Boris Johnson read these words from Philippians 2 in Westminster Abbey today :

“Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.”

It is, of course , possible that Johnson was set up and didn’t realise it. But if you wanted to find somewhere in the scriptures a text which best referenced the malignant personality and failed leadership of our woeful Head of Government you really couldn’t do much better than this.

“Selfish ambition” and “conceit” are the drivers of Johnson’s life and he is where he is because of them. He is an under-achiever throughout his adult life except that his ambition and self-regard have somehow delivered him privilege and high office. What has he done to deserve this? You will struggle and fail to find anything tangible. His private life is littered with deception and moral turpitude and his public life is much the same. This is a man you would not trust as far as you could throw him.

It was once the case that politicians who had grown up amongst privilege and advantage recognised this. “Noblesse Oblige” was sometimes a characteristic of Etonians but as author of “The importance of being Eton” Nick Fraser put it in 2005 “Etonians are the ultimate pragmatists, totally free of ideology. Other than the imperatives of getting – and gaining – power, no conspicuous motives inspire them”

But with the pragmatism there is rarely humility and never, ever, a tendency to “regard others as better than yourselves”. Eton is the top of the scholastic pile and it’s pupils know it. They may not always call those lower in the pile “Oiks” – as Johnson and Cameron called George Osborne (St Paul’s and Magdalen) at Oxford. But they know there’s no one better than an Etonian.

“Looking to [his] own interests” is indisputably what Johnson has always done. Marriages are abandoned if he decides that the pleasures of a new partner are what he wants. Loyalties, both private and political, are abandoned almost at a whim. Fidelity and honesty don’t enter into consideration – screw the “interests of others”.

Johnson wouldn’t even see the hypocrisy of reciting the words from Philippians 2 today. Words are just slogans to him without the uncomfortable need to ensure that they are true for himself, or said with genuine moral meaning. Momentarily there maybe the conceit that what he says is principled but should he need to contradict them – well there’s always another principle to choose.

The American political journalist Michael Gerson says that political hypocrisy is “the conscious use of a mask to fool the public and gain political benefit”. Today the mask slipped but no doubt tomorrow the sycophants will provide another one and Boris Johnson will live to pose and lie for another day.

“…believe that the history of the relationship between Britain and its colonies needs to be constantly reinterpreted” Trevor Phillips in The Times.

Imperial Britain did not have a “relationship” with its colonies. It invaded them, killed First Nations peoples, sent slaves to them, sequestered their land, exploited their natural resources and governed them in what was essentially a totalitarian and wholly undemocratic way.

Garry Sobers himself has written that a black man needed to be a three times better cricketer than a white man to be selected for the West Indies. His childhood in Barbados was one in a racist society deeply divided between the white man with the house on the hill and the black man cutting the sugar cane.

The imperial model of British exploitation and racial division was replicated everywhere though in the Dominions of Australasia and Canada once the natives were dead of disease or discrimination (or corralled into camps) the white invaders became the majority and, being white, were permitted to govern themselves.

The problem is not our tendency to re-write our imperial history but our failure to tell it. The building of the British Empire was one of the most significant features of the second Millennium but the story is inadequately recorded and taught. There is no “Museum of Empire” telling the story anywhere and surprisingly few good academic histories which comprehensively tell the story.

There are apologists for Empire and even those who will tell you it was a good thing. They are being challenged and the preposterous row over patriotic songs at the Proms may have woken a few people up to the iniquities of Empire. The use of the “Black Lives Matter” slogan and the phenomenon of “taking the knee” the same.

When the world officially condemned colonialism and effectively outlawed it via the United Nations declaration after the Second World War an end was put to what was for centuries a scar on humankind. But the legacies of Empire live on in many countries, including Britain. That many of the children of Empire have prospered is hugely to their credit and that some once colonies have emerged as successful countries in modern times likewise. But English exceptionalism, that arrogant presumption , based on Empire, that in the hierarchy of nations Britain is at the top prospers still in our post Brexit world.

History does not need to be rewritten it needs to be debated and told, glorious or otherwise. What happened needs to be related both in the context of the norms of the times when it took place and from a modern perspective. We cannot trade back, what happened happened. It cannot be disguised by flag-waving jingoism – we need to “learn from the Germans” and confront our past and where appropriate atone for it.

There is an extraordinary article by the Right Wing Editor of The Spectator James Forsyth in “The Times” today. I responded to it by saying that If I want to read puff pieces praising Boris Johnson I’ll go straight to the press releases of Conservative Central Office – I don’t need the middle man. And if I want updates on Green energy I’ll read scientists not political hacks. And the idea that political interests can be “genetic” is as wrong as it is lazy journalism. It’s nurture not nature !

In Northern Europe there is a dependence on Natural Gas for home heating which is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future – certainly 50 years probably much longer. What we can do, and are doing, is burn our gas more efficiently. Conservation via improved efficiencies and home insulation is far more practical than some fantasy about burning hydrogen in boilers! And as well as using less we can, and are reducing emissions.

Boris Johnson will spout any old rubbish that he thinks people want to hear. I don’t think that he “really does mean it on Brexit” because there is scant evidence that he has any coherent beliefs about anything except himself. His “views” are those of those who advise him. If Dominic Cummings thinks an environmentalist pose is politically advantageous he’ll write the speech.

This is is a Little Englanders article praising one its kind. And the idea that Britain can “push other countries to go further” on environmental matters is utterly preposterous. For example the British Isles are connected into the European Gas grid and rely on that grid to manage gas supply. A country on the fringes of Europe is not going to have much influence on the thirty other independent countries it has turned its back on. Europe’s continued focus on environmental matters will be driven collectively by the EU and debated in the European Parliament.

Whilst the correlation is not perfect there is a good overlap between Euroscepticism and Climate Change denial. On the political Right to be pro Brexit often means that an individual also derides those argue for urgent action on the environment. And a Britain impoverished by COVID and by Brexit is unlikely to be able to afford the huge investments required anyway.

A dominant characteristic of today’s ugly Britain is our tendency to defend or revere the sentimental whilst failing to understand that our relevance as a post Imperial power demands that we do well what we can do well. By 2016 we had actually done quite well as a participant in the European project. Our language was the lingua Franca of the European Commission and European Parliament. Our commissioners were in the main respected and sound and our MEPs, the UKIP rabble aside, effective and active. We did being European quite well – so obviously we had to let a group of bigots and bozos force us to change and stop doing it.

The parallel between our European insanity and the BBC is precise. The bigots and bozos have it in their sights – of course they do. That the Corporation is the world’s greatest broadcaster is surely undeniable – it has no rivals. It’s strength is it’s ubiquity, it’s innovation and its value. Just look at what you get for 50p per household per day – its astonishing. Subscription broadcasters have their place in modern society but they don’t come cheap. I pay more to watch cricket on Sky than I do for all of the BBC’s output !

I can and do watch the BBC “Free to Air”. I need no special equipment nor cable nor satellite dish. I plug in and play. The same applies to the excellent ITV and Channel Four of course. Which brings us to the crux of the matter. ITV is funded by advertising and sponsorship as the BBC could also be. But an element of my 50p a day is to give me advertising free radio and television. Commercial interests do not call the BBC’s tune and their programming is uninterrupted. Again a unique and valuable model.

Does the Beeb do some things it would be better to leave to commercial broadcasters ? Probably. Are there things it should do but it doesn’t ? Probably again (international cricket on TV for example). Is a review called for – undoubtedly. Do we need to pay our 50p per day in a more modern and equitable way with choice to opt out? Certainly. So by all means look closely at how the BBC works – but let’s avoid vulgarising and complicating it at all costs.

We walked away from Europe despite doing it well. For heaven’s sake let’s not make the same mistake with the BBC. It’s the jewel in the crown of our media – a unique institution admired around the world for its quality. It’s not perfect and aspects of it are anachronistic – including the licence fee. But in the same way that our friends around the world look askance at our present day petty nationalism and our dysfunctional governance so they would consider us insane if we destroyed the BBC. At a time that we’ve little to be proud of as a nation let’s protect and where possible improve something of true value.

The intricacies of the English class system are hard to unravel – Cameron and Johnson called Gideon Osborne an“Oik” despite him having changed his name to George. Poor George, you see, wasn’t an Old Etonian. There are few greater sins. Like George I also went to a a “Minor Public School” but when I moved on from my school to the real world I occasionally met my betters from Eton or Harrow or Winchester. They were always polite and often went into Margaret Mead mode and studied me as an anthropological freak.

The problem with Etonians, or today’s ones in politics anyway, is that they may know their Ancient Greeks but they don’t know their Modern Brits. David Cameron glided effortlessly into Number 10 without ever having been to Hackney or Hounslow, let alone Hull or Huddersfield. Though he said that he did meet a black man once.

It is almost unique in the world for the English to create hierarchy whatever they do or wherever they go. The Swires are a Taipan family who were born to rule Hong Kong. I met some of them when I lived there. They were very posh. The graduations of “Honkers” were complex but the Taipans of Swires or Jardines we’re firmly at the top.

Etonians don’t usually run things, they own them. They always find a “dear little man” to do the actual work. Johnson uses Michael Gove and, of course, Dominic Cummings in this way. They aren’t colleagues, they are servants. That’s the role of the Tory MPs as well. Their job is to vote – that’s it. Jacob Rees-Mogg makes his Etonian superiority clear to all of the hoi polloi . He lounges on the front bench and tells them to go and vote.

The posh boys aren’t really interested in ideas, though a passing reference to some obscure Classical poet might occasionally enliven their language. What they do like is power. This may be “soft power” , oiling their way around to achieve their goals almost invisibly. Or it may be very hard power indeed. Johnson is exercising the latter at the moment and the servants, sometimes against their better judgment one suspects, are delivering.

What we have at the moment is Government by Sycophantocracy. Many of the newer Conservative MPs seem very surprised indeed to be in the House of Commons. Moggy tells them what to do – rather like the Duke of Norfolk once telling his estate workers how to vote. Then they get told how to Tweet which they dutifully and consistently do. Lobby fodder with, it seems, a shortage of brain cells. Not a rebel in sight.

The main thing missing from all this is competence. Accidents of birth and expensive education may have told the Swire Brigade how to behave but it didn’t teach them to put out fires. The cartoonish Johnson never, ever, looks as if he’s in charge. David Cameron assumed that having got power the little people beyond the castle gates would do what he told them. Sadly for Britain the occasion the people told him to go boil his head was in the 2016 Referendum. It was an unexpected revolt and a fatal one, and not just for Dave.

There may be a revolution but I doubt it. They may dump Johnson, but I doubt that as well. When it all goes belly up it won’t be the power holders or the sycophants’ fault. It will be the EU’s fault, or our fault or the Oiks’ fault. The new Battle for Britain will have been lost on the playing fields of Eton. The mercenaries may die along the way – the Generals will go to the House of Lords.

When I was a schoolboy (a while ago !) the most heinous crime was not to break the rules but to blame somebody else for it. Maybe it was different at Eton because our mendacious Prime Minister always has someone else to blame for his failings – and it seems to be catching among his acolytes. Show me an honest man and he won’t be anywhere near today’s levers of power.

There is no rationale for EU negotiators to do anything but apply the Union’s well established, and well documented, rules. That’s what their 27 members expect them to do. The consequences of Britain choosing to leave the Union have not suddenly been made apparent. Whilst there are points of detail to hammer out the broad parameters have been known from the start.

To leave the EU does not mean we have to abandon our existing trading arrangements and many enthusiastic Brexiteers have said in the past that they favoured staying in the Single Market. One of them, Daniel Hannan, is now one of the Prime Ministers trade advisers. He should remind Johnson of what he said.

Once we agree to stay in the Single Market the bickering can stop and we can start to rebuild our reputation for common sense. The planned Lorry Parks can be returned to the farmers, and Mr Frost to whence he came from. And the Irish on both sides of the border can start to live their lives again.

Sometimes there are tanks in the streets when the dictators take over but sometimes it is more stealthy. Gradually the basis of power shifts almost imperceptibly from democratic to totalitarian and the people only realise it by the time it’s too late to do anything about it.

What Sir John Major and Tony Blair are responding to is one of these shifts. It’s not the first under Boris Johnson’s authoritarian governance of Britain and unless an earthquake happens it won’t be the last. And, as in Germany in the early 1930s, we the people brought it on ourselves. Sufficient of us decided in 2016 to choose to scapegoat the EU for imaginary evils to kick off Brexit. And then after three years of shambles last year a weary Britain gave the keys of a bulldozer to Johnson to “Get Brexit Done” – more fool us.

When the rule of law gets in the way of power dictators ignore the law. When the Courts decide a course of action is extra legal they ignore the Courts. The checks and balances inherent in proper democracy fail. The Conservative Party in the House of Commons is packed with sycophants some of whose public pronouncements are staggeringly dim – but they can be relied upon to stagger through the right lobby. Follow my Leader.

We are trapped in a maelstrom of hopelessness. We are victims of a coup and we are stuck for four more years without being able to do a thing about it. Governments with majorities of 80 don’t fall. Boris Johnson may fall off the deck but someone equally, but differently, ghastly will replace him. And Dominic Cummings will still be casting his spells and stirring his cauldron.

Before the 2019 General Election two separate wings in the Conservative Party in Parliament were discernible except that they weren’t called “Internationalist” and “Libertarian” (James Forsyth in The Times today) they were called “Remainers” and “Leavers”. The former were culled in various nights of the long knives and only the latter were left. They were all “Leavers” now.

Michael Howard showed yesterday that the issue over whether Britain honours the obligations of a recently signed treaty is not about Brexit, it’s about the law. So if the Government continues on its current path a vote in Parliament on the Tory side will divide between sycophants and those with a sense of their duty as a representative of the people. The sycophants are likely to win and the rebellion will be minuscule.

We no longer have an elective democracy we have an emerging dictatorship. Power resides in some shady corners and is exercised by unelected chancers and by barely qualified yes men and yes women. When was the last time an incompetent Minister resigned ? It is generally recognised that we have the least competent Cabinet of modern times at a time when we are wrestling with some of the most challenging governance issues in our history. The perfect storm of disaster is with us.

If the strings of government are pulled by shady people in a Downing Street basement there is no accountability any more. The Ministers nominally in charge of advising on or exercising due legal process , like Attorney General Suella Braverman, have had to defend a client head of government despite knowing that what their client wants to do is extra legal. Career-first priorities and sycophancy have so far prevailed over justice.

History teaches us that when a nation is governed by decree and when protest is sat upon then disaster is around the corner. In fact it’s arrived. The formalities of democracy in Parliament may still be followed but that’s not where the action is. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

None of us should be sanguine about where we are. Taking to the streets in protest will be ignored even if we could rally enough people to do it in a time of lockdown. It is maybe (just) too early to say we’ve lost Hope as a nation. But there’s not much Glory around any more.

Danny Finkelstein has a piece in The Times today about how in his view Britain’s Conservatives should not hope for Donald Trump’s re-election. But for me it is not the differences between Trump’s America and Johnson’s Conservatives that liberal-leaning Tories like Lord Finkelstein should focus on but the similarities. First that their parties and traditional voters, despite everything, overwhelmingly support them. Call it “populism” if you like but the brand identities of the Donald and the Boris do the job for both their well-heeled supporters with Wall St or City wealth and privileges, but also, crucially, for those on the breadline (or beneath it) for whom their support is an anti-Establishment thing.

There is a raw intensity to Trump and Johnson and an unequivocalness to their messages. The fat cats respond because they fear the alternative. Liberal Republicans (remember them ?) and One Nation Conservatives have been bulldozered out of the way – literally in Johnson’s case. Many years ago now I discussed Trump with some Californians I met on holiday. They said that he was a New York liberal – certainly he seemed at the time to be closer to that City’s Democrats than to the hard Right. And remember that Johnson was twice elected Mayor of the predominantly Liberal/Left London.

Behind the scenes with both Trump and Johnson there are ideologues who pull the strings. Neither has their own political ideology at all – they are untroubled by either a moral or a political conscience. So they are used pragmatically by those in the Hard Right think tanks of Washington and Tufton Street, Westminster to win elections – a handy trick. In a rational political world neither of these dysfunctional brigands would be anywhere near high office. But then in a rational world Dominic Cummings would not be in a 10 Downing St basement and his alter ego Steve Bannon would not have been in the West Wing.

I doubt that Boris Johnson will openly come out for Trump’s re-election but he doesn’t need to. The two men are so alike in character and behaviour that there is a subconscious alliance that hardly needs to be made explicit. Johnson may be marginally more refined and cerebral but not by much. Of course it’s ultimately about power (most of politics is) and they both like it. I don’t buy the commonly expressed view that Johnson is unhappy in Number 10 – he might not like some of the burdens of office (like having to put in a shift occasionally) but he loves the fame and the power. Like Trump again.

My grandmother, at the age of ten, saw Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee parade through London in 1897. In reporting this extravagant event the Daily Mail said that it was “testifying to the Greatness of the British Race”. Even the socialist Beatrice Webb said quite approvingly “imperialism is in the air – all classes [were] drunk with the…hysterical loyalty”. And the imperative of the Empire was not to have and to hold but to add more. Patriotism stood for love of more. This was the British Empire of which A.C. Benson wrote (to Elgar’s music) few year’s later:

“Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set
God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet”

You may see all this as bombast and jingoism and from today’s perspective it certainly is. But at the time it was the commonly believed reality. Cecil Rhodes had put it fairly unequivocally in 1877 “We are the finest race in the world and the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race”

Victorians believed in “…the idea of some hierarchy of races” with, as Rhodes had put it, the English at the top. This racism (there is no more accurate descriptor) was the norm and went largely unchallenged. As Jeremy Paxman put it in his book on Empire it’s purpose “…rested on the conviction not merely that different races had different characteristics, but that the qualities of the British were superior to all others”.

In the same way that statues of slavers offend against decency to sing “Land of Hope and Glory” surely does the same. Not only is the jingoism offensive and the message anachronistic it is also at its heart hypocritical. Look at one of the verses:

Thine equal laws, by Freedom gained,
Have ruled thee well and long;
By Freedom gained, by Truth maintained,
Thine Empire shall be strong.

“Thine equal laws” ? We have seen that the imperative in Britain and it’s Empire was far from “equal”. An ideology that institutionalises racial hierarchy cannot incorporate the premise that we are all “equal before the law” – and it didn’t.

In a year during which the iniquities of slavery have been sharply in focus and during which we have “taken the knee” to attest to the truism that “Black Lives Matter” surely nobody should be singing paeans to the Empire at The Proms or anywhere else. Our past is far from a glorious one – if anything we should be atoning for aspects of our history like the Empire not celebrating them.

I am indebted to Jeremy Paxman’s “Empire” used as background for this blog. Paxman calls “Land of Hope and Glory” a “hymn to empire, still sung at that festival of faded nationalism, the Last Night of the Proms”