Rachel Sylvester in The Times today writes about mutinous Tories. If only, if only. The “One Nation” Tories of yore were purged prior to the 2019 General Election and any other MPs who exhibit one nation tendencies risk finding a horse’s head in their beds. Suggest that Brexit may be other than strategic genius and you’d be well advised keep well away from the boating lake.

The only actions that put Johnson under pressure come from the libertarian Hard Right. He has responded positively to this mob frequently over COVID – for example at Christmas when the irresponsible and deadly relaxation of rules – “Boris Saves Christmas” – has clearly killed people who would otherwise still be with us.

The people who took us out of the EU, who want to emasculate the BBC who want to remove regulations are the antithesis of the Old Conservative Party. All of them indulge in Thatcher worship even though some of the nationalist and faux-patriotic claptrap they spout even the great she-Elephant would not have countenanced.

With the fall of Trump (Dea Gratia) Johnson is the most significant world politician flying the flag of the provocative Right pushed all the time by the ERG/CRG in his own party. He does, eventually, what they want. In Turkey and Poland there are others on this track and Ms Le Pen is threatening in France. Dangerous times ahead.

Johnson is no more a traditional Conservative leader than Trump was a traditional Republican one. In America virtually all of the Republican Party stood by Trump to the bitter end. Same here. Johnson is manifestly inadequate at anything but the “Ra Ra” self promotion bits of his job. “Make Britain Great Again”. Populism in Power. But he’s safe.

In his inaugural speech Joe Biden asked for the return of truth to politics. Trump’s lies had brought divided America close to failed nation status. Here the core of our Government’s inadequacy is their unbelievability. Combine this with their manifest incompetence and you have a country so far down the slope towards failure it looks irreversible.

Shell and BP are oil and gas multinationals supplying essential products to society. In Britain , as with much of the western world, we have an economy which at present requires substantial quantities of hydrocarbon products. Our domestic and commercial space heating needs are provided almost exclusively by gas boilers. Our aircraft, marine vessels and most road vehicles are powered by oil. Much of our electricity is generated by gas.

The switch to non hydrocarbon fuels in some sectors, notably in power generation, has been underway for some time. But it is a long term project. In some sectors like home heating, despite premature government declarations, the switch from gas will take decades. No credible plans exist to do this and we’ve barely started.

Cars and trucks will continue to run predominantly on petrol and diesel also for the foreseeable future. The technical breakthrough which makes battery driven cars as convenient and affordable as petrol ones has not yet happened. Aircraft and ships will continue to be primarily fuelled by oil products for the rest of this Centrury and beyond. There is no sign of a truly viable alternative.

In the above described circumstances it is obvious that the oil and gas multinationals will continue to serve our energy needs for a very long time. Providing they do this responsibly and within the law they are not pariahs but essential participants in our economic welfare, growth and development. For the Bank of England or any other partner to have involvement with Shell and BP is in no way to be condemned and it is preposterous to do so.

Piers Morgan, demolished nicely by Matthew Syed in The Sunday Times today, is famous for being famous and if that fame crosses the border into infamy he’ll take that, and does. But he isn’t alone. The phenomenon of the “ shock jock” is all around – Syed’s newspaper has a few. The “shock jock” was originally the American disc jockey who shocked us with their outrageous views. Hence the name. They’re everywhere now on tv, radio and in print. The anti lockdown brigade might spout dangerous nonsense – but they get plenty of platforms on which to do it.

The problem is that people watch Piers in large numbers – bums on seats. And they read Rod Liddle and dozens like him. This is populism on Speed, but it generates sales. The “Leave” campaign in 2016 was driven by shockjockery of an extreme type. But why are so many of the Brexiteers also spokespeople for anti lockdown ? This has puzzled me but I get it now. It’s not the issues, which are unconnected. It’s the potential for more advanced shockjockery.

Vanity plays it’s part and no more so than with Piers Morgan. In this he resembles Donald Trump with whom he had a love/hate relationship. It’s now hate by the way. No surprise there. Fame is the spur because that is what the shock jocks seek. It’s an ego trip. But often a well paid one.

If they had no platform they wouldn’t bother us these noisy provocateurs. But they do get their newspaper columns, their radio talk shows and their tv programmes. Some are skilled at what they do, and Morgan is one of these. He may be a bumptious opinionated egotist. But he gets his lucrative platform because people watch it.

In truth the shockjocks are just actors on the stage and they signify nothing. The problem is not really with them, but with us. We pay the pipers, and they play the tunes we ask for. Fortunately for those of us who want more cerebral fare there are plenty of commentators around who offer it.

2021 is about competence. So was 2020 actually but it’s woeful absence in Government last year intensifies the need for it this. Frankly party politics, who is up or down in the Conservative Party for example, are irrelevant in the circumstances in which we find ourselves now.

Paul Goodman in The Times today gives us a useful summary of the COVID management failures. If we were in The Netherlands the Government would have resigned en masse, and been right to do so. What a shameful catalogue of ineptitude and failure it all is.

The “vaccine success” Mr Goodman lauds is fragile as supplies look to be under pressure. Then there is the astonishing decision to ignore the manufacturers’ advice regarding the timing of second vaccinations. At the very best this gamble, unique in the world, will indeed give us genuine benefits and save lives. At worst it could prove to be a cataclysmic error undoing much of the progress made by our being swift to start vaccinating.

Politics is often seen as a bit of an adult game with repartee in PMQs and photo opportunities being the tools of the trade. But for the past year it has been about much more than this. The past geniality of Boris Johnson may have helped him to achieve the high office he craved. But his manifest inability to manage complexity has shown him to be an utterly inadequate Prime Minister. Conservatives won’t like it but the parallels with Donald Trump are striking.

And then there is Brexit and here, as with COVID, we are in the Ideology versus Competence arena. The “Covid Recovery Group” is the “European Research Group” in a new guise. The same tired bleating about freedom and libertarianism. The same emphasis on flag-waving image over substance. The same addiction to English exceptionalism and the same certainty that “British is best “ 🇬🇧

We can already see Brexit is causing chaos both practical in the short term, at the ports and airports, and operational for the future with a deficit of forward planning. We had four years to prepare for leaving the EU but there are huge gaps in proper arrangements for the event. We only needed to blow the bloody doors off, instead we appear to be putting the whole edifice of our economy at risk.

The future may not be Orange any more but it’s not Rosy either. I normally eschew World War comparisons but one is apposite now. What Churchill offered in 1940 (apart from blood, sweat and tears ) was confident leadership. That was charismatic and needed to be. We need leadership now but of a different style. Biden not Trump. Competent and decent and truthful not utterly confused, corrupt and mendacious. Our cousins across the water needed to rid themselves of Trump before they could start again. We need to do the same here to his bumbling stablemate. Then cleaning the stables can begin. Do we have a Hercules ?

UK judges are source of strength for Hong Kong’ says Derek Sweeting QC quoted by Jonathan Ames in The Times today.

When I lived in Hong Kong in the 1980s a barrister (later a QC) was a friend of mine. His father had been a senior judge in the colony. The mix of lawyers in the system between Brits and locals worked well. A good legal system and a benign but competent local administration to an extent compensated for the lack of proper representative democracy.

Today all is very different. Martin Lee, himself a barrister, a long term campaigner for human rights will shortly be tried for his role in protests. He is not alone. The rule of law established by the Joint Declaration and applied in 1997 is slipping away.

The Chinese have moved to tighten their hegemony as back in the 1980s we always feared that one day they might. “One Country, two systems” is being replaced by “One country, one system”.

The continued involvement of British judges in the Hong Kong might have been a useful check and balance if the Joint Declaration had been respected. It is clear that the Chinese have no intention of doing this. In these circumstances it is an affront for British judges to be involved.

Hong Kong was always a lucrative posting for a British lawyer. Barristers and Judges lived in some comfort and they no doubt still do. But he who pays the piper calls the tune and however high the fee there’s no doubt who are the masters now. But the exercising of principled Law in an increasingly totalitarian environment is impossible. The Brits should pack their bags and go.

“It’s the rich wot gets the pleasure, it’s the poor wot gets the blame. It’s the same the whole world over, ain’t it all a crying shame)? “

In most areas of life the more moolah you have the more choices you have and the more benefits will potentially accrue to you. You can see this as aspirational or shocking depending on your own position relative to others now and in the future.

When it comes to vulnerability to COVID many factors play a part including age and how fit and healthy you are generally. Wealth appears to be one of the factors.

The relationship between wealth and health is both intuitively obvious and born out by the facts. The rich live longer than the poor. This seems also to apply to vulnerability to COVID. To explore this for London I have done some research into two variables and the correlation between them. (1) Income and (2) COVID cases.

For each of the 33 London boroughs I have taken published hard data for average income per borough and compared this with recent (January 2021) published COVID case data. The latter shows COVID cases per capita by Borough to rule out distortions from the different population sizes of the boroughs.

The five “richest” boroughs are Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Camden, Wandsworth and Richmond. The five boroughs with the lowest incidence of COVID are exactly the same. The five “poorest” boroughs are Hounslow, Harrow, Newham, Barking and Dagenham and Brent. The five boroughs with the highest incidence of COVID are the same except that Ealing replaces Harrow.

Across all 33 boroughs the correlation coefficient between income and COVID rate is .841. This is not a perfect correlation but it is close. There are one or two anomalies – Tower Hamlets, for example, is comparatively wealthy (11th) but is in the top ten worst COVID boroughs but across the city there is a clear relationship almost everywhere.

Obviously I am not suggesting a direct cause and effect. Lower income jobs are likely to be in the service sector where human contact is likely to be more frequent than in higher paid jobs which have the potential to work from home. The demographics of boroughs are different. But the basic premise at the beginning of these piece holds good. You’re more likely to contract COVID if you’re poor.

I’m not keen on blame or retribution. I know that society has to seek out the guilty and try and punish them. It’s just not my thing. I recall my father, who was a Prisoner of War of the Japanese on the Burma railway, saying that he took no pleasure in the post war execution of evil Japanese PM Tojo. And Dad was far from bring a wishy-washy liberal !

The phrase “Justice has to be done and be seen to be done” worries me as well. Our concept of “justice” is arbitrary as is our concept of what punishment, if any, is appropriate. And the idea that punishment has to be “seen” leads us into very dark territory. I guess I’m more New Testament than Old. More “Turn the other cheek” than “An eye for an eye”.

The idea that victims are entitled to justice repellent as well. Justice has to be decoupled from victimhood. So when those who have suffered from some crime call for, for example, longer or mandatory sentences for that crime I worry. Inevitably emotion rather than reason would take over if the victims played any part in the sentencing process.

Which brings me to Donald Trump. Do I want to see him tried and punished for crimes committed? One bit of me says yes, for obvious reasons of decency. But on balance I think not. I really want this vile man to disappear from my consciousness for ever. Interminable trials and legal battles would occupy the media schedules at a time when we need desperately to move on.

So I guess I’m saying that I hope Joe Biden pardons Trump as Gerald Ford did Richard Nixon. I realise that this may not be a popular view. I do not absolve Trump from blame but I don’t associate myself with those salivating for retribution either. And to create a Martyr of the slime-ball I don’t think makes sense either.

Matthew Syed has a good piece in the Sunday Times today about the QAnon cult and it’s relation to more conventional religions. In it he is right to put the word “belief” in quotes when referencing to atheism. The point about being an atheist is that it means a lack of belief. Or at least a lack of belief in the random bundle of nonsenses that every religion, bar none, requires us to buy into.

The scientific method of study into anything requires us to seek truths , preferably verifiable ones. We seek evidence and then the deeper we get in we seek corroborating evidence. As a biographer I’m only going to relate a story if there is proper reason to think that it is true. I might record an anecdote but if the provenance is questionable I will say so.

Most religions have a requirement that we regard its central figure – Christ, Mohammed, Buddha – as a deity or close to being one. And the “teachings” of this (quasi) God figure are of course holy writ. The extent to which challenge to the writ is permitted varies – you can be a Christian or a Jew without buying in to the Old Testament creation myth. That said there are hundreds of churches in the United States where you have to “believe” that God created the Universe in seven days 6000 years ago.

The problem is God or gods. The monotheistic religions disagree about a lot of things but by definition they agree that there is one God, who they worship. This is the very beginning of the belief systems that you are required to buy into.

If our logic and reason requires us to deny the existence of God that’s pretty much it – we can’t pass the necessary threshold to become a religious believer. There are exceptions to this of course and some religions like Hinduism have a more spiritual element to them. And there are quite appealing movements like the Quakers which don’t require you to sign up to anything other than living a tolerant and “good” life.

When people like me express religious scepticism we are sometimes told about the need for “Faith”. This is the catch all word common to most religions which essentially means that even if the evidence is absent or weak we should still believe it by having faith that it is true. Science can’t really handle this – the “I can’t prove it but I believe it to be true” position is anathema to followers of the scientific method.

That there is a world outside of us – the “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” of Hamlet – most of us agree. Every day at a personal and more general level we learn new things. This enlightenment, whichever subset of science it is based on from archeology to quantum physics and everything in between, reduces the need for faith.

It is easy to debunk QAnon or Scientology with science but that of course is not enough. Education from the earliest years in the scientific method would be welcome and that surely requires that all schools are secular. It shouldn’t be, but it probably is, that this is a step too far.

There is a premature and surprisingly ignorant rush to judgment about Keir Starmer from Matthew Parris in The Times today. I’m tempted to say “Once a Tory, always a Tory” about Matthew but that would be a tad unfair. I trust his intellectual honesty, he’s nobody’s patsy. But here I think he’s wrong.

Keir Starmer has a job to do almost as necessary as that of Joe Biden. Like the President-Elect Starmer has to cleanse the Augean stables left rotting by his predecessor. That is not easy. The Corbynite fools are still very much around and they attack Starmer daily. Sir Keir is making good progress in making himself and Labour electable from a base as low as it gets. But it’s still a minefield.

“Politics is the art of the possible” is as true today as ever. In Labour’s case this means abandoning the simplistic and anachronistic ideology of Corbyn not (just) because it was unelectable but because it was profoundly wrong. The sentimental red flag flying socialists match their ignorant pomposity with their capacity for delusion. Sir Keir is returning the Party to the mixed economy favouring social democratic centre. The only place from which it has ever been elected.

Soldiers will tell you that you shore up your defences before you turn to attack. Sir Keir isn’t there yet. Nevertheless he is holding Boris Johnson and his government to account daily though this, with the bias in so much of our media, is being inadequately reported.

“Someone called Annaliiese Dodds” is a nasty little construct unworthy of Parris. She’s at least as bright as the Chancellor, if not as stinking rich and if she was better reported the thoughtful subset of the population would admire her. Work in progress for sure, but a good pick.

Starmer is also under attack from the pro Europe Labour moderates – so he has cannons to the right of him as well as to the left. He remains (to coin a phrase) obviously internationalist and pro EU. That’s a core belief and cannot change. But for now he cannot afford to give the Conservatives the open goal of sounding like a Remainer. I suspect that he will finesse this cleverly in the next year as Brexit in practice continues to deliver disaster.

Looking at the Government front bench you cannot find one member of it with Keir Starmer’s intellect and decency. But for the time being they are the masters. Sir Keir must avoid descending to their level of trite mendacity and he’s doing it pretty well. His lack of charisma and modesty is rather appealing to me – listen for example to his “Desert Island Discs” which was moving, honest and engaging.

Undermining Keir Starmer at this time, unless you are an ambitious but myopic Conservative, is not really a smart thing to do. Less please.

The Licence Fee is an anachronistic and regressive tax, it is also astonishing value. If you look at the cost of far more limited subscription services like Netflix or Sky Sports the Beeb is a bargain. 50p per day per household to cover the cost of the provision of the full range of BBC services is far from uncommercial – market leader by far.

So the issue is not the cost or the value but how you collect it. The BBC is arguably an essential public service and as such logic says it could be funded from general taxation. The argument that this penalises people who for whatever reason do not watch or listen to the BBC is bunkum. I willingly pay taxes for (for example) the provision of education services (schools) which I have never used.

If the BBC becomes a direct charge on the exchequer it needs to be far more directly publicly accountable. Establish a Trustee Board that we vote for periodically whose duty would be to monitor BBC activities and performance, appoint key functionaries like the Chairman and ensure our money is properly spent. It is probably the case that currently the Corporation does some things better left to someone else, and doesn’t do some things it usefully could. The democratically elected Trustee Board would monitor this – and take decisions. It would not just be a powerless talking shop.

The BBC does many things that are unique and best practice – The World Service, the Open University, The Proms and the superb range of radio channels for example. It’s News and Current Affairs has some problems and decision making in this area seems over politicised. It’s worth stressing that to fund it out of public taxation need not make it more vulnerable to political meddling if it’s governance it’s accountable to elected trustees rather than politicians.