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!

To understand modern America a good starting point is the post war American Musical. Pre war they were entertaining fluff (“Showboat” the honourable exception). Post War many of them, particularly Rodgers and Hammerstein and Stephen Sondheim, used the medium (sometimes covertly) to make moral even political points. “Carefully taught” is Oscar Hammerstein’s moving plea for racial tolerance in “South Pacific”. But even more relevant to the madness of Trump is “The American Dream” in “Miss Saigon”. It’s worth quoting from it:

“Busboys can buy the hotel

the American dream.

Wall Street is ready to sell

the American dream.

Come make a life from thin air

the American dream.

Come and get more than your share

the American dream”

Trump wasn’t a busboy but he certainly subscribed to the view that he “could get more than his share” – even, astonishingly, all the way to the White House. The aspirational opportunities in the Land of the Free are integral to the “American Dream”. Peanut farmer to President – done that. Trump was never poor – he inherited a large fortune (and turned it into a small one, some would say!) But if he slipped in business, which he certainly did, he bounced back.

Making “life from thin air” is Trump’s way . Whilst intellectual leadership was present in most Presidents (and where it wasn’t, for example in Ronald Reagan, likeability and a willingness to delegate compensated). Trump is devoid of intellect, doesn’t delegate and is thoroughly dislikeable. He makes life from thin air though!

Britain naively gave away too much in the negotiations with China that led to the “Joint Declaration” on Hong Kong. The PRC waited until the West was totally dependent on its economy before cracking down on the territory. The people of Hong Kong were abandoned as those of us who had lived there in the 1980s knew they would be. The locals knew as well of course and those who could afford to secured Australian or Canadian passports well before 1997.

The Chinese take a long term view and know their strengths. Manufacturing is one of them and their goods dominate western economies. Apple, for example, is effectively a Chinese brand. Modern China is one of the wonders of the world. Whilst western democracies continue their drift to ungovernability those in charge in Peking smile inscrutably and count the dollars.

The choice between being democratic and poor, on the one hand, and totalitarian and increasingly rich on the other has long since been won. As, incidentally, it will be in Russia. Both nations are used to Emperors and whilst Russia’s current one has overreached himself his successor is likely to be impressed by the Chinese model, and follow it.

The era of Western hegemony is passing. India, increasingly a dictatorship under Modi, is the third potential pillar of pragmatic big power domination along with China and Russia. We need to wake up to these new realities.

The majority of the public neither wants nor even remotely understands “Economic Growth”. What they do like are the consequences of a healthy economy for which growth is a prerequisite.

Growth is the market value of goods and services produced. But the benefits of growth do not accrue to the population at large evenly. Which is where Government comes in. The only source of government revenues (other than borrowings) is market value. So if that value increase the potential for redistribution is increased. The Welfare State depends on Growth.

The government’s role in stimulating Growth is often exaggerated. In a mixed economy infrastructure projects, funded by taxation, can be a stimulus. Roosevelt’s New Deal, based as it was on Keynesian economic theory, helped America’s recovery after the Crash. So, a little later, did the Arms expenditure of WW2.

Deficit financing of infrastructure projects, like for example large transport capital investments, can be justified if proper Cost/Benefit analysis is used. The third runway at Heathrow is definitely in this category as was Crossrail. And probably the much derided HS2.

The management of the interaction between what the public and private sectors do is the main challenge. Ideology never helps ! The strident voices for nationalisation or privatisation are grossly simplistic. Take the NHS. Yes it is publicly owned but it is substantially serviced by the private sector. Similarly all private sector businesses also rely on public services.

It is not enough for an Economy to grow there must be a clear policy on how the products of growth are handled. In a complex economy like ours this is not easy. Politicians should never talk about expenditure without also talking about tax. They should also never decouple a call for growth from a presentation of how the fruits of growth will be handled.

“Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.”

So said Thomas Paine in his seminal work “The Age of Reason” published between 1794 and 1807. Whilst the work was extensive in its scope and argument it was especially an attack on hypocrisy, particularly in religion. Paine saw in the Church, and in society generally, much hypocritical and phoney professions of belief which were often a facade hiding scepticism or denial.

There are few more repellent examples of bible bashing hypocrisy than Donald Trump and his close associates. Bishop Budde, no hypocrite she, was measured in the way she drew attention to this in the “Inaugural Prayer Service” in Washington. “ I was trying to say: The country has been entrusted to you…And one of the qualities of a leader is mercy.”

The Bishop covertly criticised Trump for his actions and planned actions against “gay, lesbian and transgender children in Democratic, Republican, and Independent families, across the country who fear for their lives”. The bishop also spoke up for immigrant workers, including those who may not “have the proper documentation,” saying the vast majority of them are “not criminals” but rather “good neighbors.”

Many in the established churches and in the evangelical movements had supported Trump. Billy Graham’s son Franklin said “This is a big win for Christians, for evangelicals, We believe the president will defend religious freedom where the Democrats would not.”

The Paine charge that some profess to “believe what he does not believe” can legitimately be aimed at Trump. Many would regard most of his life, characterised by infidelity and sexual impropriety, as being indisputably unchristian. “ A man is known by the company he keeps” has been a truism for a couple of millennia, or more.

Bishop Budde cut through the hypocrisy asking Trump to have mercy or perhaps, as Shakespeare put it, to see that “The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven on the place beneath. It is twice blest. It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.”

In The Merchant of Venice the Bard was only tangentially referring to religion. Indeed his “monarch’s sceptre” “shows the force of temporal power”. Temporal power Trump now has in abundance and before he acts against Muslims he would do well to remember that the US Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Donald Trump is an extreme example of political dishonesty and hypocrisy but let’s not kid ourselves that he’s an exception. This new “Age of Unreason” has been with us for sometime underpinned, as it is, by mendacity. Politicians have always , as Alan Clark put it, been “economical with the actualité.” In 2016 we saw this in Trump’s bigoted Presidential campaign which lied continuously, not least about his opponent. In the same Annus horribilis here in Britain the “Leave” campaign lied to us in the Referendum campaign. It’s not an exaggeration to say that nothing they said in that campaign was truthful.

The extreme “Age of Unreason” would not have been possible without Social Media . Clever operators both in the Republican Party and in the “Leave” campaign knew that Twitter and Facebook (etc.) gave them the opportunity to send personalised (as they seemed to be) messages directly to voters. This was largely uncontrolled and scarily effective and by 2024 it was down to a fine, if malignant, art.

The first US Presidential campaign which I remember was in 1960 and neither side was saintly in its conduct! That first truly modern contest was perhaps the first in which dark campaigning arts were present. In the run-up to the 1960 presidential election, John F. Kennedy claimed that the Soviet Union had more nuclear missiles than the U.S.. It wasn’t true. Similarly Richard Nixon could not tell the truth about Cuba during the campaign. There were plenty of other examples of deceit. But they were Amateurs in the art of dissembling! Their duplicities were on a tiny scale compared with the lies of Trump and, in the UK, the Conservatives in the 2024 elections. (The Democrats and Labour were way behind in the dark arts by comparison!)

In his excellent well-researched 2021 book “The Assault on Truth” the author Peter Oborne covered in detail the lies of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, described by one reviewer as “two populist demagogues on the Right.” Well Johnson got his comeuppance being forced out in 2022 in no small part because he was a congenital liar. And Trump? We know what’s happened to him!

A major characteristic of the “Age of Unreason” is the lack of effective checks and balances on power. We can profess to believe what we do not believe almost without challenge. And even if untruths are revealed as such rebuttals will be believed by the faithful even if they are patently untrue.

As a journalist says in John Ford’s classic movie “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” Both Johnson and Trump had many around them who would print or tweet the legend. And too many of we schmucks believed it !

“With social media now on a path towards unmediated chaos, the hunger for publications with actual editorial standards — such as this one — really ought to grow.” Hugo Rifkind in The Times.

Regular readers of “The Times” might smile at the “such as this one” boast. Yes the newspaper is still infinitely better than the chaos of Musk or Zuckerberg. But in recent times especially it has shifted noticeably to the Right in its Comment content, in the prominence it gives to stories critical of the liberal establishment and in who it employs to write features in its pages.

We have seen with the once reasonably respectable Daily Telegraph what happens when a grotesquely slanted proprietor driven political imperative takes over and dominates. The Times is in danger of doing the same. Once fairly balanced contributors have in some cases shifted rightward (I exclude Hugo, from this charge !). And the editorial imperative is increasingly National conservative (if not Conservative).

Proprietors have always influenced their publications’ political positioning – look at Northcliffe or Beaverbrook in days of yore. Zuckerberg is a modern day Beaver or, one could argue, adopting the position of the Barclays or of Murdoch. To find genuinely independent journalism with editorial standards that include balance is increasingly difficult.

Mr Cowley’s piece neatly summarises the mess Western democracies are in but instead of seeking a way to counter the growing hegemony of the Right it endorses even welcomes it. Perhaps the author is ignorant of how once civilised nations fell into years of darkness in the 1930s as regimes took power in Germany, Italy, Spain and elsewhere and committed indescribable horrors against their people.

But however vile the fascistic dictators were, and however powerful, I doubt that any informed observer thought that it could happen in the cosy democratic Anglo-Saxon world of Britain and America. Flaky democracies we may be with murky imperialist and institutionally discriminatory pasts but we’ve just about avoided descent into totalitarianism of Left or Right. Up to now that is.

Trump, like many of his predecessors of the authoritarian Right, is not an authentic politician at all. Nor are any of the leaders of Reform UK. They are polemical disrupters and in mainland Europe there are similar dark forces at work. Yes their seeking of power is via the ballot box, but then so was that of Hitler and Mussolini – initially. 

The argument that we should seek to work with Trump has clear echoes of the Appeasement strategy of Chamberlain and his gang. This article normalises extremism – the past tells us that this is a very dangerous thing to do. We should have principles – and unlike Groucho Marx we should stick to them rather than “pragmatically” grab opportunistic alternatives. Now is not a time for Appeasement of the Right – we must fight it.