Sammy Davis Jnr once famously called himself a “One-Eyed Negro Jew” which as well as being true added disability (Davis has lost an eye in an accident) to racism and Antisemitism. The truth was, and is, as Davis knew from personal experience that Societies often try and marginalise those who are different. And from the seeds of petty prejudice the oaks of genocide can grow. “The Holocaust” would have not been possible had the German people not “known” , or been persuaded to “know” of the “inferiority” of the Jewish race.

We have seen government ministers and other supporters all over the social media in recent weeks hailing the tolerance, lack of prejudice and opposition to racism of the British people. Hard right commentator Tim Montgomerie, tweeted

“Britain is one of the kindest, least racist societies in the world but the way Labour politicians like Dawn Butler rush to think the worst of our institutions, like the police, explains why their Red Wall seats tumbled so spectacularly to Boris Johnson. And why they’ll stay blue.”

The “Red Wall” seats actually “tumbled” because of underlying racism and xenophobia rather than because their electorates are kind and tolerant. Of the many prejudices at work Islamaphobia was perhaps the most significant. Be under no illusion the EU referendum was won in no small measure because of the stirred up anti Muslim prejudice of many. That’s why the Vote Leave campaign ran the wholly erroneous message that Turkey was joining the Union – subtext “Lots more nasty Muslims will come if we stay in the EU.”

The Establishment is in denial about racism, antisemitism and islamaphobia. But the truth is they are everywhere in Britain today. “Britain First” is not just the name of a racist, fascist action group. It’s implicitly the slogan of our government. Look at the preposterous overreaction by the Home Office to the displaced person Boat People. This needed careful, considerate and humane handling. It got a populist parade of prejudice from the Home Secretary and military action. That will have gone down well with the bigots in the Red Wall seats.

The Right does not support the “Black Lives Matter” slogan. Boris Johnson hasn’t and won’t “take the knee”. Nor, incidentally, did the Rugby League players of Wakefield Trinity despite their opponents Wigan doing so before a recent game. Wakefield is one of the Red Wall seats that kicked out their Labour MP last November. Go figure.

I have no solution to these problems but I do know that to deny they exist doesn’t help. I agree with Lord Finklestein, writing in The Times today, that the campaign for racial justice is more than the campaign for any one group and that working together has merit. But recent elections in Britain (including the referendum) have shown that a significant and influential minority of our citizens are racist (or borderline racist) islamaphobic and xenophobic. It’s not comfortable to have to face this reality and it’s not easy to deal with it. But it’s a fact.

The wholly grail for a marketer is when the public, especially your customer targets within it, adopt a slogan and start using it colloquially. Remember Heineken and “Reaches the parts ” or Carlsberg with “If Carlsberg made…” ? Drinks seem especially strong in this area but so can politicians be.

In the 1980s everyone knew who “Maggie” was just as a few decades earlier they knew “Winnie”. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has achieved the same. The rental bikes in London introduced when he was mayor became known as “Boris bikes” and now he is Prime Minister he’s known as “Boris” by all – it’s a branding triumph.

Whatever darkness lies behind the brand name (and in Johnson’s case there’s plenty) you can’t deny its brilliance. It’s distinctive, which a brand has to be, and in its sector unique. Johnson is the “Guinness” of politics unmistakable and unique. “Maggie” was the same.

When we know people well we refer to them by their first name. Even if we haven’t actually met them. There’s only one “Harry” for a Spurs supporter. There was only one “Fergie” for a Manchester United fan. In politics this is fairly rare. Blair was always “Blair” not “Tony” and that applies to his detractors and opponents as well. It’s difficult to use the name “Boris” in a negative way which is why many of us who are resistant to his charms him try to say “Johnson” – it’s not always easy.

Brand “Boris” is familiar though it is a veneer covering little of substance. In the 2019 it was associated with the “Get Brexit Done” slogan and the image of Johnson on a bulldozer driving through a wall was perfect symbolism. Boris will get things done was the take out, and it worked.

Sir Keir Starmer also has an unusual first name and he does have the opportunity to build a “Keir” brand but I’m not sure it will work. He really isn’t superficial enough, and the “Sir” doesn’t really add to what is already a cerebral and quite elitist identity. But “Boris” doesn’t have to explain himself – he may appear to some to be a shallow buffoon but for most he’s “Our Boris”. His very shallowness is part of his strength. He’s a bit of a card and distinctive and visible. He looks a shambolic mess most of the time but that’s a positive – his visual identity isn’t “man of the people” at all but it is unique and wholly consistent with the singular brand name. There’s no one quite like him.

The brand that most relates to Boris Johnson is “Marmite” – something of a cliché for something you like or loath. Marmite cleverly turned this aspect of their brand identity into a campaign. Are you a “lover” or a “hater” they asked. Give us a try and find out. It’s the same with Boris – we are mostly sanguine about giving the old fraud an extended trial. Is he as fireproof as he seems – the opinion polls suggest he may be. The Conservatives remain comfortably ahead in the polls – despite everything, and that’s quite something.

Brand Boris is an asset that only appears once in a political generation. Charismatic power is effective and difficult to challenge. Churchill had virtually no opposition during the war, his leadership and his power were based on his charisma. Johnson is no Churchill but the power is similarly based, as is the powerful visual presentation of his distinctive brand.

The only consolation I can offer is that the rather dull, cerebral and Starmer-like Clement Attlee trounced Churchill in 1945. At some point voters may see through the image and view what lingers beneath it. But that is unlikely to happen until 2024. By which time the transformation of Britain into a nationalist loner of a State, for which grinning Boris is the front man, may have happened. As James Joyce put it :

“ Beware the horns of a bull, the heels of the horse, and the smile of an Englishman.”

Whatever views we hold we should not have the right to express them as a member of the upper House of our Parliament just because a Prime Minister likes us (or one once did). And not just express them but vote as well. We were once governed by the divine right of Kings and by men in Ermine who got into the House of Lords when their noble Dads died. We still have an unelected Head of State but at least she is a constitutional Monarch and her role is largely ceremonial. But our upper House is now based not on hereditary but on patronage. Not much of an advance that is it ?

The late Colin Cowdrey, a cricketer, became a Lord because the then Prime Minister John Major enjoyed his company over a late night whisky. One of Cowdrey’s successors as England’s captain, Ian Botham, became a Lord because Boris Johnson liked the fact that the otherwise apolitical (but Blimpish) ex-cricketer supported Brexit. Both Cowdrey and Botham had previously been knighted for services to cricket (and charity) – just reward you might think, certainly sufficient reward by any logical measures.

Emperor Caligula made his horse Insitatus a Consul. If John Major had preferred horse racing to cricket perhaps Red Rum rather than Colin Cowdrey would have been ennobled. The point, of course, is that to have patronage rather than election the method of choosing a member of our Parliament is profoundly undemocratic. If your mother was as dysfunctional as our “Mother of Parliaments” you’d be booking her a place at Dignitas.

Decades ago Tom Peters suggested that companies would be well advised to “stick to their knitting “ – to do what they had expertise and experience in. BP is an Oil and Gas corporation. Over the years it’s been pretty good at the task of finding, producing, refining and marketing hydrocarbons. That’s what it does. That’s its knitting. And the odd blip aside that’s what it does well.

The future for oil and gas is not as bleak as the pessimists argue. Let’s take gas first. Across the Northern hemisphere countries have a domestic gas usage for heating and cooking that cannot be unraveled for decades. And won’t be. Virtually every home in Northern Europe has central heating fired by a gas boiler. That is not going to change for a long time – if ever. The mix in power generation is changing and, yes, renewables are playing an increasing part. But we will still have gas fired plant turning out electricity for quite a while. In times of financial stress will countries really want to abandon efficient gas driven electricity generation and invest in wind turbines? Not as much as people think – at least not for quite a while.

And oil? The oil specific uses will remain so. Ships, whether they carry containers or cruise passengers, will continue to be driven by fuel oil. Aircraft will fly only on kerosene. There may be fewer flights – but the planes, like the ships, will run on oil. Personal transport mostly likewise. Despite the plethora of battery driven or partly battery driven cars available most of the car park runs on petrol and diesel. And will continue to do so. Unless and until an electric car has the range, the refuelling simplicity and the cost of a petrol driven car most of us will continue to choose the latter. The same applies with trucks and buses – these may not be oil specific but petrol and diesel powered vehicles will be in the majority for a very long time. And remember your electric car has to get its battery charged – and at the moment the electricity to do that comes substantially from gas-fired power stations!

Change in energy consumption comes from technological advance. Aircraft and ships and automobiles are far more efficient than once they were. The greatest contribution to reducing hydrocarbon consumption comes from the hidden renewable – efficiency improvements.

BP’s expertise is in hydrocarbons. The record they and other oil and gas corporations have with renewables is patchy at best. Twenty years on from saying they would be “Beyond Petroleum” they aren’t. Low production cost crude oil and gas will be attractive so long as the consumption infrastructure is there. It will be. Stick to the knitting !

“…a constitutional monarchy can be a source of stability and focus for national unity. But as Britain’s Queen has so often demonstrated, that stability stems not just from the constitutional arrangements but the character of the person occupying the throne.” The Times today.

There are many arguments against monarchical systems but this is one of the best. Royal families are like any other family – they have their “Good” their “Bad” and their “Oh My God” members. Britain’s last but one Monarch was certainly in the last category. Only lust and loucheness stopped us entering the war with a declared Nazi supporter as our King.

We can look at our political leaders today and see them as woeful. They are, but we chose them. To have a head of state who is only in the job because of who his or her father was is almost comically anachronistic. Queen Elizabeth has been good – if you must have a Monarch the old girl’s the type you want. But if she’d sadly not survived into adulthood then Margaret Windsor would have been the Queen. Not an appetising prospect. Similarly you would only have needed the fickle finger of fate simultaneously to Have removed Lillibet and her eldest son Charles from us to have given us King Andrew. See what I mean?

Constitutional monarchies are high risk choices as Juan Carlos and before him Edward VIII have showed. Time to choose our leaders surely ? A President of the people chosen by the people and for the people works well for Ireland and Germany and for many other democratic states. If the Spanish follow suit who could blame them. And so should we.

Brexit is , of course, the ultimate “we know best” policy. An irrational and profoundly damaging act of collective self-harm driven solely by the preposterous notion that our sovereignty as a nation was under threat and that, as Flanders and Swann put it, “The English, The English, the English are best”. As an Empire and a nation falls into irreversible decline notions of superiority , however delusional, come to the fore. Read Gibbon. This is more of the same.

Mr Dolan and his fellow gold plated anarchists can afford the arrogant indulgence that they “know best”. Not many of the super rich have caught COVID-19. Whilst the rest of us need protection from common sense policies like mask-wearing Mr Dolan can pay for some little people to do his shopping. The idea that our Human Rights are endangered by having to wear a mask is comical but I suppose if Mr Dolan wants to throw some of his money at a losing cause that’s his affair. What a silly man.

David Aaronovitch, writing in “The Times” today, reveals the bizarre world of QAnon. I’d never heard of it but it seems to be a complex amalgam of conspiracy theories most of them utterly bizarre. Why has it appeared at this time ? Here’s a theory (all my own, there’s no conspiracy). The real world, particularly the real world of politics, has become so bizarre, so dysfunctional, so surreal that if you invent something bonkers by comparison with the disturbing realities it becomes credible.

Think about it for a moment. A game show panel participant, used to operating at the lowest common denominator of entertainment, becomes President. He has no qualifications for the job, is morally defective and revels in his egomania. He is a fool. But that’s not the most disturbing part. He is placed in office and survives in office because the political Party of Abraham Lincoln wants him there. Maybe they thought he was Ronald Reagan redux? He isn’t. He’s a maniac. No conspiracy theory here. Fact. And the suits of Wall Street support him because the Dow booms. Never mind the quality – look at your booming portfolio.

Lets cross the pond. Post Imperial Britain was paddling along quite happily in its respectable newish role as a big player on the European stage. It is highly praised for its hosting of perhaps the most successful Olympic Games of modern times. To say that London is the capital city of Europe is not hyperbole. It is rich, diverse, culturally outstanding and friendly and welcoming. The diversity of Britain spreads across the nation – young Europeans from 30 countries are everywhere working, especially, in the Health Service and the Service sectors – a hugely mutually beneficial arrangement for all.

Britain was hardly broken but they tried to fix it anyway – fix it by blowing it up. A kill or cure choice made at a time when there was nothing to cure. A movement strongly resembling QAnon and driven by an extreme variant of Conservative Nationalism decided that we would be better off going it alone. There was no reason and no rationale in play – just the rawest of grotesquely intellectually deficient flag-waving patriotism. And, of course, if you’re waving the Union Flag frenetically you won’t be waving any others. Or be able to do much else. The English, The English, The English are best.

Its seems that the madness virus is very infective spreading from the White House to 10 Downing Street and beyond. Ironically though at a time when we need unpartisan competence what we find we’ve got is lying ineptitude. When citizens are dying in their tens of thousands the last thing a nation needs is boastful bluff and bluster. But that’s what we’ve got. Now I won’t punt a conspiracy theory about this though there are some very shady characters in the West Wing and the Downing St basement. The thought that there is method in the madness of these apparent charlatans is a very scary thought indeed.

Right of Centre political commentator and academic at the University of Kent, Matthew Goodwin, has said this about the ‘“values” (his word) of Boris Johnson’s supporters:

“They prioritise the nation and the national community. They prefer stability over change. And they favour continuity over disruption and discontinuity. This is why they cherish Britain’s history, heritage and collective memory and are more sensitive to attempts to deconstruct them.”

My comments in response.

This is brave but I’m afraid doomed attempt to give an intellectual substance to prejudice. That prejudice prefers its comfort zone to the challenge of considering new ways of doing things. To “prioritise the nation” is nationalism by any other name. Because it’s obverse is to have to denigrate other nations. The “English, The English, The English are best” poppycock so brilliantly mocked by Flanders and Swann 50 years ago. The “English community” extends this xenophobia to race and culture. That “community” is white and if it has a religion it’s Christian. What it certainly isn’t is brown and Islamic.

“Stability” actually is retrospective and nostalgic. The change (e.g. to a multiracial society) has already happened and the status quo is now this. The “national community” is diverse – not just from immigration but also from freedom of movement from the EU27. So the days of the continuity of the “White, Anglo-Saxon, first language English are in the distant past (1950s Britain.

“Disruption and discontinuity” is a further euphemism for the perceived threat of the culturally challenging. Race and nationality are at its heart. When the policemen, the doctors, the teachers and the rest of the service sector employees are more likely to go to the Mosque than the Church and the plumber is Polish that shakes up the status quo and is perceived as disruptive.

“Britain’s history, heritage and collective memory” is the reason to believe that it once was better. And as we say that we begin not to recognise our nation any more so we rerun the newsreels of the times when it was “better”. The spirit of the Blitz which hardly any alive today remember and the blue birds over the white cliffs of Dover. The poppy police around Remembrance Day are a modern phenomenon – we don’t just want to Virtue Signal our own patriotism with at least a fortnight of poppy wearing we want to condemn those who opt out.

Whether what Mr Goodwin identifies here are truly “values” I would strongly challenge. A prejudice is an uniformed attitude not a value and most of this is the narrowest form of prejudice. And you don’t have to have more than a passing understanding of 20th Century nationalism and the horrors that ensued from its dominance to want to avoid it ever happening again. But, as I say, the “value” of “prioritising the nation” is profoundly nationalistic.

In our binary world there is little room for nuance. The “Black Lives Matter” slogan is a pretty straightforward one but it won’t appeal to those who have the pseudo “values” Mr Goodwin identifies. And the problem is that real values are more complex, not binary and require a generosity of spirit and a social intelligence which Boris Johnson does not stand for. Those who vote for him even less. You can’t disguise raw prejudice as a value set.

Trevor Phillips has an interesting piece about colour, race and tribe in The Times today. I have been thinking about sport and the Arts in the context of what he says.

The very good South African fast bowler Alan Donald’s nickname was “White Lightning”. This was at a time when most of the world’s top fast bowlers were black so Donald’s skin colour was then considered to be noteworthy. Earlier in cricket history the fine Jamaican batsman George Headley was called the “Black Bradman” signifying the seemingly unusual fact that a black man could bat with the best. But it wasn’t until 1960 that the West Indies had a black captain – Frank Worrell – it was a job previously the preserve, on racial grounds, of the white man.

Institutionalised racism scarred the United States of America, and still does albeit that theatres no longer have a “Coloreds” entrance and seating area. In sport and The Arts everywhere there have always been race driven divisions and assumptions perhaps reaching its gruesome apogee with Laurence Olivier blacking up to play Othello. The “Black and White Minstrels” were a downmarket version on this absurdity.

What influences talent and its exploitation? We are firmly in the nature/nurture squally waters on this one. Can white men genetically not play the trumpet as well as black men (nature) or is it that the jazz trumpet can best be played by those from the African-American cultural tradition (nurture)? It is surely true that it helps if our talents can be nurtured by having sympathetic people around us – look at the extraordinary Kanneh-Mason family whose individual achievements have nothing to do with their skin colour and everything to do with the sympathetic family in which they grew up.

Elvis Presley grew up on the border between the White and the Black areas of Tupelo Mississippi and his music and style was influenced by both cultures. Elvis heard the music that influenced him played live at the black nightclubs he frequented as a teenager and young adult. Some in the black community accused him of cultural appropriation but most just admired him whatever the roots of his music.

In modern day Britain we are nominally and legally integrated but in fact there are considerable racial, cultural and social divides and tensions. And huge differences of opportunity. Where seventy years Fred Trueman could grow up in a working-class Yorkshire mining family and play cricket for England today at the highest level the teams are overwhelmingly middle class, and white. The odd Asian-heritage spin bowler aside there are few non-whites in the English game. Jofra Archer and Chris Jordan are more than of Caribbean heritage – they both grew up in Barbados and it is on that island that their relatives still live. They are welcome in the England team of course, but their presence emphasises the fact that our own Caribbean-heritage communities have produced few top cricketers. It can’t be nature can it ? Must be nurture – as with the missing working-class cricketers there has been lack of opportunity.

When Apartheid ended the South African Government and sporting authorities systematically introduced quotas to increase the opportunities for non whites. It was, and is, controversial, but it works. If you are serious about improving the chances of those discriminated against – in sport, the Arts and in any other sector – you have proactively to do something about it.

Elvis “borrowed” from Little Richard and Ray Charles, Frank Sinatra from Nat King Cole and Sammy Davis Junior, The Beatles from the Isley Brothers (and many other Black musicians). Historically musicians and artists did not “stay in their lane” but in other walks of life, especially sport, the lanes have had walls alongside them that were difficult to climb over. In Britain we are not doing enough in some sports, especially cricket, to break down class and colour barriers. It’s time we started.

In the 1980s I worked in Hong Kong for a multinational corporation intent on benefitting from the opening up of China. We were one of the bees buzzing excitedly around a rapidly growing honeypot. In 1989 the events of Tiananmen Square caused only a brief pause in business. There was a little bid of hand wringing but we soon buzzed back and were doing deals. Coincidentally in the same year the Berlin Wall fell. In Russia as well as China money talked and in both big countries we in the West salivated at the commercial opportunities – we didn’t ask too many awkward questions.

The threats posed by present day China and Russia are of the West’s making. Both changing great powers could see that capitalism works – not least for the fat cats at the top. And they could see that the muted cries in the West that economic change should be accompanied by democratic change could safely be ignored. The Chinese, as ever, could see that time was on their size, as was scale. “China is Very Big” said my Hong Kong Chief Executive back in 1989 – never mind the quality of the regime feels its width, it’s breadth, it’s size and its prospects. Let’s get some of the action.

MultinatIonals like the one I worked for sourced people and money globally and our partners in Peking or Moscow welcomed the global benefits that doing deals with us brought. Two nations traditionally closed became open if there was a buck to be made, which there was. As bridges were built the Chinese and Russians crossed them bringing their newly acquired bucks with them. From football clubs to telecoms it was Russian and, especially, Chinese money that swept up western assets. Apple as well as Huawei rely on an alliance of western demand and Chinese business acumen and labour.

The Chinese and the Russians knew that they needed to protect what they were creating – information is power and they weren’t too bothered about how they obtained it. Were there spies in our business operation in Hong King back in the late 1980s ? Anecdotal evidence suggested that there were. And now? Do you really think the People’s Republic would have moved against Hong Kong recently without insider information that they could get away with it ? The political, commercial and military intelligence operations of the Chinese and Russians are substantial and designed to focus on keeping what they have and building on it.

Hand in hand with the spooks are the greeks bearing gifts. If the Chinese, and more so the Russians, believe that their relative strength is enhanced by weakening the solidarity of the West they’ll happily throw money at the challenge. The Russia Report doesn’t confirm the extent to which Russian money helped achieve Brexit but the evidence is more than anecdotal. A united Europe , especially one with plans for a Defence Force (EDF) , presents a threat to an increasingly militaristic and totalitarian Russia. An EDF without British participation would be weaker. A European Union without British membership weaker then one with us. Go figure.

One of the oldest messages in the political strategy textbook is “Divide and Rule” . And nothing is more divisive than flag-waving nationalism. Trump’s nationalism and that of Britain’s Conservatives were just what the Russians and Chinese ordered – and paid for. In a world where there are just four great powers, and with two of them (China and Russia) a threat to the West, the events of the last four years will have put smiles on the faces in Moscow and Peking. The madman in the White House throwing insults every day at the Chinese won’t worry them one bit. The Great Power that is the United States shooting itself clumsily in the foot every day won’t worry the Russians either. And the fourth undisputed great power – a uniting Europe pursuing ever closer union – has been hugely damaged by Britain petulantly picking up its ball and running away.