So I think that the answer to my question “Why did it happen ?” is in part ignorance and in part cover up. It also takes courage to complain especially when you suspect that those you complain to may choose not to listen. It was interesting to watch Selina Scott on the programme. Savile was very creepy with her and she was embarrassed. But, as far as I know, she didn’t complain. In public Savile was outrageous as well as being borderline confessional at times. The signs were there, but nobody chose to pick them up.

These protests reported in The Times today are absolutely contemptible. They are inspired by a profound ignorance of how Britains energy sector works and, in particular of the timescales involved for change. It is hard to see them as anything other than virtue signalling by fools.

The world is dependent on hydrocarbons for much of the fuel and power we need – and that fuel and power is the driver of our economies and our lifestyle. In Britain the mix is changing, particularly in power generation where wind power is making an impact and a growing one. But other important parts of our hydrocarbon use mix will take much longer to change and some cannot change at all within known technologies.

Road transport will stay dominated by petrol and diesel for the foreseeable future. The switch to electric power for private vehicles is underway but the cost and practicality is a block on progress. And there are very few commercial vehicles using anything but diesel fuel.

Our homes, our offices, our hospitals and the rest are overwhelmingly heated by gas and again whilst there will be a small number of new builds with alternatives like heat pumps removing and replacing gas boilers across our total housing stock is a very long term project, if it is a project at all.

Key transport sectors like aviation and marine are oil specific and will remain substantially so for decades ahead.

The protests oversimplify a complex subject and are exercises in little more than reductio ad absurdum. They are also arrogant the participants implying that only they have the wisdom to see the need for change. Our energy use is declining per unit of useful power as across all sectors more efficient machines takeover. Home insulation and far more efficient vehicle engines and gas boilers have had a major impact. That progress needs to be encouraged. The protests do the reverse of this.

“Modern Life is rubbish for creative thinking” says James Marriott in The Times today.

I spent forty years in a multinational corporation in which creativity and originality were generally treated with suspicion. It was a very rational environment in which engineers and accountants reached the top. Clever people all who relied on what they knew and what they had experienced rather than what they could dream.

My colleagues occasionally ventured into the unknown but it wasn’t long before they retreated back to the familiar. To diversify was occasionally part of the goals, nominally anyway. But “sticking to the knitting”, in Tom Peters phrase, was for most much more comfortable. In all my years I cannot think of one major new venture on truly unfamiliar terrain that succeeded, and many were tried.

Those of us who were Right Brain biased were looked at with condescension although there was some acceptance that we were necessary. When we spotted that much project planning was data based and that some of these data were actually assumptions rather than hard facts we were sometimes treated with scorn. You don’t challenge a geologist from Delft or a man with a Cambridge First in Mathematics or Physics.

When we marvel at the paintings at the Uffizi or listen in awe as a fine conductor creates magic at a concert we are in a terrain in which rational man struggles. True originality is rare because the ability to be creative is, in some cultures, less valued. In one Noel Coward play a woman admits to not being very musical. “Good for you” says her philistine companion.

Sixty Years ago in Cambridge C.P. Snow railed against the lack of understanding between the “Two Cultures” of Science and the Humanities. But on reflection it is only by using both sides of the brain that real progress can be made. Like Oscar Hammerstein’s “Farmer and the Cowman can be friends” so can the Geologist and the expert on Jane Austen. But we still need to find a way.

I’ve always liked gadgets. The iPad I’m typing this on is quite astonishing in what it’s capable of. If you’ve got one you’ll know what I mean. So to have a car I plug in to “refuel” appeals to me – “What fun” , you might say. But it isn’t.

My first car more than 50 years ago was a Fiat 500. It was, shall we say, rather “low tech”. It had a starting handle I recall. And the sun roof was canvas you rolled back. On the road it would outperform a man on a bike, but only just. But on a full tank of petrol you could do 300 miles. And if you were running low you just went for five minutes to the petrol station around the corner. There always was one.

Range , speed of refuelling and easy availability of refuelling points is the killer of the electric car. Why would I buy one if on all three counts it underperforms my car of half a century ago? To signal my green virtue maybe? Or to impress the neighbours? Or because I like gadgets? People do I’m sure. But sorry tree huggers I’ll bow to commonsense on this one.

Symptoms dear boy, symptoms as Harold Macmillan might have said. Symptoms of decay are all around. How’s the service from your GP these days ? Have you tried to get a new driving licence from the DVLA ? Are your trains reliable? Can you afford the doubling (or more) in energy prices and heat your home? Can you find an NHS dentist? Can you get the money for COVID tests? Do you have a clue about protecting yourself from the Virus as new variants appear daily and case numbers escalate? Above all who’s in charge and if you find out do you have confidence in that person’s ability to deliver? Not just in politics but everywhere. P&O Ferries anyone?

Those of us who look back over more decades than we care to remember – in my case to when we last had a King – can’t really believe it. It wasn’t all rosy in the past, far from it, and whilst things got better there were also gentle declines all around. Car plants, railway stations, the High Street, the pub network, workplace pensions all declined. But driven by technology and (especially medical science) things really did overall get better. We started to live much longer and much more comfortably. As a child only one room in my home was heated…

Immigration and foreign travel gave us a wider cultural perspective and enriched our lives. The voices of those who opposed diversity were not silenced, but they were in a squalid backwater of their own whilst we embraced Europe and people who were superficially different from us. What was a community changed – more open and less uniform.

Perfect it wasn’t but we did seem to have got over our Empire and found a role in Europe as we’d been urged to do. London became the capital of Europe over a few happy weeks in 2012 when we welcomed the world to the Olympic Games. Then it all started to go badly wrong.

In the past there were class divisions – the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate and all that. But when John Prescott said twenty years ago “We are all middle class now” he did seem to have a point. The class warriors haven’t entirely gone away, but in the meantime we’ve become tribal.

Accepting that it’s a bit of a simplification (high level sociological classifications usually are) but Britains tribes today are not Red and Blue, not Rich and Poor not even Male and Female. They are “Woke” and “Non Woke”. The former include people like me who wear our wokeness with pride. Who wouldn’t want to be seen as “alert to injustice in society, especially racism.” as the OED puts it? Well the other tribe that’s who.

The tribes I identify are close to the American descriptors of “liberal” and “conservative” but the use of “Woke” as a term of abuse is a bit different. The underlying premise is that it is wrong to be “alert to injustice”. This is extremely dangerous. Since I became politically aware back in the early 1960s most of the campaigns I have supported have been against injustice and discrimination, and the narrow protection of privilege. And great progress was made. The “Non Woke” tribe wants to unravel that progress.

To be woke is not to be nationalist – it is to be aware and to recognise McLuhan’s global village is a reality and that the digital world has no borders. We have the potential to be united as never before – nationalism collapses in the face of the communications revolution. But the Non Woke tribe are fearful of this. That’s why flags appear behind the non woke politicians all the time.

Brexit was the definitive expression of Nationalism and the greatest triumph of the Non Woke tribe. The correlation between those who supported leaving the EU and those who criticise the Woke is absolutely precise. History teaches us that the more leaders demonstrate their patriotism with a superfluity of flags and symbols the more they move towards a nationalist dictatorship. Google “Nuremberg Rally” or “Red Square Parade”.

The other crucial thing about a Britain divided into tribes in the way I have described is that there is no movement between the two. Do you actually know any significant Brexiteer who despite all the evidence wants now to return to the EU? And the pro EU politicians like Keir Starmer who now rule out rejoining the Union do so not out of conviction but out of expediency and pragmatism.

The calls for an electoral pact to oppose the Conservatives (I support it) is a call to unite the Woke. The Tories destroyed Farage and the hard Right in politics by almost entirely adopting his politics. They became as anti Woke as he was. The Woke tribe is politically divided and will be destroyed again by a united Conservative party unless we get our act together.

“… few moral or political complications surround the events of April to June 1982. The cause was just.” The Times 2nd April 2022

The Falklands War was entirely avoidable and the run up to it was riddled with moral and political complications – that’s why Lord Carrington resigned, because he and his diplomats had failed. To start with the islands were not defended. There were no troops there and the Governor drove around in a taxi like he was in a Gilbert and Sullivan parody. Those very few Britons who had heard of the benighted place conspired in the effective abandonment of its people.

The Falklands were an accidental bit of post Imperial detritus serving no useful purpose. Rockall had more strategic significance. The islands had no resources to speak of, are in a part of the South Atlantic that nobody visits for good reason. However Galtieri saw that he could make a bit of mischief by claiming them. British diplomats ignored the threat and the only British vessel in the area was withdrawn. It was like a homeowner leaving his front door open and putting up a sign saying “Help Yourself”.

If the Foreign Office has read the runes better and if the Government had cared the early deployment of a defence force could have avoided the unpleasantness. Hundreds of families were bereaved not because of the honourable pursuit of a just cause but because of culpable political and diplomatic failure.