I don’t know if it still happens but there was a time when people privileged like me adopted behaviour to minimise the obviousness of their privilege. So they would add glottal stops to their speech to ease them away from the obviousness of their middle class revealed by their accent. Or they would dress in a style they thought to be more man of the world. It never worked. Nor did the guilt-ridden politics of a Jeremy Corbyn or his sidekick Seumas Milne both privately educated Marxists. Yeah, right on !

I might deplore the lack of equality in our society but when push comes to shove would I eschew using my school or my father’s friends to give me an advantage? I didn’t. Does that make me a hypocrite ? Of course it does. Privilege is institutionalised in British society. The Grammar schools, by aping the independent schools, cleverly reduced the effect of advantage by giving bright kids from humble backgrounds a chance. We don’t do that any more. 

If you’re white, well educated, from a moneyed background, personally self-confident , not disabled, mentally robust, at least of average height and build, and (often) male you’ll do better than someone who is less privileged. To identify that fact is the first step towards doing something about it. Are we? Not when we are governed by the posh boys we’re not.

The most extraordinary thing is that dozens of Tory MPs and others in the pro Patel camp are missing the point completely. The issue is not how able, how determined, how hard-working, how charming etc etc she is. It’s not about her rightness over Brexit. It’s not about her policies in the Home Office. None of these things. What it’s about is that a properly constituted enquiry conducted by an experienced, qualified and independent assessor found her indisputably guilty of bullying behaviour. Not on one occasion but repeatedly. All the rest is noise.

The Jimmy Savile defence (“I always found Mr Savile charming…”) doesn’t work for Patel any more than it worked for Savile. All the Tories who burst onto social media in an obviously coordinated action to say how wonderful Patel is expected us to ignore Sir Alex Allan’s report because she is kind to children and animals (I paraphrase).

Natural Justice says that if someone is guilty of unlawful or unacceptable behaviour they have to accept the consequences. Boris Johnson overruled Sir Alex for no reason other than political self-interest. He didn’t cite mitigating circumstances because there clearly were none. Johnson allowed Patel to wriggle free – an unprecedented thing to do and it unsurprisingly led to Sir Alex’s resignation.

This is a shameful scandal. The behaviour itself. The delays in releasing the report. The wholly inadequate apology. The rallying round by sycophants. The contempt for precedent and public interest. These are not the actions of honourable people in a respected democracy. They are the actions of dictators and crooks in a failed state.

The idea of a “Kinder, gentler Trumpism” floated today by Justin Webb in “The Times” is too preposterous to be worthy of serious consideration. To start with it implies that Donald Trump has some kind of ideology, that there is method in his madness. But of course that is untrue. That his eccentric, inconsistent and often deranged populism garners votes is not in doubt. The naked appeal to the gut, to fear and to patriotism and prejudice and to white supremacy is effective. Throw in a wholly specious bit of Bible toting and you have a political platform of sorts, but you don’t have an ideology.

Trump has been a disruptive and dangerous interruption to the continuity and logic of American governance. Yes over the years Republican presidents have done different things to Democrat ones, but not that different. Yes the support bases of the two Parties reflect the national divide – the two Americas. Yes Republicans are popular in Wall Street as well as in the boondocks whilst the Democrats appeal is much more cerebral. But no matter from where they have campaigned Presidents tend to do the same things in office. Except for Trump that is.

”They are all the same” is a familiar jibe about politicians the world over and, up to a point, it is true. Trump broke that mould not because of any coherent philosophy or any personal qualities of merit but because he was perceived as anti establishment. Well he was certainly that, but to be against things does not represent an “ism” . All of his political positions were negative and his rants and Tweets against the media, Muslims, liberals, foreigners and the rest were raw and incoherent as well as offensive.

The anti-Trump Republicans such as those in the “Lincoln Project” are surely the way forward for the GOP – the state of Arizona their exemplar. Here the admirable Cindy McCain reminded Republicans of decency in politics – she invited a vote for Biden not because she had suddenly become a Democrat but because she wanted to signal that the Republican Party needed to return to the republicanism of her late husband. The GOP needs to find a new standard bearer to pick up that baton.

America is changing and both political parties need to find positions that reflect that change. In the boom years of the 1950s and early 1960s there was not a huge difference between the two parties or their leaders, But there did emerge a generation change which offered a modern set of alternatives to the old men born in the 19th Century like Eisenhower. It is sometimes forgotten that Richard Nixon was the same age as John Kennedy – they had contrasting political positions and very contrasting characters. But they were both an electable new normal.

The new “new normal” is not Joe Biden and certainly not his fellow septuagenarian Trump. The Democrats have found theirs in the youthful Kamala Harris – she is the model for the GOP. The Republicans will need to find a credible alternative to the charismatic Ms Harris in 2024. The brief interregnum of the Age of Trump is over. Harris will offer a positive optimistic view of the possibilities of the future from the Centre-Left. There is no reason why the GOP should not do the same putting the madness and venality of Trump aside and reclaiming the Centre-Right for a revived but decent Republican Party.

Today’s headlines have been grabbed by the Government’s announcement that the sale of petrol/diesel cars will be banned by 2030 and hybrids five years later. There is zero chance of this actually happening.

Approximately 2% of current passenger cars are electric. Over the ten years to 2030 this percentage will gradually increase as electric cars become more affordable and as technological changes give them a better range . But the breakthrough which makes them as practical and as affordable as petrol/diesel vehicles is yet to happen. Similarly the economies of scale of high volume petrol/diesel engine manufacture cannot be equalled for electric-powered engines at present. In short an electric car costs more and has a much more limited range than the alternative.

For new car sales all to be of electric cars in 2030 is an improbable stretch target. Even if it happens people will continue to make rational purchase decisions up to that date. Will we switch to buying more expensive less practical cars voluntarily? It seems highly unlikely. Government can offer financial incentives to persuade us of course but to do this would reduce government revenues. It will be a good few years before the Treasury will countenance that!

Electric vehicles pollute much less than petrol/diesel but the electricity has to come from somewhere. At present except in exceptional circumstances most of our daily Power comes from Natural Gas. So for the switch to electric cars to be genuinely “Green” there has to be a parallel switch to Renewables (principally wind). That is happening , but it takes time.

Energy policy is managed in a piecemeal way. The reality is that certain sectors are unlikely to have any significant switch from hydrocarbons in the foreseeable future (aircraft and shipping) and other sectors like Commercial Road Transport (trucks and buses) haven’t started to switch ( the odd demonstration vehicle aside). Again transport operators need to be offered affordable and practical alternatives to be encouraged to switch. There are few at present.

Announcing targets is all very well, but they need to be underpinned by reality. Headline grabbing is one thing, actually having a coherent action plan is something else. The devil is in the detail. And above all there needs to be international cooperation at a considerable level.

Major motor manufacturers across the world continue to predominantly make fossil fuel powered cars and trucks, tractors and construction vehicles, motor cycles and delivery vans. They do that in part because the alternatives are impractical or uneconomic. It’s a customer-driven sector. Changing today’s reality into something different will take time, investment and attitudinal change. Surely that will take much longer than ten years ?

There is a very good analysis by Clare Foges in “The Times” today about our current failures of government which rings true in every detail. We have teetered towards the cliff edge from time to time in my 74-year lifetime but nothing comes anywhere near the chaos of the past four plus years. There have been culpable military errors of judgment (Suez, Afghanistan…) and shameful betrayals (Hong Kong) . There have been abject failures to understand the divides in our society (Heath and Thatcher on the miners) and cowardly failures to reform our dysfunctionality (Wilson and Callaghan on the Unions). But nothing remotely compares with the “goatf***” of today.

Senior ex ministers and ex Prime Ministers seem united that the current Cabinet is the worst in living memory. Add in the extraordinary shallowness of the lobby fodder sitting on the benches behind our empty Prime Minister – fodder whose sole role seems to be to cheer when he bumbles inanities – and you have a recipe for chaos. And that’s what we’ve got.

Campaigning politicians with vision are rare in modern Britain. Thatcher perhaps the only one post war though Harold Wilson’s governments created genuine social change. But competence was generally to be relied upon. Economic crises happened all too frequently but from Healey to Jenkins, Major to Brown we had people at the top eventually to cope with them. Today Rishi Sunak is the only one who appears even marginally competent and when push comes to shove early in the New Year this may be sorely tested.

What is modern Britain ? Sadly a broken, divided nation doing the wrong thing at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. Is there nothing we can do well ? Sadly not. And part of that comes from appointing manifestly unsuitable people to important jobs. And then communicating in a way designed, it seems, to give offence. Is the Home Office really the cesspit it’s recent communications on our loss of Freedom of Movement suggest it is. Or is it just the malignancy of the Ministers running it ?

The Shakespearean inanities of the infighting in Johnson’s kitchen cabinet ought to be the source of a rip-roaring comedy or farce. But this isn’t a tale of the Emperor being entertained by his fool. No, the Emperor himself is the fool who cannot be taken seriously and his courtiers are sycophantic failures.

“We should not need the government to tell us when we can go to the pub or out for a meal.” Rod Liddle in the “Sunday Times”

But we do Rod, that’s exactly what we need. One of the roles of Government is to protect us from others, and from ourselves. As long as I can remember people have railed against “Health and Safety” as some sort of infringement of our personal liberty. Which of course it is. Our liberty to kill ourselves or others accidentally.

I remember my Dad back in the 1960s exploding against Barbara Castle over the breathalyser and seat belts. He and his golfing friends were outraged at this restriction of our freedom – our freedom to be arrogant tosspots actually.

As citizens we have to accept that government and the law curbs what we do.— that a civilised society has to have rules. We must hope that Government acts rationally – which means that it takes due regard of expert advice. A good test is to look at what others are doing. Across Europe countries, taking expert advice, are responding to the Second Wave with a Second Lockdown. It’s not just us.

A driver of populist politics is libertarianism. The idea that we, especially we English, must have the right to do what we like. Whatever the experts say. All of those who truly understood economics knew that Brexit was a very bad idea indeed. But Michael Gove told us that it was alright to stop listening to experts. The same with lockdown. We responded far too late to impose the first lockdown and lifted it too soon. Plus ça change.

Getting the balance between authoritarianism and freedom right isn’t easy. But when increasing numbers of our fellow citizens are dying horrible deaths caused by a virulent and hugely contagious disease to restrict freedoms to prevent its spread ought to be uncontentious. But then you know Rod – he knows best…

“Furthermore, Mr Cummings, although right wing, isn’t a Tory — that’s to say, a believer in the wisdom of institutions.” Paul Goodman in The Times today.

Well you could have fooled me. Not about Cummings – like his erstwhile biggest fan the Prime Minister he clearly believes only in himself and the devil can take the hindmost. No I refer to the idea that Tories believe in the “ wisdom of institutions”.

Let’s look at a few institutions where that alleged belief has been challenged or abandoned. Start with Europe’s most important institution the European Union. The Tory Right, which has now taken absolute charge of the Conservative Party, had contempt for the EU. Faced with some genuine concerns about the power of and direction being taken by the EU Conservatives decided to flee rather than fight. They could, alongside likeminded governments in France and Germany, have argued and campaigned for reform. Instead they picked up the ball and ran away. Some “belief” that was.

Then there’s the institution of the rule of law. Rather important in a democracy you’d think but now being openly flouted with extraordinary arrogance with international law being boastfully broken. The House of Lords, an “institution” if ever there was one, has told the Conservative government to think again, wisely you might think. But the government will deny that wisdom and overrule the Lords. Some “belief” again.

Another institution that this government has undermined has been medical science. Here we are in the world of the denigration of experts who were rejected so contemptuously a few years ago by the Tories’ Tory Michael Gove. It is clear that the advice of expert advisors have been almost arbitrarily accepted or rejected on COVID-19. Often on the same day. That “belief” was random – Conservative politics and expediency decided whether the institution of medical expertise would be listened to and acted upon. Or not.

The BBC, an institution universally admired at home and abroad but creaking a bit, is another example. The usual suspects have the BBC in their sights – here the subtle changes necessary might be a bit cerebral for the Tory haters. Where what is needed is to blow the bloody doors off they’d prefer to blow the whole institution up.

Finally the institution whose wisdom you’d think Conservatives would most want to protect – the Conservative Party itself – is a shadow of its former tolerant and pluralist self. The One Nation Tories have been hounded out as from top to bottom loyalty to the cause of Brexit is required, or else. Wisdom comes from tolerance and constructive debate. The wisdom of the Conservative Party has been replaced and the Party is now a nationalist cult which tolerates no dissent.

Dominic Raab and the other noisy but impotent critics of China exhibit a combination of ignorance and defective memory. Anyone in Hong Kong in the 1980s after the signing of the Joint Declaration knew it was a perfidious sell-out. The final meaningful jewel of Empire was given away and its people abandoned.

The People’s Republic move to tighten its control was delayed only by a pragmatic decision to wait until the West could do nothing about it. So between the mid 1980s and today the Chinese have built their international economic power to such an extent that we are all totally reliant on it. There is an unbreakable integration between China as manufacturer and as customer and the West that no amount of hand-wringing and huffing and puffing can change.

Britain was willing to fight a war and surrender lives in considerable numbers to support a couple of thousand British citizens occupying a few fields with sheep and rocks with penguins in the South Atlantic. But around the same time we meekly handed over five million of Hong Kong’s people, no less deserving of our protection, to one of the world’s most authoritarian and illiberal regimes. Perfidious Albion at its most venal.

So when we listen to Raab and Tugendhart and co. whining on about Beijing’s perfidy we should remind them that it was the inadequacy and lack of care, and principle, of Britain’s 1980s government that led us to where we are.

Give or take a few months I am the same age as Max Hastings whose excellent article in The Times today about the failings of Trump and Johnson I commend to you. I have seen many of the same things over sixty plus years as Sir Max has. In politics, along the way, there have been a few crooks and charlatans and a few with the morals of a polecat. But never can I recall such an absence of talent as today.

Take Richard Nixon. He was an able man, streets ahead potentially of any current politician in the US. Unfortunately when he was made along with giving him the talent God made him a shit (as Denis Healey once said of David Owen). Trump is like Nixon – only without the ability.

Its not just about character. Johnson is less disqualified from being Prime Minister by his abhorrent character than he is by his incompetence. He actually gets nothing right and manages nothing well. If he was a brilliant leader but with personal flaws (Lloyd George or JFK) you’d shrug and say fair enough. But he isn’t.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is King. Joe Biden and Keir Starmer are , I think, better than that. Certainly Starmer has the potential to be a good leader and seems a principled and decent man. Biden and Harris can clear the Augean stables – a task which will dominate the presidency. What a mess his predecessor leaves behind him.

My dream of a summit between Starmer and Kamala Harris in 2024 is on track! There’s talent enough there and an absence of the fatal flaws of Trump or Johnson. Come that blessed dawn we can draw a line under the Age of Incompetence and Venality in which we now live. Live the dream.

When democracy gives us a result we approve of we embrace it, when it doesn’t we worry about it. However at the heart of the debate is the detail not the principle. In 2016 democracy delivered Trump the White House and the British people Brexit. In both cases there were huge flaws in the processes and, to some extent, the principle of the votes.

Hillary Clinton won the Presidential ballot by two million votes. But the serendipity of the electoral system denied her the Presidency. In Britain the winning side in the referendum lied to the electorate and there were dirty tricks. And the people didn’t know what we were voting for because nobody knew what we were voting for. At the very least there should have been a confirmatory plebiscite once the terms were known and the irregularities of the vote had been investigated.

“Democracy” is not a simple concept except at the most abstract level – “Citizens should choose their Government “ – that sort of thing. But how they make that choice is what really matters.

Too many votes in Britain don’t count because of FPTP. Because of the Electoral College in America a Republican vote in California or a Democrat vote in Wyoming doesn’t count. It doesn’t have to be like this. The Electoral College is actually anti-democratic and in 21st Century America wholly unnecessary.

There are well-tried voting systems that if applied at a British General Election would give an outcome that more accurately reflect the electorate’s collective wishes. And simplistic Yes/No referendums on highly complex issues wouldn’t happen because they would be unnecessary if we had a Parliament which more accurately reflected the people in its composition.