Any student of politics will know that there is an almost unlimited range of political opinions and possible policies which can be assembled selectively into a Party manifesto. The underlying logic of a political Party should be that the chosen assemblage has a modicum of consistent logic to it. The last Prime Minister who came close to doing this was Margaret Thatcher – before her Clement Attlee.

Thatcher took her guidance from the free enterprise handbook of Friedrick Hayek and Attlee from the writings of John Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge. They were of course opposed ideologies but you knew where you were. Opponents of Thatcher or Attlee pretty much opposed their full packages. There wasn’t much room for pick and mix.

Most politicians and governments in the post war period have not been ideologically pure and have put together programmes that were pragmatic in order to be electorally attractive. In office the appearance of competence and perceived electability has dictated actions. When the global economic crisis hit Britain in the late noughties Gordon Brown took charge and his outstanding understanding of the issues led to competent decision-making and common-sense – he was widely praised and indeed honoured globally for this. But he lost the 2010 General Election. It wasn’t enough to have been right and able. You had to be electable as well.

Margaret Thatcher ticked the boxes of the electorate even though most of them had little understanding of her underlying ideology except in the most uncomplicated terms. But the appeal of “freedom” was an attractive one and there was consistency. Selling council houses and giving consumers options among energy suppliers (for example) came out of the same core ideology called “freedom of choice”. Freeing The Falklands from the yoke of Argentinian rule was the ultimate and electorally decisive action. Link this to attacking the “enemy within” – militant Trades Unionism – and you have a coherent philosophy and one that can be and was made appealing.

Margaret Thatcher once said (in 1984) that “Politics is not an essay in public relations” it is about getting “decisions right.” I think Clement Attlee would have agreed with that. The problem is that other political leaders have and do see their role as to be primarily effective in their management of “public relations”. If this means being economical with the actualité so be it.

The driver of the current Government’s actions is arguably ideological – the problem is that unlike Attlee or Thatcher the ideology is not transparent and is rarely openly referred to. There are links with Thatcherism of course and Libertarianism and English nationalism can be characterised as variants of Thatcher’s “freedom”. The problem is that there is no credible committed and visible leadership from the top. Nobody knows what Boris Johnson (or his immediate predecessors) believes in. If anything.

To be an informed and capable pragmatist – a John Major (to some extent) or a Gordon Brown is handy in times of trouble. We could do with one now. Competence trumps ideological purity when push comes to shove. But today we have the worst of all worlds. The Government is an “essay in public relations” and not very good at it. That aside it’s one raison d’être when elected was to “Get Brexit Done” .

The fact is that in the unexpectedly choppy waters of 2020 rushing into a post Brexit world has become the wrong thing to do, for the wrong reasons at emphatically the wrong time. The public clearly agrees with polls showing “Remain” with a clear advantage over “Leave” – this despite the fact that we have actually left the European Union! To have acknowledged this and bought time – extending transition for a year or two would have been the pragmatic thing to do. But no – we may not know what this Governments’s ideology is, but Brexit is its flagship (only) policy. Those choppy waters are going to turn into a tsunami next January.

The biggest cancer in British politics has been the takeover of once moderate major parties by extremists. The Corbynite triumph in Labour was open, bizarre, serendipitous and fatal. Overnight people you had never heard of (and were on the fringes of the Party) were on its front bench or, like the barely credible Seamus Milne, pulling strings. The consequences of this madness don’t need repeating here.

One consequence of handing Labour over to the fruitcakes was handing the governance of Britain over to the Hard Right and this, of course, led to Brexit. Corbyn did not campaign for “Remain” in 2016 with even a modicum of conviction despite the fact that in the 2015 General Election Labour’s Manifesto was unequivocally pro EU. This was a gift to the Tory Eurosceptics , Arron Banks, Nigel Farage and the rest of the gruesome “Leave” brigade.

The Referendum result, though it clobbered David Cameron, didn’t over bother the Hard Left – now firmly in charge of Labour. The Tory Right couldn’t believe it’s luck. All it needed to do, as it had long planned, was to get Boris Johnson into Number 10. But a breakout of internecine strife clobbered that. Johnson walked away from the leadership contest in 2016 and the Right, much to their discomfort, had to suffer Theresa May – very much not one of them.

Despite winning a General Election against Corbyn (no surprise there) May couldn’t hold on. She was too centrist , even rumoured still to be a closet Remainer, so she had to go. The “ERG” Tories treated her with disdain and plotted openly to displace her. This time Johnson didn’t blow it, got to Number 10, won an election and purged what remained of the One Nation Conservatives.

So over a number of years we’ve had the unelectable Corbyn leading Labour from the Hard Left and now the all too electable Johnson leading the Tories from the Hard Right. The Centre hasn’t held and, until recently, seemed to have been vanquished.

It is important to distinguish the extremism of Corbyn from the extremism of Johnson. Jeremy really believed in Socialism of the Bevanite kind. He hadn’t liked Blair’s removal of Clause 4 nor of what he saw as the Blair/Brown neoliberalism. Of course Labour had always had its red flag waving socialist purists but in the past Social Democratic Leaders, from Gaitskell to Blair/Brown, had managed to keep them on the noisy margins of the Party. Under Corbyn they took over.

Johnson is different because unlike Corbyn he has no personal political ideology at all. He is the archetypical Groucho Mark politician with instantly changeable principles. The Tory Right didn’t like him because he was “One of Us” – he was clearly one of nobody, except himself. They liked him because of his electability and because they could tell him what to pretend to believe.

If the Conservatives for the foreseeable future have been captured by the Hard Right Labour is quietly moving towards being the sensible Party, which means moving into the gaping void which is the centre ground. Keir Starmer is undeniably in the Social Democratic tradition of Gaitskell, Wilson, Callaghan, Blair and Brown. This is the only positive trend in British politics, and it a very important one.

With eyes mainly on the challenges of managing the COVID-19 pandemic other issues, even Brexit, have taken a lower priority. This has allowed Johnson, pushed of course by his Tory Right sponsors, to move towards what looks like a No Deal Brexit. It is possible that at the last minute some magic formula will be found to avert disaster. But this looks unlikely and there are only six months to go.

How Sir Keir Starmer positions Labour will be determined by what happens in early 2021. If it’s chaos (quite likely) then he has only to look mature and credible whilst Boris blunders around in the mess. Sir Keir can afford to be reactive in response to events and try to be constructive. The Government will blame everyone but themselves. Sir Keir will need to avoid a shouting match and position himself and Labour to take charge if the Government completely implodes. This is far from impossible.

On 1st July 1997 the people of Hong went from being the disenfranchised residents of a British colony to being the disenfranchised residents of a Chinese one. They had few if any governance rights before 1997 and few if any since. The “Joint Declaration” was a sell-out – a human rights abuse by an uncaring decolonising Britain.

A territory without self-governance can still have Passport rights for its residents – but Hong Kongers have never had this. Yes they had a nominally “British” passport with which they could travel – if countries chose to admit them. But this document did not give them British nationality nor, crucially, the right of residence in the U.K. As such it was largely worthless.

When I lived in the territory in the 1980s, after the Joint Declaration was signed, those among my Hong Konger friends who could afford to do so acquired foreign passports – particularly Australian and Canadian – as insurance against the sort of situation they now face. Cities like Melbourne and Vancouver have hugely benefited from this immigration. But many who got these passports stayed in Hong Kong knowing that if things got nasty then they could then leave. It’s surely only a matter of time before many of them choose to do so.

Britain abandoned the people of Hong Kong in the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher handed them over to a hostile foreign power without nationality or travel documents of any value. Nobody should misunderstand the legacy of anti-British feeling this act of negligence created. The mainly young people waving the Union Flag or the colonial HK flag are not being pro British. They are simply using these flags as provocative symbols of protest.

I very much doubt that many of the newly threatened people of the territory will be interested in the hugely belated and patronising “offer” now apparently to be made by Britain. Australia, Canada and New Zealand offer a more congenial welcome and these countries know what a valuable contribution Hong Kongers can make. Why would you want the vague prospect of passport of xenophobic, nationalist isolationist Little England when you can have one of a welcoming, open state where many of your friends, family and compatriots already live happily?

In “The Times” today Roger Boyes seeks to sell the idea of “Global Britain” with a new “Great Exhibition” like those we had in 1851 and 1951. It’s a laughable idea !

In 1851 Britain was an Imperial power and much of the world in the school atlases was painted pink. Our navy, and our economy, was bigger than that of the United States. How we got to this position of power is not a story to dwell on in too much detail and certainly nothing to boast about, but there it was.

By 1951 we had got rid of the Jewel in the Crown of Empire (with deadly incompetence) and we were into the process of divesting ourselves of the rest. That wasn’t a walk in the park either.

By 1962 we hadn’t quite become post colonial – there was still the 5 Million people of Hong Kong to let down by handing them over to a hostile power. In that year former US Secretary of State Dean Acheson famously told us that Britain “had lost an empire and had not found a role.” He added:

“Britain’s attempt to play a separate power role – that is, a role apart from Europe, a role based on a ‘special relationship’ with the United States, a role based on being the head of a Commonwealth which has no political structure or unity or strength and enjoys a fragile and precarious economic relationship – this role is about played out.” And, crucially, he also said that Britain’s application for membership of the Common Market was a “decisive turning point.” Should Britain join the Six, “another step forward of vast importance will have been taken.”

So as long ago as 1962 “Global Britain” was a chimera though a fair number of ageing Imperialists denied it. And as long ago as 1962 it was clear that active participation in the accelerating moves towards integration in Europe was “vastly important” and a “step forward”.

Since 1962 the world has seen immense change, and these changes have strengthened the logic of Mr Acheson’s then analysis. The “Global” powers are now The United States, China and the European Union with Japan and a rather diminished Russia in the second rank. The most optimistic assessment of Britain’s chances in this new world order post Brexit places us somewhere in a middle rank – though without the size of others like Brazil or India or the the entrepreneurship of the likes of Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea etc.

Britain decoupled from the EU is a country which has lost the raison d’être that Dean Acheson described for us and is floundering without a role. Our strength in Financial Services is under threat from the Eurozone and the City’s dominant role is already declining, hardly surprisingly. We manufacture little and decoupled from tariff free Europe a major market becomes difficult for what we do still make. To be a niche producer is the best we can hope for.

The drivers of Brexit included flag-waving nationalism which struck a chord with those unable to understand the realities of the post-Imperial world order. When AC Benson wrote “Land of Hope and Glory” in 1901 “Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set” could still be sung without irony. The nineteenth Century, just finished, was certainly the British Century. But the twentieth was to be American and the twenty-first Chinese (if the first two decades are anything to go by). For a middling country like Britain to go it alone is a silly conceit – and to suggest that we can be “Global” a preposterous delusion.

If we look at the key determinants of social advantage and disadvantage we can see why the inhabitants of towns like Burnley struggle. These are:

▪️Class

▪️Race

▪️Wealth

▪️Education

When Disraeli described Britain. In his novel “Sybil” in 1845 he said this:

“Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws . . . . THE RICH AND THE POOR.”

As David Aaronovitch says in today’s “The Times” poverty is the problem because it leads to institutionalised disadvantage. Race also plays a part with young Asians in many cases achieving better academic results than poor whites. Perhaps this leads to scapegoating and racism – a blame culture in which the disadvantaged whites’ target is those in parts of the more educationally successful Asian community.

But let’s not ignore the determinant of “Class” either. Disraeli’s “Two Nations” were, and still are, created by class differences. Disraeli was writing long before the 20th century’s growth of the middle class. The classes he identified were on the one hand the rich ruling class , often (but not exclusively) aristocrats. These were being augmented in the “Haves” category by Victorian entrepreneurs – the beneficiaries through their own efforts of the Industrial Revolution. On the other hand, the “Have Nots”, were the dirt poor working classes exploited after they had been lured to the Manufacturing towns of which Burnley was typical.

The shocking, but true, thing in my previous paragraph is my statement that class creates the “Two Nations” today as much as it did in 1845. Today the division is between the middle classes, with their better education, better healthcare and significantly better opportunities, and the rest. Class and wealth are, of course, firmly correlated. The postcodes with the more expensive houses have the better schools – it’s as simple as that. And race and class are correlated as well. The discrimination against blacks that is driving the “Black Lives Matter” movement is in part because the overwhelmingly white middle classes are in charge. And they tend to hire in their own image.

When Tony Blair said that his three priorities were “Education, Education, Education” he was no doubt as sincere as he was right. The Asians of Burnley know this and many work the system and encourage the children. The poor white children of poor white parents do this rather less. And the system struggles to intervene.

The Welfare State is sometimes accused of creating an entitlement society which can lead to the passive idea that it is somebody else’s (usually the state’s) role to solve problems. If this is perceived not to happen the blame culture cuts in. Where wealth or class actively seeks to pursue advantage those who remain passive get left behind. And stay poor. It is then that they seek someone to blame. “Immigrants”. “Muslims”. “Foreigners”. The “European SuperState”. “Centrists”. “Neo-Liberals”. “Remainers” .

For over a decade MCC has had the opportunity to create a financial basis of such strength that even the unprecedented loss of revenues of 2020 and probably 2021 could comfortably have been coped with.

The freehold of the strip of land along the Wellington Road that the Club’s incompetence back in 1995 let fall into the hands of a third party has been in play for ten years or more. An ambitious development plan for this land was approved and then precipitately cancelled by a previous leadership cabal at the top of the Club. This led to the resignation of Sir John Major in protest. Sir John had been involved in the process of the development and approval of this now withdrawn “Masterplan”.

The “Masterplan” (and subsequent refinements of it) would not only have enhanced the aspect of the Lord’s Estate at its perimeter and improved the facilities of the ground but generated a one off inflow of funds of at least £100m and probably more. It would also have solved once and for all the the anomaly that a part of the Lord’s Estate is not owned by the Club. There are no downsides – all the activities which take place at the ground and the Nursery ground could have continued.

The challenges of 2020 and the financial problems consequent on them did not require the Club to take the “nuclear option” of offering life memberships. There is a vulgarity to this surrender to Mammon and I am not the only Member to deplore it. The members’ areas of the ground, including the Pavilion, are crowded enough on major match days at present. To add significantly to this by offering membership to people whose only qualification is that they are rich and can afford it is an affront.

In countries with more democratic voting systems the problem of the ongoing presence of the Corbynista cohort in Labour would be easy to solve. They’d break away from Starmer’s Labour, form their own Socialist Party and put their policy propositions to the electorate. In a strictly PR system if they got (say) 5% of the votes they’d get 5% of the seats – a respectable 30 or so MPs.

As a once member of the SDP I speak from experience. In the early 1980s the Gang of Four’s Party, in alliance with the Liberals, gained 25.4% of the vote but 4.5% of the seats. It was a scandalous under-representation – something that under First Past The Post (FPTP) has continued for smaller parties ever since.

The Hard Core Socialist position of Corbyn and Long Bailey and co. is a credible and respectable political position but one that Sir Keir has not chosen for Labour which he is remoulding in the Social Democratic tradition of Harold Wilson and Tony Blair. If we had FPTP then Corbyn and Co. could leave and try their luck with the electorate. They might do better than 5% – who knows?

The problem with Broad Church political Parties is that there will always be those who grump and plot in the aisles. That was certainly true of the Conservatives before the 2019 Election. Boris Johnson ruthlessly stopped all that and there seem few if any dissidents on the Tory benches these days. But as with Labour there have traditionally been two broad streams. In Labour it was Socialists versus the Social Democrats. In the Conservatives it was “One Nation” versus the more authoritarian and libertarian Right. The latter group has now taken over under Boris Johnson but there are still One Nation Tories around. To break away and form their own Party under FPTP is doomed – ask Anna Soubry or Sarah Wollaston.

Labour tried painting itself the brightest red under Jeremy Corbyn and the electorate spoke. Sir Keir Starmer is taking the Party in a different direction. Ms Long Bailey and her supporters will no doubt snipe at their party leader from the sidelines – the electoral system gives them little choice. But as with the SDP in 1980 they should really be in a different Party.

“The company is also looking to reorganise the business around its new target of cutting emissions to “net zero” by 2050. It is expected to invest more heavily in is nascent electricity business.” The Times. Today.

In my forty years in Shell I saw so many failed and abandoned diversification initiatives its hard to recall them all ! It started with Nuclear Energy (one of the great corporate disasters) which was followed by the company dipping its toes in a series of non oil/gas sectors. And fairly rapidly withdrawing them ! Heres a list, though I may have forgotten some. I wrote about it more extensively here.

▪️Forestry ▪️Solar power ▪️Wind power ▪️Hydrogen ▪️Power stations ▪️Coal ▪️Domestic electricity ▪️Home insulation ▪️Seeds ▪️Horticulture

The truth is that Shell is good at oil and gas pretty much from well to pump, but not much good at anything else. The corporate culture is technocratic and financial. Thirty years ago I saw Shell Energy planners predicate the likely rise in renewables in their Scenario work. It was very far-seeing. But the high-priced-help couldn’t translate this into investment or action and the initiatives which did happen were inadequately financed, poorly managed and faded away.

The company always retreats to its comfort zone of finding, producing, transporting, refining and marketing/trading oil and oil products. Years ago Tom Peters wrote about the benefits of “sticking to your knitting” The multinational energy companies are not likely to succeed outside their narrow comfort zone. Partly because they’ve never needed to and partly because they can’t.

There have recently been some calls to cut VAT – including from two former Chancellors if the Exchequer. At a time of increasing calls on the public finances these calls seem unwise.

The purpose of taxation is to pay for public expenditure – it is not a good tool of social engineering. In developing fiscal policy you should not start by considering the mix of Direct versus Indirect taxation, you should start with expenditure.

The Virus has been profoundly damaging to virtually all sectors of the economy and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Government help for the most threatened sectors, for example The Arts, is unavoidable unless we want them permanently to close. In times when the calls on the public finances will be unprecedented to argue for a reduction in direct taxation seems perverse.

The Arts are comparatively non price sensitive. If you have to pay £50 for a theatre seat it’s unlikely that a price reduction of £1.50 will entice you much. But across the nation the revenues raised by VAT are a key component of the government tax take. If the government is going to bail out the theatres, as they may have to, then the funds to do this have to come from somewhere.

VAT like duties on fuel, alcohol and tobacco is a regressive tax. The poor pay tax at the same level as the rich. Over time to switch from these taxes to more progressive revenue raising (income tax or a wealth tax) is desirable but this is not the right time to consider tax reductions. Borrowing is already at record levels and the scope for further increases is surely limited.

Boris Johnson is finding that the challenges of power are rather greater than just dealing with, as Harold Macmillan famously put it, “Events, dear boy, events”. But you do have to deal with the events. Johnson hasn’t. Much of both the backbencher and the public unease about his eccentric and dangerous premiership is not about his personality or character but about his floundering incompetence. There is blood on his hands.

In peacetime for the actions, or inaction, of one man to kill so many citizens is unprecedented. But that will be Johnson’s gruesome legacy – and it isn’t over yet. International comparisons are clear – not one country in Europe has had as many deaths as Britain and every day we are still adding substantially to that grisly count. There is absolutely no case for the relaxation of the rules Johnson will announce today. He’s playing politics – no surprise there then.

From the start the venality of Dominic Cummings has been behind the deeply flawed response to the Virus. But that doesn’t let Johnson off the hook. The buck doesn’t stop in the Number 10 cellar where Cummings has his cauldron and mixes his potions. It stops on the Prime Minister’s desk and in the cabinet room.

The Prime Minister cannot be believed and that does more than undermine trust in him as a leader. It means that the public will make their own minds up about what to do. Never in modern times have rules needed to be followed more than now. And yet we have liars in charge who respond to challenges not with facts but with obfuscation and untruths. When that happens people stop listening.

Across the Atlantic there is a deranged fool in the Oval Office. Boris Johnson isn’t deranged but his actions and assertions are as equally foolish and untrustworthy as Trump’s. If your indolence, lack of judgement and culpable errors kill people in their thousands it’s a good idea to change your approach. And apologise. And get better people in the loop. Johnson has done none of these things. For months nobody has believed a word Matt Hancock has said but he’s still “in charge” blathering inanities.

At its core, and from the start, the problem has been that managing the Virus has been seen by Boris Johnson as a political not a management and operational task. It’s the master political manipulator Cummings who has been pulling the strings not the top Civil Servants and scientists. There are people in Britain perfectly as capable as dealing with the emergency as well, for example, as they have in New Zealand. Our one island may be bigger than the Kiwis two but if we had followed the same rules as they did we would have far fewer bereaved families around us.