In 2006 the CEO of Saatchi and Saatchi, Kevin Roberts, published an original analysis of buyer behaviour in respect of brand choice – “Lovemarks”. The title referred to brands which transcended rational choice and generated such preference that they had become “loved”. They didn’t have to be loved by everyone just by enough in the target group to be dominant. The classic, almost clichéd, example is Marmite.

In politics support for an individual who has “Lovemark” status is much more elusive because politicians are much more divisive. In being for something they have also to be against something else. Even if the differences deep down are not that great. Heath and Wilson or Major and Blair were not that different in values if you drilled deep down. But they pretended to be different.

Boris Johnson is, or perhaps aspired to be, a rare “Lovemark” politician. Whereas previous party leaders were often divisive and superficially driven by policy commitment Johnson had never been. But even his flagship “Get Brexit Done” slogan was opportunistic and pragmatic – he could easily have been a Remainer if he had judged that was better for him personally.

Ask people what Boris stands for and you’ll get many blank faces. The wave whose crest he rode on was driven by familiarity, personality, presence and style. People actually bought his brand because they loved it. But in the Age of Covid it looks like charisma isn’t enough when the core of the brand is fraudulent and it is promoted by deception. In the “Lovemark” analysis (see above) Johnson was never quite in the top right quadrant (except for a few ultra-loyalists or lovers ). But he could and did operate successfully high in the bottom right. He was a “Fad” in which people supported him out of a fanatical affection which in many cases trumped their lack of true respect.

That Johnson is a serial liar, adulterer and fraud is hardly a surprise. But he got to 10 Downing Street despite these flaws, even a bit because of them. As Politics Professor Matthew Flinders put it:

“Whether hanging from a zip wire, waving Cornish pasties or falling in rivers, he is the ultimate entertainer. To the annoyance of his opponents, the public appear to vote for him not on the basis of his performance or policies but simply because he’s funny.” In short he was clearly a “Fad”.

But once Johnson bulldozed Britain to Brexit the demands of the job changed. A charismatic vote winner who was economical with the actualité was not the man to handle a pandemic in which management competence, openness and truthfulness were more important than entertainment.

Once the affection goes (and it’s slipping away rapidly) then “Low Love” and “Low Respect” beckons. And that’s the loser’s quadrant. The end of the dream.

The subject of domestic energy prices creates more heat than light when “debated” on social and other media. It’s almost as if nobody has taken the trouble to find out about it (quite likely) or that it is too complex to understand (it isn’t). This is an attempt to explain.

Let’s look at some first principles about Energy. First There is a need to understand what Primary Energy is, where it comes from and how we use it.

Primary Energy is the high level presence of useful energy sources. These are:

Crude Oil

Natural Gas

Coal

Nuclear Power

Water (Hydroelectric schemes)

Renewables (Sun, Wind, Tidal etc.)

Crude Oil is useful only when converted to something else – usually in an oil refinery. These are oil products and also feedstocks used in plastics manufacturing. Among the products are a number of Secondary Energy manufactured fuels – the most familiar are petrol and diesel for road vehicles (motor fuel) and various fuels for other transport – aircraft, ships etc.

The price of oil products is determined by (1) The dollar cost of the Crude Oil input. (2) The exchange rate between the Pound and the dollar (3) Refining costs. (4) Transportation costs – both for the Crude Oil to the Refinery and for the refined product to the customer. (5) The producer and refiners margin and (6) Taxes and duties.

If we take the principal domestic use of oil products, motor fuel, the price build up can be seen in this graphic:

This is illustrative and not directly based on current pump prices. What it shows is that at a price of 132p a litre tax (Duty and VAT) is some 60% of the consumer’s cost. The raw material (crude oil) cost is less important than the tax.

Other uses of oil products (e.g. for Aviation or Marine applications) are not generally taxed.

Gas

Now let’s look at Gas. Natural Gas, like Crude Oil, is a hydrocarbon and is the Primary Energy source of choice in the U.K. for home heating (and cooking for some). For U.K. demand Gas is produced offshore the British Isles as well as in Europe especially in Norway and The Netherlands. Traditionally the only means of transportation was by pipeline but in the last 20/30 years Liquidied Natural Gas has been transported to Britain in special ships. UK has three operational LNG import terminals — two in Wales (Dragon and South Hook) and one in southeast England (Isle of Grain).

Gas, unlike Crude Oil, requires little processing to enter the gas grid. Just some adjustments to bring it to specification. It is a commodity and there is no product differentiation. The grid is owned and operated by National Grid plc a privately owned monopoly. National Grid’s role is entirely operational – it neither buys nor sells gas but solely provides the infrastructure for others to do so.

The commercial element in domestic gas supply comes from dozens of so-called “Energy” companies (see above) who offer price deals to consumers. There is no product and little service differentiation between them. They are traders who buy and sell gas which National Grid transports to the consumers. The suppliers make a margin to cover their costs and profits and none of them has any strategic advantage (except that the larger companies like British Gas will have some economies of scale and may have some procurement cost advantage as well.)

As we have seen with Crude Oil, Natural Gas sourced either by pipeline or by LNG tanker starts with a cost of acquisition to which must be added transportation costs and other costs of the “Energy” companies – including their margin/profit. SSE, one of these suppliers, have showed their cost build up as follows:

The above graphic is worth studying. It is noteworthy that the actual acquisition cost for Gas to SSE is, according to them, only just over a third (36%) of their total cost. 46% are their operational costs and profits. “Delivery” is mainly the fees paid to National Grid for moving the gas through pipelines to the customer. SSE’s costs include marketing (not made specific) where the level of competition from over thirty other “suppliers” means they have strongly to advertise their price offers. Other than price there is no other significant benefit they can offer prospective customers.

As with Crude Oil the acquisition cost for gas is determined by international dollar denominated prices and the £/$ exchange rate. Purchasers can negotiate deals for term supply but ultimately there is not a lot of flexibility – gas is a publicly traded commodity.

Electricity

Power generation is the activity of converting primary energy (mainly hydrocarbons, nuclear and renewables) into electricity which can then be transported by the electricity grid cable system to customers. As with Gas the distribution system is owned and operated by National Grid plc. Power Stations mainly using hydrocarbons (Gas) as fuel convert the fuel to electricity. Everything described above for Gas, downstream of the power stations, is the same for electricity. Indeed the same companies are involved and it common to bundle Gas and Electricity together in consumer offers.

Coal and Nuclear

Power generation using Coal is a minor contributor – there are one or two specialist industrial processes requiring coal but in overall terms coal is no longer a significant part of Britain’s Primary Energy mix.

In 2019, Nuclear energy supplied 17% of the country’s electricity. This energy comes from 13 nuclear reactors at six plants. Although one new nuclear plants is planned and others proposed it is unlikely that production significantly above current levels will happen.

Conclusion

The U.K. has a reasonably diverse Energy supply situation and this will improve further as Renewables (mainly Wind power) expand further for power generation. As electric vehicles increase their share of the private vehicle sector then oil consumption will fall percentage wise. (For this to be environmentally positive the electricity used will need to be from renewables of course otherwise al that happens is that the location of the pollution moves !)

The key area for reform is domestic gas and electricity supply. The current situation is sub optimum with suppliers incurring largely unnecessary marketing and other costs which are passed on to consumers. The case for having unitary gas and electricity supply to create scale efficiencies and eliminate artificial competition is strong. As is the case for far greater transparency in cost and pricing.

The debate as to whether a unitary operation should be publicly or privately owned (and regulated) is secondary to the need to get our collective act together. The debate should include the role of National Grid as a monopoly transporter to the energy suppliers. But private sector monopolies are often defective (see also domestic water supply) !

The planned rises in gas and electricity prices need to be seen in the context of all of the above – especially the apparent comparatively low percentage (36%) that gas and electricity acquisition costs are of suppliers’ total costs.

Arrogant elitism has led to a a disdainful breaking of the law by senior politicians who had just set the very rules they broke. Some think that the media is doing us a disservice by reporting these stories. “Shameful” wrote one commentator. But the “shame” is solely with the perpetrators not those who broke the stories. These stories were not “created”, as some also charge, but they were real and have at least been reported as such – very belatedly as it happens ( grounds for further investigation there surely).

An effective working democracy relies on honesty and its destruction comes not from truth-telling but from lies. One of the learnings from this sorry affair is that the checks and balances on the governing class are inadequate. Every day Number 10 and its tenant’s senior ministers tell us more untruths and every day some of our popular press duly and sycophantically reports them as facts.

The Augean stables are foul and fetid and we need more not less investigative reporting. We deserve to be governed by people who tell us the truth and who have our best interests genuinely at heart. It’s not time for Spring cleaning. It’s time to throw the current mobsters out and to start again.

It started with Korea and via Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan (and others) western meddling in the internal affairs of far away countries has been a disaster. America in the lead at first with its preposterous domino theory and Red hunt at home. Tendentious justifications claiming the moral high ground.

Military actions doomed either to battlefield failure or losses of the peace – often both. The arrogant presumption has always been that “we” know best. Our governance systems are better than theirs and we care more about our people than they do about theirs. And yet when push comes to shove their failing and inadequate system and methods beat ours – as in Afghanistan with tragic consequences.

If the 21st century is to avoid the horrors of the 20th the West could benefit from having a bit more understanding and a lot more humility. America has enough of its own internal problems to address without thinking that it has a right to tell others what to do.

There is a certain continuity in British politics that could be relied upon. The Tory Party in Parliament has always had its eccentrics and fools, some very funny at times, some bonkers. But somehow the best tended to rise to the top. Some were found wanting for various reasons and some excelled unexpectedly. John Major, Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke, Chris Patten, Willie Whitelaw – they were “One Nation” in the days when we were.

Today the cupboard is bare. Sunak looks promising though too swiftly over promoted. He’s a lot to learn. But the rest of the Cabinet ? Liz Truss is Johnson’s Anne Widdecombe – given prominence and power for inexplicable reasons. Remember Widdy was Hague’s shadow Home Secretary. 😂

Johnson’s lack of judgment and lazy, narcissist nonchalance has got him into trouble all his life. Ministers run things and Prime Ministers run the country. Johnson has never run anything. The London Mayoralty is a sinecure. Johnson was briefly Foreign Secretary and rather an indolent one. Otherwise he’s a comic turn but now more Jim Davidson than Eric Morecambe.

Matthew Parris despairs in The Times today. He will remember “Cry the Beloved Country” about Southern Africa by Alan Paton. I’ll borrow the title to describe Britain today. The decline wasn’t inevitable – after the painful disposal of Empire, Europe offered us the chance to be something. Along with Germany and France we could have been central to the development of a new European Age. But we blew it and in so doing lost everything except our memories.

It’s hard not to agree with Lord Finkelstein who writes in The Times today. The culture emerging seems to be in part “Rules didn’t apply to us” and in part “Keep shtum, nobody needs to know.”. The latter has succeeded as a tactic for eighteen months which raises questions in itself. There were clearly many parties and many attendees but only now has anyone spoken out. So the overriding behaviour has been omertà.

What the sorry story tells us is that Johnson’s behaviour is symbolised by that Party Political broadcast at the time of the 2019 election with him driving a bulldozer labelled “Get Brexit Done” through a wall. To put it politely this was not a cerebral pitch.

History tells us that populist politicians with single minded goals cut corners – and some! The ends justify the means always. As Ministers try to defend Johnson they weakly tell of his “successes” – Brexit and the management of the pandemic. That the former, as it has been imposed on us, has been an unmitigated disaster isn’t mentioned. That the latter has resulted in a staggering number of fatalities neither.

The combination of mendacity, failed governance and incompetence is unprecedented in our modern history. “Partygate” hints at the singular cause – no doubt many were blameworthy but the buck stopped on only one desk.

Back in the 1960s I was an activist on three causes I felt very strongly about – abolishing the Death Penalty, eliminating Apartheid and ending the Vietnam War. They were hard, tangible, definable issues. And they were all binary – there was no middle ground. It really was true on each that if you were not with us you were against us. The Brexit debate is similar, David Cameron made it so. He insisted that we reduce the complex issues of Britain’s participation in a uniting Europe to a binary In/Out choice. In fact it never was and isn’t now. This was political Reductio ad absurdum of a fatal kind. The fatuity of Brexit led to protests of all types amongst which that of campaigner Steve Bray is particularly notable. He may campaign alone but he has the support of millions – including me!

Moving away from the binary protesting against discrimination is much more difficult. We are all (or most of us) against it. But protesting against (says) Racism is difficult because there is no common, agreed definition of what is racist. It’s pretty subjective. Nobody went to jail because some of the “Vote Leave” advocates during the EU referendum campaign dog-whistled about Turkey’s possible accession to the EU. I found their position very Islamaphobic and still believe it was. But (a) the perpetrators got away with it and (b) it worked.

Another tricky area for activists is the “trans issue”. I avoid it because it has got out of hand. Even my mentioning it as an “issue” here might open me to attack as people may assume that I take a different position from them and oppose me based on that assumption. That’s how dangerously daft we’ve got.

There’s an old test about discrimination which is worth remembering. A car splashes you with water from a puddle as it drives by. If you say “Bloody driver should have been more careful” that’s fair comment as a statement of fact. If you say “Bloody black driver should have been more careful” then that is racist. (You can replace “black” with other irrelevant descriptors like “Woman” of course). In this case the subjective opinion becomes objective fact.

The right to protest is a necessary condition for a civilised, democratic society. At its best it’s seen in Steve Bray and his singleminded and eccentric protest is wholly admirable, if you believe in his cause. Even if you don’t surely you can’t avoid having a sneaking admiration for his persistence !

In the coming days and possibly weeks it is likely that the current protests against our dysfunctional and incompetent Prime Minister will intensify as more and more revelations emerge about his grotesque behaviour and political judgment failures. If he attempts once again to lie his way out of the fetid corner in which he squats will we take to the streets to demand his removal from office? We should.

“Don’t take politicians seriously and you may find yourself electing as prime minister a man whom you regard as a bit of a card because he made you laugh when he was on a television panel game.” So writes Emma Duncan in “The Times” today.

But did we ? Our electoral system is such that many more of us voted against Johnson and his Party than voted for him. It can happen elsewhere of course – Trump only made the White House because of the antiquated Electoral College, Clinton won the popular vote comfortably. But in Britain millions are disenfranchised.

More proportional systems guarantee restraint. The checks and balances are inbuilt in coalitions. Yes it can be a pain for leaders to be forced to debate and often compromise within their own administration but wouldn’t we rather have that than the current quasi-dictatorship?

Ms Duncan writes that we would never elect a Fascist and I agree that we would laugh at a Roderick Spode type leader and Party rather than elect them. Johnson doesn’t do uniforms and his own predilection for Upper Class scruff isn’t followed by his colleagues. But beware. He may not be a uniformed military style fascist but he is unquestionably the most authoritarian leader in Britain of modern times. And some of his colleagues would not look out of place at a Nuremberg Rally.

We pompously pride ourselves on our status as a nation by flying flags and referencing the past – “Blitz Spirit” etc. Sadly the truth is that 🇬🇧 status has never been lower internationally. And it hurts. The rise of Nazism was in part attributable to Germany’s loss of international respect. The meme of Macron and Merkel laughing at Johnson’s latest absurdity has been well used but it is uncomfortably close to the truth. To be a laughing stock, as for a time in the 1920s Germany was, can have unintended and deadly consequences.

“I repeat my deep apology for mistakes that may’ve been made on my watch”, answers Boris Johnson.

Let’s analyse this from Johnson on Sky News:

“mistakes”. The evidence is strong that the participants and probably Johnson himself broke the law. These are not “mistakes” but criminal acts.

“may’ve been made”. This use of the conditional “may” goes contrary to all the evidence that the events did happen. There is no “may” about it.

“on my watch”. This is an attempt to distance Johnson from what happened. Yes he acknowledges that something may have happened when he was in charge. But the evidence is that he was actualg a participant. That it took place in his home/office and he was there and an active player.

Fever Tree, whose story is described in The Times today, is a classic marketing success story. The reason is that the brand actually stands for a better product. It isn’t all hype. If you’re spending £30 a bottle or more for a premium gin don’t put ordinary tonic in it – or conventional slimline. Ever!

Schweppes became a commodity – ubiquitous, complacent and undistinguished. It’s “Slimline” was disgusting – chemically taste obscuring the gin botanicals. But a G&T is more T than G. Fever Tree recognised this.

Fever Tree rapidly acquired “Lovemark” status, and deserved to. As gins became more varied and subtle consumers didn’t want to splash any old tonic over it. They even have a lower calorie version that uses natural rather than artificial sweetener. Clever, and a winner.

The Holy Grail of branded marketing is added value. Your brand commands a premium price over and above the commodity brand or the supermarket brand. Fever Tree has successfully done this making a product up to a quality not down to a price. Good for them.