“Nationalisation” has always been a political act driven primarily by ideology. It is significantly different from situations where Government supports a failing business. Here ideology plays little or no part. Effectively Government temporarily provides access to funds (etc.) to help the business survive when conventional lenders (mainly Banks) are reluctant to do so.

The drivers of Government support do, of course, include political considerations. Closing a plant or a company that is a significant employer puts people out of work, increases the quantum of unemployment benefit payments and is socially disruptive. But the hard reality is that for a business to survive and prosper it needs more that temporary funding.

Steelmaking over the past few decades has moved to countries which offer competitive labour costs, economic access to raw materials and scale. China produces well over 50% of the world’s Steel. Other nations have roles to play but the main opportunity is added value production. British Steel’s production is negligible in global terms. Others do, or can do, better and (especially) cheaper.

There may be a social case to support British Steel, but there is no case to “nationalise”. The harsh reality is that we do not need subsidised steel production.

I remember Orpington. I grew up there and in 1962 the Liberal Party won a by-election there which gave me a brief moment of fame at my boarding school. The Constituency is a very Tory place but in that year it collectively chose to flash a warning at the rather complacent Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan.

Over the years the Liberals have acquired votes, often temporarily, from nice Tories who would never vote Labour. They still do. By 2010 under their new “Liberal Democrat” guise they had gained enough seats to become Coalition partners with the Tories. This nearly killed them – in 2015 the public clearly thought that if you wanted a “nice Tory” government you might as well vote for David Cameron who was nice enough.

Cameron’s post Brexit successors weren’t nice because they stuck us with Brexit. The thinking part of Middle England didn’t like this and have voted accordingly. (Orpington, close to Nigel Farage’s home in Downe, stuck with the Conservatives sadly).

The case for the LibDems to acquire more ground from the Tories is a strong one and Brexit is a key part of it. Add in a bit of tactical voting from Labour voters in constituencies where Labour has no chance (necessary given FPTP) and you have a powerful opportunity for Sir Ed Davey which he has taken.

With the Tories being unconscionable and Labour turning nasty in power the LibDems, like Edna Everage, are winning with “Niceness”. And like Dame Edna if Sir Ed makes us laugh in gloomy times amen to that!

1st April 2025

In an announcement that will send shockwaves through the European business and financial sectors Dutch/British multinational Shell has announced that it will move its corporate headquarters to Houston, Texas later this year.

Shell’s Lebanese/Canadian CEO Wael Sawan, the first non European to head the corporation, has conducted an extensive study in secret and has concluded that primarily for tax reasons it is in shareholders’ interests to relocate to Houston.

Sawan, who has an MBA from Harvard, is known to have become frustrated at the lack of focus and drive from his Dutch and British colleagues at the top of the company. An insider revealed that Sawan sees Texas based ExxonMobil as the model for Shell’s future. “Exxon doesn’t mess around with the trivia of pretending to be into Renewables” he said “they are a ‘Drill, Baby Drill’ corporation and that’s what Sawan wants Shell to be.”

The re-election of Donald Trump was encouraging for the Oil Majors and the freed-up and deregulated US oil/gas sector is appealing to Shell as it stipples out its hydrocarbon based future. “Wael doesn’t like bloody windmills” the insider explained.

Laurent Pelly’s Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg originated at the Teatro Royal in Madrid and is now being performed by the Royal Danish Opera In Copenhagen. It’s a wonderful experience in every way. The mood is set by the triumphant Overture which segued effortlessly into the hymn in the Church – one of the great transitions in musical theatre. From then on few if any in the audience took their eyes off the stage for five hours, it was that good.

Musically and vocally this is a fine production. Beautifully sung and with a masterful orchestral accompaniment under Axel Kober. A good test is the quintet in Act 3 which was compellingly well sung. The staging was minimalist – a curious use of cardboard boxes and a stage (which revolved) at an angle. The Meistersingers themselves were old and doddery and dressed in a dull, unremarkable way. All designed not to detract from the story or the music I think.

The temptation for modern day opera directors is to try and say something new with the great operatic war horses, like Wagner. Bayreuth is not exempt from that indulgence – their last Meistersinger was set in Wagner’s house (on the stage) with Lizst and the Wagner family appearing! And Danish Director Kasper Holten set the Opera in a London Club in a notorious production at the Royal Opera House! In such productions you sense the director is trying to impress fellow directors rather than the paying audiences! No such problem with Pelly’s work here in Copenhagen.

Pelly wanted us to hear the music without distraction. And to follow the plot. The temptation with Meistersinger , because of its grand scale, is to gild the lily with costumes, scenery and special effects. There was none of that here, and all the better for it. But if understatement in presentation is your plan you better ensure that the essentials are outstanding. For example the chorus which has a key role to play in this opera has to be of the highest quality. It was, the ensemble singing was superb. The principals were experienced Wagnerians. As, I think, they have to be. A lead soprano told me in Vienna last year that she was comfortable with the full operatic range – except Wagner! The Wagner sepecialists were, she told me, a “bigger and a different breed” !

The principals all sang well and there were no attention grabbers – except perhaps Tom Erik Lie as Beckmesser who released the comedy of the character as well as the pathos. A word also for Jacob Skov Andersen’s David. This is often a dull role but Andersen played it almost as Frank Spencer – a bit gormless, but it worked.

It was a first visit for me to the splendid Copenhagen Opera House. A large and comfortable modern venue but without gilt or glamour. The audience were there for high class opera – and that is what we got!

“What is evil? Killing is evil, lying is evil, slandering is evil, abuse is evil, gossip is evil: envy is evil, hatred is evil, to cling to false doctrine is evil; all these things are evil.” Gautama Siddhartha, the founder of Buddhism, 563–483 BC.

You don’t have to be a Buddhist to find this definition useful ancient though it is. Of course we can equivocate around it. Is war to counter tyranny, which involves killing your enemy evil? Are there “just wars” ? And who decides if they are “just” ? Are white lies permissible if they are kind? And so on. Arguably to describe a person, or an act or a belief as “evil” is always subjective. Perhaps evil is a correct descriptor if an overwhelming majority of people believe it to be true.

This preamble leads me to the concern that prompted the thought about evil. We live in times where there is evil all around us, and in unexpected places. Richard Nixon was a crook, but was he evil? Lyndon Johnson presided over some evil acts in South East Asia. Does this mean he was evil – I’m far from sure that it does. Murderous dictatorships aside (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini…) isn’t evil a tad too strong a word for politicians we don’t like? You can see where I’m going…

We know the motivations of Hitler and Stalin. Totalitarian dictators hold onto power, once secured, through repression, or much much worse. Hitler gained power legitimately in 1933 having been appointed by Hindenburg, the Head of State. Within a short time he cemented that power by what we might call “executive action” and confirmed by a phoney plebiscite. The aspiring dictator became the Führer.

“Executive Action” involves (usually) Heads of Government taking action without involving elected representatives. Hitler did it by dissolving the Reichstag – or, rather, turning it into a rubber stamp assembly. President Trump is basically ignoring Congress and issuing orders which are subject to no checks and balances.

In his first ten years in power Hitler governed by decree. There was not even the semblance of a democratic process. As it stands Trump is trying to do the same. However the two houses of Congress still exist as do the Courts. Some of the Executive orders are being or will be subject to challenge.

If we look at the Buddhist definition of “evil” and apply it to Trump’s actions there’s a scary coincidence. There are lies galore. There is slander of races, individuals and whole countries. There is unquestionably abuse of power. There is endemic gossip from the President and his acolytes. There is envy and hatred and more than one false doctrine.

Lord Acton famously said “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” This was in 1887. Almost exactly one hundred years earlier the drafters of the United States Constitution unquestionably had the same thought in mind. They incorporated checks and balances in the Constitution to stop anyone, including the President, from exercising unbridled power.

The Weimar Republic arguably suffered from an excess of democracy making Germany ungovernable and leading to the rise of Hitler. America, in theory anyway, has traditionally had a balance between the Presidency, the executive, Congress and the Justice system. The coming months will see if that balance can be restored and evil averted.

The argument, propounded by Trump hacks and pundits from Vivek Ramaswamy to David Pyne, is that China is by far the greater threat to American hegemony than Russia. In this they are surely correct.” Juliet Samuel in The Times

Depends what you mean by ‘“hegemony. If you mean economic leadership the Chinese have already won. The West has long since contracted out much of its manufacturing to the Chinese and this will continue. But if you mean an actual military threat then China is not that. These facts are linked. The PRC needs peace with its client countries otherwise the income will stop. They certainly don’t want that.

Russia is a tottering economic power and now there has been an adjustment to the West’s (eg Germany) reliance on Russian oil and gas frankly Russian exports are irrelevant. Russia , unlike China, has no economic need for peaceful coexistence with the West. Should America continue to support Russia then the military threat is reduced. Bad luck on Ukraine though.

Take these realities together China will continue to have hegemony over America economically. Militarily it may threaten Taiwan but an isolationist America will keep well away from this. In short China is not a “greater threat” than Russia. And a negotiated settlement over Ukraine threatens nobody, except the Ukrainian people.

Above the proscenium at Frank Matcham’s “Richmond Theatre” is a large key panel bearing an inscription by Alexander Pope: “To wake the soul by tender stroke of art”. And whilst your soul may be awoken at a performance there that is rather in the hands of the Ambassador Theatre Group (ATG) who use it as a venue for touring productions – Richmond is a receiving theatre these days rather than a producing one (the annual pantomime aside). But despair ye not! Just down the road is the wonderful Orange Tree Theatre (OTT) – a world class and original producing theatre under the direction of Tom Littler who despite his youthful looks is one of the brightest talents in British Theatre.

The OTT attracts exceptional acting talent despite its small scale. The most recent was “Churchill in Moscow” with Roger Allam, no less, as WSC. I went to the final performance enhanced by the presence in the audience of Sir Ian McKellen who recently played a two hander with his friend Allam – the engaging “Frank and Percy”.

Allam did not try and impersonate Churchill but brought his strong bias for authenticity to the role. He is a most versatile actor incapable of being typecast because of this versatility. A lesser actor might have tried a “We shall fight them on the beaches” voice – Allam was very much more subtle than that !

The play covers Churchill’s brief visit to Moscow in August 1942, a pivotal moment in the war. The Soviets were under enormous pressure from Operation Barbarossa which was pressing towards Moscow. German armies were surrounding Stalingrad. Britain and the Soviet Union were effectively alone in countering Hitler in Europe as America concentrated on Japan after Pearl Harbour. But the Americans were genuine allies with convoys helping the Russians, albeit at times at huge cost. O tempora, o mores !

Stalin was a dictator and a tyrant, but “my enemy’s enemy” had come into play. Churchill knew this of course and his visit was intended to underpin the alliance by establishing a measure of personal rapport with Stalin.

Howard Brenton’s play clearly used Simon Sebag Montefiore’s comprehensive biography of Stalin as source material. The drama follows the story Montefiore tells remarkably closely. The clash between the Georgian peasant and the English aristocrat is excellent material for drama! The only significant adjustment Brenton makes is to make the interpreters female rather than male but pretty much everything else, poetic license aside, is as it happened.

The two men could hardly have been more different but neither had much doubt about his own strength – but over the course of the play they come to appreciate the other man’s strengths as well. But it was touch and go at times. As his biographer puts it “the conviviality was ice thin”. Churchill was inclined to go home early more than once because he felt Britain was being insulted by Stalin

A crucial breakthrough came when Stalin introduced Churchill to his pretty sixteen-year-old daughter Svetlana. In the play the young actress Tamara Greatrex, a graduate of the National Youth Theatre, plays this character very well in her first professional engagement. Stalin is given something of a kindly persona “My father was in one of those aimiable and hospitable moods when he could charm anyone” she wrote later !

In the play whilst Stalin’s ego is ever present Roger Allam conveys Churchill keeping his own in check. This is very subtle acting indeed. Peter Forbes’ Stalin is rightly less restrained but nevertheless pragmatic. At the end there seems little a genuine warmth between the two men. Helped, no doubt, by copious toasts and a steely mutual capability for holding their liquor!

When in 1946 Churchill described the “Iron Curtain” descending under Stalin’s control we can see that there was never any ideological meeting point between the two men. But in 1942 pragmatism won the day.

Above the proscenium at Frank Matcham’s “Richmond Theatre” is a large key panel bearing an inscription by Alexander Pope: “To wake the soul by tender stroke of art”. And whilst your soul may be awoken at a performance there that is rather in the hands of the Ambassador Theatre Group (ATG) who use it as a venue for touring productions – Richmond is a receiving theatre these days rather than a producing one (the annual pantomime aside). But despair ye not! Just down the road is the wonderful Orange Tree Theatre (OTT) – a world class and original producing theatre under the direction of Tom Littler who despite his youthful looks is one of the brightest talents in British Theatre.

The OTT attracts exceptional acting talent despite its small scale. The most recent was “Churchill in Moscow” with Roger Allam, no less, as WSC. I went to the final performance enhanced by the presence in the audience of Sir Ian McKellen who recently played a two hander with his friend Allam – the engaging “Frank and Percy”.

Allam did not try and impersonate Churchill but brought his strong bias for authenticity to the role. He is a most versatile actor incapable of being typecast because of this versatility. A lesser actor might have tried a “We shall fight them on the beaches” voice – Allam was very much more subtle than that !

The play covers Churchill’s brief visit to Moscow in August 1942, a pivotal moment in the war. The Soviets were under enormous pressure from Operation Barbarossa which was pressing towards Moscow. German armies were surrounding Stalingrad. Britain and the Soviet Union were effectively alone in countering Hitler in Europe as America concentrated on Japan after Pearl Harbour. But the Americans were genuine allies with convoys helping the Russians, albeit at times at huge cost. O tempora, o mores !

Stalin was a dictator and a tyrant, but “my enemy’s enemy” had come into play. Churchill knew this of course and his visit was intended to underpin the alliance by establishing a measure of personal rapport with Stalin.

Howard Brenton’s play clearly used Simon Sebag Montefiore’s comprehensive biography of Stalin as source material. The drama follows the story Montefiore tells remarkably closely. The clash between the Georgian peasant and the English aristocrat is excellent material for drama! The only significant adjustment Brenton makes is to make the interpreters female rather than male but pretty much everything else, poetic license aside, is as it happened.

The two men could hardly have been more different but neither had much doubt about his own strength – but over the course of the play they come to appreciate the other man’s strengths as well. But it was touch and go at times. As his biographer puts it “the conviviality was ice thin”. Churchill was inclined to go home early more than once because he felt Britain was being insulted by Stalin

A crucial breakthrough came when Stalin introduced Churchill to his pretty sixteen-year-old daughter Svetlana. In the play the young actress Tamara Greatrex, a graduate of the National Youth Theatre, plays this character very well in her first professional engagement. Stalin is given something of a kindly persona “My father was in one of those aimiable and hospitable moods when he could charm anyone” she wrote later !

In the play whilst Stalin’s ego is ever present Roger Allam conveys Churchill keeping his own in check. This is very subtle acting indeed. Peter Forbes’ Stalin is rightly less restrained but nevertheless pragmatic. At the end there seems little a genuine warmth between the two men. Helped, no doubt, by copious toasts and a steely mutual capability for holding their liquor!

When in 1946 Churchill described the “Iron Curtain” descending under Stalin’s control we can see that there was never any ideological meeting point between the two men. But in 1942 pragmatism won the day.

“Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” wasn’t it ? Let’s look at what that means. The first half of the slogan is an unequivocal demand that offenders will be punished. The second half implies that the “causes” are sometimes (always?) social. So some neighbourhoods, economic sub groups, racial minorities (etc.) are more likely to be a breeding ground for criminality than others. In short if you live in leafy Surrey, in a loving home and go to a good school you’re less likely to be involved in knife crime than some social alternatives.

We are in the world of mitigating circumstances here. In “West Side Story” Stephen Sondheim wrote this:

Dear kindly Sergeant Krupke
You gotta understand
It’s just our bringin’ upke
That gets us outta hand
Our mothers all are junkies
Our fathers all are drunks
Golly Moses, naturally we’re punks!

This was a plea from the disadvantaged Jets to be treated differently because they came from deprived homes. Yes they committed crimes, but there are mitigating circumstances. A plea for “Two Tier” treatment then. Seems not unreasonable to me. If you also try and be tough on the “causes” of crime. Solve the social problem and you reduce the crime.

Castrol was one of the world and Britain’s great Lubricants brands. Initially an independent then (after 1966) in alliance with Burmah its only rival was Shell. The two brands battled for leadership across both the Industrial and Automotive Lubricants sectors. Castrol’s huge advantage over most of its competitors was that it could be seen as a specialist lubricants company. There was no confusion in its offer.

For twenty-five years Castrol has been part of BP. The brand found itself part of a largely alien environment. BP had never been a leader in branded marketing and the consumer focused Castrol had little strategic fit within an overwhelmingly upstream multinational.

Castrol traditionally had brand value and undoubted technical and production competence. BP could add nothing to this and wisely kept the BP brand well away from Castrol’s identity (mostly, there were a few exceptions!)

Upstream dominated oil multinationals have steadily moved away from the “Well head to Petrol station” vertical integration of the past. The money is in finding and producing oil and gas not in refining and marketing it. BP’s sale of Castrol is evidence of this.

Oil companies are good at commodity management but struggle with the “Downstream”. I remember a senior Exploration and Production man in Shell asking “Remind me again, what is the difference between marketing and trading?” I’m not sure he understood the answer we gave!

A venture capital purchase of Castrol would seem likely and one that allows the brand the freedom to reassert itself. Multinational oil/gas companies don’t do diversification well and for Lubricants there is little or no benefit in being linked to an upstream operation.

BP’s move away from Lubricants may signal a retreat to their comfort zone of the Upstream. In many ways this would be a shame. Their partnership with Marks and Spencer has been well handled and looks good on their top range sites. But it must be a strange world to the Geologists and Petroleum engineers!