Capital is Mobilising

Get ready for a very long read.

I have been developing a little theory about modern politics. It began as the vague feeling that when one reads the news, the argument always seems to be taking place on the wrong floor of the building. Downstairs everyone is shouting about migrants and dinghies. Meanwhile upstairs, rather quietly, the real rearranging of furniture is going on with tax rules, regulation, media ownership and the movement of capital.

For much of the twentieth century British politics operated with a rough balance between organised labour and organised capital. Trade unions mobilised millions of voters and exercised real political influence, while business interests supplied investment and economic power. The arrangement was not elegant, but it functioned as a counterweight. From the end of the Second World War through the 1970s inequality narrowed and living standards rose rapidly. For ordinary households it produced the fastest sustained rise in living standards since the industrial revolution first pushed incomes off the flat line they had occupied for centuries.

But that prosperity produced an unexpected political consequence. Rising wages, expanding professional employment and widespread home ownership created a large new asset-owning middle class. People who had benefited from the post-war settlement now had houses, pensions and savings to protect. Once voters acquire assets, their political priorities often change. Concerns about inflation, taxation and economic stability begin to matter more than the collective institutions that helped produce the earlier prosperity.

In that sense the political shift of the 1980s did not come from nowhere. Margaret Thatcher did not simply impose a new settlement from above. She mobilised a coalition of voters whose economic position had been transformed by the post-war boom. Many professionals, homeowners and skilled workers had climbed the ladder that the earlier system built, and once they had done so they became more receptive to dismantling parts of it. In effect, a generation that had benefited from the ladder helped pull up the drawbridge behind it. I know this because it was my generation and my parents' generation.

From the 1980s onwards that equilibrium steadily eroded. Union membership declined sharply and political parties became professional campaign organisations rather than mass membership movements. As labour’s organisational power weakened, the political system did not become neutral. The space was filled by concentrated wealth and donor networks capable of funding parties, think tanks and campaign infrastructure on a scale that would once have been unusual.

This shift coincided with wider structural changes in the economy and the media system. Financial markets were liberalised, capital became far more mobile and media industries underwent waves of consolidation. The result was an environment in which large pools of private capital could exert greater influence over both economic policy and the channels through which political narratives reached the public.

At the same time the structure of the information system narrowed. Around eighty to ninety percent of national newspaper circulation is controlled by a small number of wealthy proprietors. The BBC still exists as a public counterweight, but it now operates in a permanently politicised environment where governments lean on it, newspapers attack it and senior appointments pass through political filters. The result is not a propaganda outlet but a cautious broadcaster aware that one perceived misstep can unleash a week of hostile headlines.

Meanwhile the economic foundations of journalism have been quietly eroded. Advertising migrated to digital platforms, local newspapers collapsed and national newsrooms shrank. Investigative reporting is expensive and slow, and it has been one of the first casualties. When fewer journalists are available to challenge claims and follow complicated stories, the political environment changes. It becomes easier for politicians to say almost anything and correct the record later, if at all.

The same tension is visible in debates about education. Some political movements now advocate a more “patriotic” national curriculum focused on national pride and identity. Teaching national history is not the problem. The revealing point is what tends to disappear. A curriculum centred on critical thinking trains citizens to question evidence and test political claims. One centred primarily on patriotic narratives trains them to absorb and repeat them. In an era that increasingly rewards simple stories over careful analysis, the distinction matters.

At the same time a different media culture has developed around what might be called client journalism. Some politicians now prefer outlets that repeat narratives sympathetically rather than journalists who interrogate them. When challenged, the response is often to attack the source rather than the claim. A poll becomes invalid because of who commissioned it. A journalist becomes biased for asking an awkward question.

This environment suits populist politics extremely well.

One of the most important discoveries made by modern insurgent movements is that winning power is not always necessary to reshape politics. Control of the agenda can be enough. If one issue dominates public attention, the rest of the political landscape recedes.

Immigration performs this function almost perfectly. Migration is a real policy issue, but it also produces vivid images and emotionally powerful narratives. Boats arriving on beaches create a story that can be repeated endlessly.

Once immigration dominates the political conversation, other subjects quietly retreat from view. Tax structures, regulatory frameworks, capital mobility, media ownership and donor influence begin to look like technical details compared with the daily theatre of borders and boats.

It is the political equivalent of everyone crowding downstairs to argue about the noise while the furniture upstairs is quietly being removed.

What is really happening is that three different political systems are operating at once. Cultural issues such as immigration supply the political energy. Donor economics supplies the policy agenda. And the modern media environment supplies the narrative infrastructure that allows the two to reinforce each other.

The deeper irony is that the same political ecosystem that obsesses over human mobility pays remarkably little attention to capital mobility. Immigration dominates political debate, yet the movement of wealth across borders rarely attracts sustained scrutiny. A billionaire relocating to Monaco for tax reasons can cost the Treasury far more revenue than thousands of migrants entering the labour market. Yet one produces months of headlines while the other is treated as a sensible financial decision.

In some cases the contradiction is almost comic. People who denounce migrants for crossing borders in search of opportunity will enthusiastically defend a billionaire doing exactly the same thing for tax reasons. Cultural rhetoric about immigration mobilises voters so effectively that it obscures far larger economic decisions being made elsewhere.

At the same time new forms of financial power have entered politics. Parts of the populist right have developed close relationships with cryptocurrency entrepreneurs and technology billionaires who see themselves as outsiders to the traditional political establishment. Wealth from these sectors increasingly funds media platforms, campaign organisations and political movements.

Alongside this sits a growing network of think tanks and advocacy groups shaping policy debates from outside formal party structures.

The modern right itself is not a single ideological project. Populist mobilisation around immigration now sits uneasily alongside more traditional centre-right economic thinking, a tension illustrated by initiatives such as Prosper, which seek to pull Conservative politics back toward a more conventional pro-business centre-right position.

Meanwhile other powerful interests have long understood the value of narrative control. Fossil fuel companies have spent decades funding lobbying, think tanks and media campaigns aimed at delaying climate policy. The strategy has shifted over time from outright denial to economic alarmism, framing climate action as a threat to jobs, growth or household bills. Delay becomes extremely valuable if your business model depends on selling fossil fuels.

This creates a comfortable position for political movements that operate primarily through agenda setting rather than governance. They can dominate headlines and mobilise supporters without demonstrating how their promises would survive contact with reality.

Governments operate under constraints that opposition movements rarely acknowledge. Laws exist. Courts intervene. Budgets impose limits. Bureaucracies move slowly. The populist narrative assumes that political will alone can sweep these obstacles aside.

In practice it cannot.

The moment an insurgent movement actually holds power, the gap becomes visible. Rhetoric collides with institutions and promises encounter fiscal arithmetic. Donald Trump’s war with Iran illustrates the problem in real time. What began as decisive campaign rhetoric has turned into the sort of complex regional conflict governments always discover once the missiles start flying.

Which brings me to a personal suspicion about Nigel Farage. I increasingly suspect that he understands this dynamic perfectly well. The optimal position for a populist insurgent may not be inside government at all. It may be just outside the door, close enough to influence the agenda but far enough away to avoid responsibility.

From that vantage point the insurgent can steadily pull the political centre of gravity in a particular direction. Mainstream parties adjust their rhetoric to compete and gradually the entire conversation shifts.

The insurgent wins without governing.

The consequences eventually show up in everyday life. Deregulation leads to rivers filled with sewage because dumping waste becomes cheaper than fixing infrastructure. Tax cuts without replacement revenue hollow out public services until hospitals, courts and councils struggle to function. Delaying Net Zero leaves economies dependent on fossil fuel markets and therefore hostage to geopolitical shocks.

Foreign policy decisions have consequences too. Wars destroy infrastructure, destabilise regions and displace populations. Most of the world’s refugees come from a relatively small number of conflicts in places such as Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan and Ukraine. The vast majority remain in neighbouring countries, but the pressures created by those conflicts inevitably ripple outward and eventually reach Europe.

In other words, some of the same political forces that promise to stop migration can end up helping to create the conditions that drive it.

And while the argument downstairs continues about migrants and borders, the furniture upstairs continues to move quietly out of the window.

By the time anyone notices, the removal van will already be halfway down the road, with a surprising number of voters still arguing about the dinghy.

An Arch in Search of Something to Celebrate

I dug out Peter York’s Dictator Style: Lifestyles of the World's Most Colorful Despots the other day. Probably shouldn’t have. It’s one of those things that seems harmless enough until you start noticing it everywhere, and then you can’t really stop. York’s point, more or less, is that powerful men all think they’re expressing themselves, and somehow all end up buying from the same catalogue.

Which is how you end up looking at Donald Trump’s proposed triumphal arch and being told it’s to mark 250 years of American independence. And yes, fine, 250 years is worth marking. No argument there. It just doesn’t obviously call for quite so much… stone.

The arch doesn’t really sit on its own either. It turns up alongside the White House ballroom idea, all chandeliers and gilt and that slightly breathless feeling that if something’s worth doing it’s worth overdoing. You start to get the sense this isn’t a one-off, it’s more of a direction of travel. Once you’ve decided gold works, you tend to keep going back to it.

The awkward bit is the arch itself. It’s not a neutral form you can use for anything, like a statue or a plaque. It comes pre-loaded. The Romans didn’t build them because it had been a good 250 years. They built them because they’d just beaten someone and wanted to make sure nobody forgot. You marched through it, job done, story fixed in stone.

So when you borrow that shape, you borrow the voice as well. You’re not just marking time passing, you’re announcing a win. Loudly. It feels a bit like the car that’s been back to the garage three times and still isn’t quite right. It runs, but you wouldn’t build a monument to it.

None of that means you don’t celebrate 250 years. It just makes the tone feel off. Like turning up to an anniversary dinner in full military dress, only to find the dining room has been refitted in gold leaf while you were parking. You can’t say no one’s made an effort, but you do start wondering who it’s actually for.

And this is where it gets slightly more interesting, because there’s a bit of psychology lurking behind the taste. Call it narcissism if you like, but not in the pub sense. It’s the need to have importance made visible, just in case anyone was in danger of missing it. A plaque can be overlooked. A 250-foot arch rather less so. Add a ballroom full of chandeliers and you’ve covered the indoor market as well.

Timing doesn’t help. These things usually appear when everything feels settled, when alliances are solid and you don’t have to keep checking who’s still on side. At the moment it feels a bit more like everyone’s quietly doing the maths and keeping a few options open. Not collapse, nothing dramatic, just not quite the relaxed centre-of-the-room feeling you’d expect for this sort of architectural confidence.

Which is where York’s point comes back in. If the reality’s a bit messy, tidy up the signal. Make it big enough and shiny enough that it carries the message on its own. No need to get into the detail if you can just build something that says “important” from a distance.

You can picture how it got there. Someone suggests doing something for the anniversary. Perfectly sensible. Then it needs to be noticed. Then it needs to be significant. Then someone says it needs to be really significant. By the time the lions and eagles have turned up, along with another layer of chandelier somewhere else, the original idea has quietly left the room.

Washington hasn’t usually gone in for this. The existing monuments are serious but they don’t nag. Lincoln sits there and lets you get on with it. The Washington Monument just stands there, not trying to sell itself. They assume you’ll work it out.

This one doesn’t really leave you that option. It does the working out for you, in fairly large letters, and then adds a bit more just to be safe. It may never get built. There are committees for that sort of thing, and budgets, and the odd outbreak of common sense.

Still, if nothing else, it does solve the problem of how to mark 250 years. Not by explaining it, or reflecting on it, but by making sure you can see it from a long way off.

The Photographs History Forgot

Every so often a photograph surfaces that makes modern viewers sit up and blink. One of those shows cadets from the Britannia Brigade at Dartmouth standing alongside members of the Hitler Youth in 1936. It looks astonishing now. Future Royal Navy officers smiling politely beside boys in brown shirts.

I am 71 and, until a television documentary the other night, I had never heard of these exchanges at all. Which in itself is interesting. One would think such an image would have lodged somewhere in the national memory, yet apparently not.

Cue the inevitable modern reaction. Someone posts the photograph online and within minutes a few confident voices declare that this proves Britain was secretly rather fond of the Nazis. The photograph becomes Exhibit A in a tidy moral drama.

Except that is not what it shows.

The first thing to remember is that 1936 was a very different moment. Hitler had been in power only three years. The worst horrors of the regime were still largely hidden from the outside world. Diplomacy had not yet collapsed. Britain had just signed the Anglo German Naval Agreement the year before. The basic idea, misguided as it proved, was to keep Germany inside the tent rather than outside it kicking the furniture.

So youth exchanges happened. Military academies visited one another. Sports teams travelled abroad. It all sat inside the rather hopeful belief that if nations kept talking, marching and playing football together they might avoid repeating 1914.

From our vantage point the images look painfully naive. Within three years those cadets would be junior officers in the Royal Navy fighting the very regime whose youth organisation they had politely paraded beside. History has a habit of doing that. It makes yesterday's ordinary behaviour look absurdly innocent once tomorrow arrives.

What fascinates me is how these photographs are used today. They tend to be waved around as if they prove some hidden sympathy for Nazism in Britain. That tells you more about modern political habits than about the 1930s. People like tidy moral stories where everyone either knew exactly what was coming or secretly approved of it.

Real history is rarely that tidy.

In reality the picture simply captures a moment when Britain and much of Europe still hoped Germany could be handled through diplomacy and normal contact. They were wrong, catastrophically wrong, but they were not collaborating with Nazism. They were trying to avoid another continental war only eighteen years after the last one had ended.

Which, given what eventually happened in 1939, makes the photograph less scandalous and more quietly tragic. Those polite boys on both sides would soon be on opposite sides of a war that would kill tens of millions. And somewhere in a Dartmouth photo album there is probably still a neatly labelled page that reads something like "Visit to Germany, summer 1936".

Speaking for Everyone From a Safe Distance

I heard a British Iranian on the radio the other day, calling into a phone-in, very calm, very sure of herself, explaining that the bombing should continue. Not as a grim last resort, but more as if it were simply the next sensible step. Then she added that all expat Iranians agreed with her and welcomed what Trump was doing.

That was about the point where I stopped following the argument and started noticing the framing.

“All expat Iranians”. It sounds convincing if you don’t stop to think about it. As if someone has gone round, asked the question, and tallied the results. In reality it just nudges the awkward bits out of view. Which expats. Who disagrees. Who exactly is being spoken for.

Because the reality is not tidy. The Iranian diaspora is not a bloc, it’s a spread. Monarchists who would quite like to wind the clock back. Republicans who want something entirely different. Secular liberals, left-leaning groups, people who still support the regime, and plenty who have no interest in any grand project and are simply trying to keep track of family. They don’t agree on the destination, never mind the route.

And in fact, over the past few days, you could hear that plainly enough if you listened. Plenty of British Iranians have been calling into the same sort of programmes saying the opposite - that it’s a disaster for ordinary Iranians, that it will make things worse, that Trump shows little interest in what happens to the people on the receiving end of it. Not a unified chorus, but certainly not silence either.

I did find myself wondering who she had actually spoken to, if anyone. Or whether this was one of those private consensus exercises where the dissent never quite gets invited.

None of that, on its own, is especially troubling. People generalise all the time, especially on the radio. It’s a phone-in, not a policy seminar.

What caught slightly was the ease with which “the bombing should continue” was said from here.

Living here does have its advantages. You can speak plainly, you’re not filtering yourself, and you’re not trying to piece together events from patchy information or wondering if the connection will drop. You can say the regime is oppressive and should go, which plenty inside Iran would agree with if they could say it safely.

But it does shift the feel of what you’re saying.

Saying “keep going” from a call-in line in Britain is not quite the same thing as saying it from a flat where the windows have already been taped up and there’s a bag by the door in case you need to leave quickly. The words are identical, but they don’t carry the same consequences. One is a view. The other is a judgement call you may have to live with the same afternoon.

War, at a distance, tends to arrange itself into something more orderly than it really is. It becomes about pressure, leverage, what comes next. On the ground it’s more immediate. Is there fuel. Is the road still open. Do you go now or wait and see if it settles. That sort of calculation.

None of this makes her position mad. There are Iranians, both inside the country and outside it, who think the regime won’t shift without force, and you can see how they arrive there.

But moving from that to “we all agree” does something else. It smooths over the disagreement and, with it, the uncertainty about how this plays out. It quietly drops the people who are less keen on being on the receiving end of it.

I found myself thinking about the call afterwards, not because it was unusual, but because it wasn’t. You hear that kind of certainty quite a lot once you start listening for it.

And meanwhile, somewhere else, someone is deciding whether to stay put for another night or get in the car before dark, which doesn’t feel like the sort of thing that lends itself to neat agreement.

5kW of Electricity, Please, in a Jerry Can

I had one of those small adventures the other day that reminds you why the internal combustion engine has not quite packed its bags and shuffled off into the museum just yet.

A colleague and I were dispatched to BCA Bridgewater to collect two vehicles. He drew the Land Rover Evoque. I drew the Nissan Leaf. The Evoque had a quarter of a tank of diesel. The Leaf, proudly, declared that it had 77 miles remaining. Our journey back was under forty miles. Even by modern standards that seemed a comfortable margin.

Two miles later the Leaf had clearly changed its mind.

By the time I reached the M5 the miles remaining were disappearing like biscuits in a meeting room. Heating off. Eco mode on. I settled into a stately 55 mph, the automotive equivalent of walking gently across thin ice while pretending everything is perfectly normal.

The situation deteriorated steadily. Every slight incline shaved miles off the prediction. The car began to look at me in the accusatory way computers do when they know they are about to ruin your afternoon.

Then the phone rang.

My colleague had broken down at Junction 16. The Evoque had stopped and now sounded, in his words, like a bag of nuts. So I peeled off the motorway and went to investigate, clutching the jump pack I keep in my rucksack when collecting auction cars. The jump pack revived the Evoque well enough, although the engine continued to sound as though several internal components had recently resigned.

Before I performed the roadside mechanical triage, the Leaf's remaining range dropped to three miles. Three. Then something curious happened. When I got back into the car the display now said 15 miles remaining. Apparently the electrons had been having a little lie down while I was helping the Land Rover. Happy days, I thought.

My happiness was, of course, premature. By the time I reached Tytherington the display was on zero miles remaining with five miles still to go. At this point I was driving downhill slopes using the e-Pedal like a Victorian miser shaking coins out of the upholstery. Every hill became a negotiation. Every mile felt like a personal insult.

Miraculously, I made it back to base.

The whole episode did rather underline the practical difference between the old world and the new one. If you run out of petrol or diesel, you can at least walk to a filling station, buy a can, and return with five litres of hope. With an EV, once the numbers start going theatrical, you are reduced to prayer, light throttle inputs and a growing intimacy with the topography of South Gloucestershire.

I am sure electric motoring has its place. Quiet, smooth, efficient, very worthy. But auction collections, unexpected detours and a colleague stranded on the hard shoulder in a dying Evoque are perhaps not its natural habitat. There is something faintly absurd about living in an age of astonishing technology, only to discover that what you really need is the electrical equivalent of a man in a layby selling emergency watts out of a can.

As an aside, I subsequently went to BCA Enfield and collected an electric VW ID3 with 176 miles remaining for a 136 mile journey. Made it with 12 miles remaining, after having driven for about 30 minutes at 55 MPH on the M4 to conserve energy.

What is NATO?

It is quite a thing to watch Trump complain that NATO “wasn’t there”, as if the last twenty years can be quietly mislaid like a set of car keys.

NATO invoked Article 5 after 9/11 and spent years alongside the United States in Afghanistan. That is not a debatable point. It is the central fact of the alliance in the modern era. Yet we are invited to ignore it and pivot instead to Greenland, which turns out to be the real grievance.

At which point the argument stops being wrong and starts being confused. Greenland belongs to Denmark, Denmark is in NATO, and Article 6 makes it perfectly clear that the alliance is about external threats, not helping one member acquire bits of another.

What is being presented, in effect, is NATO rewritten to suit the complaint. A treaty that behaves differently, applies differently, and obliges allies in ways it never has. Then, when the real one refuses to play along, it is accused of failure.

It is like insisting Pride and Prejudice is about a scientist creating a monster, and then criticising it for not having enough electricity and laboratory equipment. You are not analysing the book. You are confusing it with Frankenstein.

The difficulty is that this only works if nobody opens the cover. A single, basic, journalistic question would do. Which part of Article 5 was not honoured, and where does Article 6 support this idea about Greenland?

There is a long pause after that, because there is no clean answer.

Instead, we carry on as if this is a serious disagreement about policy rather than a basic mix-up about what NATO is. The alliance has not changed. The text has not changed. What has changed is the willingness to pretend that words mean something else when it is politically convenient.

A Law, Not a Metaphor

Israel has passed a law introducing a mandatory death penalty for certain terrorism offences, to be applied in military courts and, in principle, carried out within 90 days. That is the story. It is serious enough on its own without anyone reaching for historical fancy dress five seconds later.

Yet almost immediately the conversation drifts. Someone declares it proof of some grand historical parallel, someone else counters with a different one, and before long we are arguing about the 1940s instead of the rather pressing question of what has just been passed by the Knesset.

The fallback comparison tends to be the French Resistance, which has a comforting air of moral clarity about it. Brave resistance, clear villains, tidy conclusions. The sort of thing that makes a messy present feel more manageable.

But it only works if you ignore most of the detail. The French Resistance largely targeted infrastructure and occupying forces. Civilian attacks were contentious then and remain so now. Modern conflicts are not nearly so obliging. Rockets into towns, bombings, reprisals, and the familiar cycle that follows. One side calls it resistance, the other calls it terrorism, and both can produce examples that complicate the story.

Meanwhile, the law itself is doing its quiet, inconvenient work. It is framed around specific offences, not ethnicity written into statute. But it operates in a system where those prosecuted are overwhelmingly Palestinian, which is where the charge of discrimination arises. It has been passed, but it will be challenged. And it marks a sharp break from a country that has, in practice, avoided using the death penalty for decades.

Those are the points that matter. Capital punishment, due process, the structure of military courts, and whether the law will be applied evenly or not. You can make a strong case on any of those without borrowing a narrative from another time.

Because once you drop the analogies, you are left with the harder question. Not who this reminds you of, but whether it is justifiable, how it will be used, and who will actually end up on the receiving end.

Less dramatic, perhaps. But rather more to the point.

The Bipolar Defence

This all feels a bit familiar. On one side you have Kanye West popping up again to explain that the last lot of unpleasant nonsense wasn’t really him, just a self-diagnosed medical episode. On the other, Donald Trump has managed to get himself into a war with Iran and is now explaining it in a way that seems to change depending on which sentence you catch.

You can almost see where this is heading. A press conference at some point, a bit of throat clearing, and then something along the lines of the bombing being a mood swing that got a bit out of hand. Once you clock the pattern, it’s hard not to keep seeing it.

West says something appalling, walks it back, then does it again a few weeks later and carries on filling venues. Trump says the war is basically done, then authorises something else, then says talks are going well, then hints they might not be. It isn’t so much a plan as things happening and explanations arriving afterwards.

Consistency hasn’t just gone missing. It’s been shown the door. No forwarding address.

The Iran situation has that feel you get when something mechanical isn’t quite right but you keep driving anyway and turn the radio up to drown it out. The explanation shifts depending on the day. One briefing leans on nuclear risk, the next on stability, then something vaguer about sending a signal. You listen to it and think, that sounds fine on its own, but it doesn’t quite join up with what was said yesterday.

There was a line the other day about “longer term outcomes”. You hear that sort of thing in meetings when nobody wants to say how long something is actually going to drag on. It’s not a reassuring phrase. Meanwhile, everything is apparently going well. Or nearly finished. Or just getting going. Depends who you catch and when. Feels less like updates and more like people trying to keep up with whatever just happened.

And yet none of it seems to matter much. The rallies carry on. The audiences are still there. The contradictions don’t really stick. They just sort of get folded in.

That is the bit that nags.

You end up coming back to the same question, or something like it. Is this deliberate, is it just how they operate, or is it something else entirely? West has an answer ready to hand. Trump doesn’t, although you wouldn’t completely rule out him trying it if things got awkward enough.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I regret to inform you that the Strait of Hormuz situation was a manic phase. We’ll be releasing a statement shortly, possibly with a soundtrack.”

The difference is scale, really. One of them trashes sponsorship deals. The other moves oil prices, drags allies along behind him and leaves a trail that doesn’t disappear when the news cycle moves on. So it isn’t really about personality. It’s what happens when that sort of behaviour sits somewhere it can do actual damage. And you do start to wonder how long the two can be kept separate. Because if erratic behaviour plus a loyal following is enough to keep the show on the road, there’s a certain logic to leaning into it.

Though I suspect the apology tour becomes a bit more complicated once tankers stop moving and the petrol price creeps up to the point where even a short trip starts to feel like something you ought to think about first.

I sense one of Baldrick's Cunning Plan......

The Death of Stalin

Trump is starting to run things like "The Death of Stalin", and meanwhile the Iran war has begun to follow the same script.

Not in scale or consequence. People are dying, oil markets are twitching, and everyone involved is trying to sound more certain than they really are. But in tone, in sequencing, in that faintly absurd sense that nobody is quite sure what the plan is today, let alone tomorrow.

One day the war is “nearing completion”. A few days later it needs escalation. Then there are talks. Then an ultimatum about the Strait of Hormuz. Then a suggestion of taking Iran’s oil. Then a hint of withdrawal. Then back to threats of hitting infrastructure.

It is less a strategy than a sequence of moods.

In the film, they are all trying to interpret Stalin’s last instruction, except the instruction keeps changing depending on who last spoke. Here, the objective appears to move in real time. First it is nuclear capability, then regime change, then freedom of navigation, then something involving oil revenue, then all of them at once.

You can almost picture the room. Someone says “we’re nearly done”, everyone nods. Someone else says “we need to hit harder”, the nodding continues. A third suggests talks, and suddenly everyone recalls they were always in favour of diplomacy. It’s not disagreement, it’s synchronised improvisation.

Meanwhile, reality carries on regardless. The Strait is still disrupted, prices are still edging about, and allies are looking on with the sort of expression usually reserved for a driver who insists he knows a shortcut while heading steadily into a ditch.

And like any good farce, there is a growing gap between what is said and what is happening. Victory is declared while the conflict expands. Deadlines are issued, missed, and replaced with slightly more urgent deadlines. The story advances, but not in a straight line.

The risk is not that it becomes comic. It is that it becomes incoherent.

Wars, rather inconveniently, reward consistency. They require clear objectives, stable signalling, and a chain of decisions that add up to something. If instead you get a rolling series of reactions, filtered through personality and timing, you end up with exactly what we are starting to see: movement without direction.

Which is very entertaining in a film. Less so when tankers stop moving and people start getting shot at.

Constitutional Crisis

Trump has managed to turn geopolitics into a farce, but back home we are doing something arguably more British, which is having a mild constitutional crisis over marmalade.

Not the price of energy, not housing, not whether we are drifting into a trade cul de sac. Marmalade. A jar of orange preserve has somehow been promoted to the front line of national sovereignty, as if Paddington is about to be stopped at Dover and asked to declare his sandwiches.

The claim, breathlessly repeated, is that "they" are renaming marmalade. That this is the thin end of the wedge. Today marmalade, tomorrow the Magna Carta, presumably by teatime.

The reality is rather less stirring. The EU has relaxed its definition so that "marmalade" can cover a wider range of fruit preserves. The horror. To cope with this outbreak of definitional flexibility, British producers may have to say "orange marmalade" or "citrus marmalade" on the label. One imagines shoppers collapsing in confusion, wandering the aisles muttering, "But what is this citrus substance?"

The slightly awkward detail, which has been quietly left in the airing cupboard, is that we did this in the first place. In the 1970s, Britain insisted that marmalade should mean citrus only. We drew a line in the sugary sand and told Europe, quite firmly, that marmalade was not to be trifled with. It was one of those moments of national clarity, up there with decimalisation and flared trousers.

And just to make it all a bit more absurd, the word itself is not even British. "Marmalade" comes from the Portuguese marmelada, a quince paste made from marmelo - quince. In other words, the original marmalade was not orange at all, but a sort of firm quince jelly eaten in slices. We imported the word, changed the meaning, enforced it on Europe, and are now affronted that Europe has stopped following our instructions quite so obediently.

And yet the reaction has been predictably operatic. You can almost hear the violins as commentators speak of heritage, tradition, and the quiet dignity of the breakfast table, as though a jar of marmalade were the last line of defence against continental chaos.

Meanwhile, in the real world, most jars already say "Seville orange marmalade", because producers quite like telling you what is in them. This has not, to date, triggered social collapse.

What makes this oddly revealing is how neatly it fits the pattern. A small, technical adjustment becomes a cultural grievance. A labelling tweak is inflated into an existential threat. And the fact that we wrote the original rule ourselves is treated as an inconvenient footnote, rather than the entire story.

It is a bit like insisting your classic car must only ever run on a particular grade of fuel, arguing about it for decades, and then becoming furious when the rest of the garage shrugs and says, "Fine, use what you like."

So here we are. A country that once ran a global empire now reduced to arguing about the wording on a breakfast spread we defined ourselves half a century ago.

Still, I suppose it is progress of a sort. At least this time, the argument is unlikely to end in a referendum. Or, more worryingly, it might.

A Few Buckets of Water and Somehow a Mind

There’s something faintly absurd about the whole business when you stop and lay it out properly. You take a person, with all the usual baggage - opinions, memories, small grudges that have outlived their usefulness - and reduce them to their constituent parts, and what you are left with is mostly water, a fair bit of carbon, some gases, and a scattering of minerals you would normally associate with soil, fertiliser, or the inside of a cheap battery. 

Spread that out on a table and no one, however imaginative, is going to point at it and say “ah yes, there’s a mind in there somewhere”. They’d more likely wonder what went wrong in the lab, or whether you’d misunderstood the instructions.

And yet we are told, quite calmly, that somewhere in that arrangement is consciousness. Not as a metaphor, but as a literal claim. The thing doing the thinking, remembering, deciding whether to put the kettle on now or in five minutes, is supposedly an emergent property of that unpromising collection of ingredients. 

There is no special component you can isolate. No discreet lump of awareness you can hold up between finger and thumb. It is the same basic set of elements you would find in a puddle or a potato, just organised in a rather more fussy way, with better plumbing. And yet we keep peering at it as if, given enough patience, someone will eventually point to a particular bit and say “that’s the consciousness, that bit there”.

It starts to feel a bit like the Monty Python sketch where Mrs Scum is asked, “What great opponent of Cartesian dualism resists the reduction of psychological phenomena to a physical state and maintains there is no point of connection between the extended and the unextended?” and, after a moment’s hesitation, says “Henri Bergson?” and is told she’s absolutely right. The whole thing only works because the question sounds as though it must have a precise, authoritative answer, when in reality it’s doing most of the muddling itself.

And that is more or less what we are doing here. We are treating consciousness as if it ought to be one more entry on the list, somewhere between iron and iodine, waiting to be identified, when it may simply not be that kind of thing at all.

This is usually the point where the explanation starts sounding very confident and slightly hand-wavy at the same time. The comparison you will often hear is mechanical. Take an engine apart, lay all the pieces on the garage floor, and you will not find “motion” in any individual component. Perfectly true, and reassuringly solid. Pistons just sit there, crankshafts just sit there, and a wiring loom looks like something you regret starting. Put it all together again, add fuel, timing and compression, and motion appears. No mystery, just a system doing what it’s supposed to do.

The difficulty is that consciousness is not quite so well behaved. We can describe the parts - neurons firing, signals passing, chemistry quietly getting on with things - and we can map the activity in impressive detail. But the moment you ask how that turns into the experience of being you, the explanation starts to lose a bit of grip. 

It is rather like being given a complete account of how every component in the engine works, and then being told that “driving to Tesco” simply appears if you assemble things correctly. You can see that something is happening, but the step from mechanism to experience is doing more heavy lifting than anyone is entirely comfortable admitting.

So we are left in the slightly comic position of knowing exactly what we are made of, and not really knowing how it adds up to the fact that we are here noticing it. A bag of water, some carbon, a pinch of metals, and a constant fizz of electrical activity, all of which, taken separately, are about as conscious as a garden shed. Put together in the right way, however, and you get Shakespeare, bad tempers in traffic, and a firm view on whether the milk goes in before or after the tea.

And we carry on as if this is all perfectly straightforward. Which it plainly isn’t, but then again, neither is getting the shopping in from the car without making two trips, and we seem to manage that most days.

The Molar That Did a Lap

I had always assumed that if a part of me ever made a bid for independence, it would at least have the decency to announce itself. A twinge, a wobble, a bit of drama. Not so. One moment I was enjoying a piece of belly pork crackling, the next I was unknowingly down a molar and none the wiser. It had simply snapped off, resigned its post, and slipped quietly into the system like a civil servant taking early retirement.

The tooth in question had history. Root canal, heavily filled, the sort of dental engineering project that keeps a practice solvent. In hindsight, it was less a tooth and more a ceramic plug with nostalgic ambitions. Still, it had held the line for years, only to be defeated by pork. There is a lesson in that somewhere, probably about British cuisine and structural limits.

The truly impressive part is what followed. I carried on with my day, blissfully unaware that I had swallowed a component of my own face. No choking, no alarm, just a missing tooth and a vague sense, later, that something felt different. It was only when I did the standard tongue inventory that the gap became apparent, like discovering a tile missing from the roof after the storm has passed.

Now, most people would assume that was the end of it. Tooth gone, dentist appointment pending, life moves on. But no. A few days later, Hay spots something at the bottom of the toilet bowl that had declined to be flushed. There it was. My missing molar. Having completed a full and, one assumes, not especially pleasant circuit of the digestive system, it had returned to civilisation.

There is something faintly admirable about that. Teeth, it turns out, are not easily broken in spirit. Digestive acids, mechanical processing, the general indignity of the journey, and none of it made the slightest difference. It emerged intact, like a seasoned traveller stepping off a long-haul flight, slightly dishevelled but fundamentally unchanged.

And now, at least, I have a better idea of the timing of my gastrointestinal transit. It is oddly reassuring to have empirical data, even if the methodology would struggle to pass an ethics committee.

Naturally, I saw an opportunity. My mother once had earrings made from my baby teeth, which I had always regarded as a slightly unnerving but culturally defensible Dutch tradition. So I asked Hay, quite reasonably I thought, whether she fancied a brooch made from this one. A keepsake. A conversation piece. Something to pass down the generations with a suitably vague explanation.

The reaction suggested I had misjudged the room.

Apparently there is a line, and it sits somewhere between “sentimental childhood relic” and “tooth that has seen things”. Baby teeth are charming. They arrive clean, depart ceremonially, and can be mounted without too much soul-searching. An adult molar that has survived both pork crackling and the gastrointestinal tract carries a certain narrative weight that not everyone wishes to pin to their lapel.

So the tooth now sits, retired properly this time, awaiting its final disposition. I am left with a dental appointment and a slightly altered view of my own internal logistics. If nothing else, it has demonstrated that the body is a remarkably efficient transport system, even when handling loose parts.

Still, one cannot help thinking that if bits of me are going to start doing laps unannounced, a little notice would be appreciated. A memo, perhaps. Something along the lines of “molar departing, expected return in three to five days”. It would save a great deal of confusion, and possibly prevent future discussions about jewellery that nobody, quite understandably, wants to wear

The Man Who Broke the Middle East and Gave It to China

Trump has managed to turn a regional conflict into a sort of travelling demolition project. Not just Iran, but bits of the Gulf more broadly now at risk of ending up with holes where expensive infrastructure used to be. Refineries, ports, pipelines. The sort of kit that normally takes years to build and about five minutes to break.

Now, someone will have to to pay to put that lot back together again. It will not be Trump. He isn’t reaching for the American chequebook, partly because he doesn’t see the point and partly because, from his perspective, America has its own oil and can muddle through. Rebuilding the Gulf is someone else’s problem.

The Gulf states themselves could, of course, pay. Places like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are not short of a bob or two. They may well decide to quietly fix things and move on. That is one possible ending.

But it is not the only one, and it is not the interesting one.

Because sitting just offstage is China, which happens to be heavily dependent on Gulf and Iranian oil and has a rather well established habit of turning up with engineers, loans and a long memory. China does not need tidy, risk-adjusted returns. It is perfectly happy to swap infrastructure for influence and oil security over a couple of decades.

Iran, in particular, is where this becomes less of a choice and more of a default. American capital is not “hesitant” there. It is legally barred. So when Iran needs vast sums to rebuild what has just been broken and what was already creaking, there is no queue forming in New York or Houston.

There is, however, a fairly obvious queue forming in Beijing.

Elsewhere in the Gulf it is more of a contest. The locals can self fund. Western capital may turn up if the risk can be priced. China will certainly want in. But the mere fact that this is now a question at all is the point. The door has been opened.

Meanwhile, the clever bit. Oil flows get disrupted, the Strait of Hormuz becomes a little less reliable, and energy prices rise. That is not a regional inconvenience. That is everyone’s problem. Trump, however, is doubling down on oil at precisely the moment when large chunks of the modern economy, particularly AI, need cheap and stable electricity.

And here is the slightly awkward detail. Those data centres are not all sitting in Texas next to a friendly wellhead. They are scattered about, quite a lot of them in Europe, humming away and quietly assuming that energy will remain both available and vaguely affordable. When oil spikes, so does everything else. So while Trump is busy annoying NATO and talking about walking away from it, he is also, in practical terms, pushing up the cost base of the very digital infrastructure his allies rely on.

At the same time, you have Africa. Large parts of it still lack reliable electricity, which is usually presented as a tragedy, but is also, from a strategic point of view, an open invitation. Build the generation, build the grid, and you do not just supply power, you shape the economy that follows. Increasingly, that power will be renewable, because it is the quickest way to get something working at scale without waiting for pipelines that may or may not arrive.

Again, there is a fairly obvious candidate to do that work, and it is not Washington.

And this is where the energy argument stops being a culture war about wind turbines and starts being about power in the literal sense.

Coal built unions because it forced people together. Same pits, same dangers, same towns. Oil spread things out. Still industrial, still risky, but easier to fragment and easier to manage. Renewables look scattered at first glance, but scale them up and you get concentrations again around ports, factories, grid infrastructure and maintenance. Not identical to coal, but enough to rebuild forms of collective organisation that oil diluted.

At the same time, control shifts. With oil, power sits with whoever owns the scarce fuel. With renewables, generation becomes more commoditised and leverage moves into storage, grid access, balancing and trading. Power does not disappear, it moves into systems that are harder to dominate quietly and much more exposed to politics.

Which is why the unease on the right is not really about the view or intermittency. It is about losing a model that concentrated control and kept labour manageable.

Which brings us back to Trump, who knows perfectly well that China is the strategic competitor. That is not the blind spot. The problem is that, having been led by the nose by Israel into this particular mess, he has created precisely the conditions China is best placed to exploit.

China does not need to win a war here. It just needs to turn up afterwards with a clipboard, a financing package, and a willingness to build whatever comes next.

And that is how you hand over influence in the Gulf, a foothold in Africa’s industrialisation, and a quiet bit of leverage over Europe’s energy costs, all while insisting you are backing the future.

It feels less like grand strategy and more like discovering that while you were busy defending the old engine, someone else quietly bought the garage, hired the mechanics, and started sending you the bill for the electricity.

My ETA is 15:23

There was a time, not that long ago, when giving an ETA involved a sort of gentleman’s shrug. “About three,” you’d say, which could mean anything from ten to three to half past, depending on traffic, weather, and whether you’d remembered where you put your keys. It wasn’t imprecise so much as civilised. It allowed for life to intervene without anyone reaching for a stopwatch.

Now, of course, we have satellites. We have Waze. We have a calm, faintly judgemental voice informing us that we will arrive at precisely 15:23, and not a second sooner. And the unsettling thing is, for any journey of decent length, it’s usually right. Not vaguely right, but properly right. Three and a half hours across the country, and you glide onto the drive at exactly the minute predicted, as if the entire road network has been choreographed in your honour.

This has quietly changed the social contract. “I’ll be there at 15:23” is no longer a hopeful estimate, it’s a commitment bordering on a blood oath. Arriving at 15:25 is no longer “on time”, it is a failure of execution. One can almost imagine the other party glancing at their watch, noting the discrepancy, and marking it down somewhere. A small black mark against your name for temporal sloppiness.

What’s happened, really, is that we’ve taken a tool designed to manage traffic and turned it into a device for measuring human reliability. Waze is not just telling you when you’ll arrive, it’s setting a standard you are now expected to meet. And because it factors in traffic, roadworks, and the sort of obscure rat-runs that would once have required a local farmer and a hand-drawn map, it removes all the old excuses. You can no longer blame congestion, or a diversion, or getting stuck behind something agricultural. The algorithm knew about that. The algorithm allowed for it. The algorithm is quietly disappointed in you.

Except, of course, for one small and entirely human flaw in the system. You do, in fact, arrive at exactly 15:23. The little arrow glides to its destination, the voice falls silent, and for a brief moment you feel like a man in full command of his destiny. And then reality intrudes.

You have to park. You have to turn the engine off. You have to locate your phone, your keys, your glasses, the thing you definitely had on the passenger seat five minutes ago. You have to extract yourself from the car with whatever dignity remains, gather your bags, close the door, possibly reopen it because you’ve forgotten something, and then make your way to the front door like a normal human being rather than a data point.

By the time you actually ring the bell, it is 15:25.

So despite hitting the ETA with surgical precision, you are, in practical terms, late. Not late in the old, forgiving sense of “somewhere around three”, but late against a standard you never consciously agreed to but now feel faintly guilty about. Two minutes. Two entirely predictable, unavoidable, human minutes.

We’ve ended up in a curious place. The technology is extraordinarily good. It can predict, with eerie accuracy, the movement of your car across half the country. What it cannot account for is the final twenty yards, where you revert from a moving dot on a screen to a slightly disorganised person with a bag and a front door to negotiate.

And somehow, that’s the bit that still defeats us.

Smells Like Pensioner Disappointment

I set off at 06.29 from Yate feeling faintly pleased with myself, which should always be taken as a warning. The sort of quiet, early-morning competence where you’ve packed your own food, checked the connections, and briefly imagine you’ve got life broadly under control.

The plan involved a proper butty. Latvian rye, the dense, slightly argumentative sort of bread that doesn’t collapse under pressure. Vintage cheddar with a bit of bite. Mrs Bridges chutney doing its usual job of keeping everything civilised. I’d even packed a square of chocolate, which felt like overachievement.

Changed at Gloucester without incident, which only reinforced the dangerous optimism. Sat down at 07.30, train moving, countryside sliding past in that grey, slightly apologetic way it has at that hour, and did what any modern traveller does - streamed YouTube straight into my ears via Bluetooth hearing aids.

There’s something faintly absurd about that in itself. Years ago, hearing aids were beige, whistled occasionally, and existed purely to make conversations in draughty rooms slightly less mysterious. Now they’re effectively a discreet media centre. One moment you’re a retired chap on an early train, the next you’re wirelessly plugged into political philosophy and 1970s rock production.

So I had a bit of Vlad Vexler, thoughtfully unpacking the deeper meaning of Melania’s film, which he suggests is less a portrait and more a rather elegant side swipe at Trump, which I nodded along to as though I were contributing something. Then the making of Smells Like Teen Spirit, all earnest recollections and slightly worn denim. Then the making of Stairway to Heaven, which is essentially a documentary about how long one can spend adjusting a microphone before achieving transcendence.

By this point I was in quite an elevated state. Politics, culture, art, the human condition. The sort of mental atmosphere in which a well-constructed sandwich feels entirely appropriate. A small, edible conclusion to a series of serious thoughts.

Hearing aids still quietly doing their thing. Box out. Quiet moment of anticipation.

Opened it.

Prosciutto.

Not in a sandwich. Not even pretending to be heading in that direction. Just a box of it. A rather large quantity, as though I were about to cater for a small wedding, or possibly a wolf.

Now, prosciutto is all very well. No complaints about the pig involved. But on its own it has the structural integrity of damp tissue paper and the emotional range of a side character. It needs something to lean on. Bread, at the very least. Cheese, ideally. A bit of chutney to stop it becoming self-important.

Which is when it dawns on me that what I was actually meant to be eating was, in its own modest way, a sort of Stairway to Cheddar. Layers, structure, a gradual build to something satisfying, each component doing its part without fuss.

Instead, there I am, fresh from an hour of cultural and philosophical enrichment, streaming directly into my skull like some sort of modest cyborg, eating slices of ham out of a plastic box like a slightly confused aristocrat who’s taken a wrong turn and ended up on Great Western Railway.

There’s no dignity in it. A butty has edges. It can be held, bitten, managed. This is just ongoing. You peel off a bit, it folds in on itself, you try again, and before long you’ve eaten what is essentially half a leg of pork and still feel you haven’t had breakfast.

Meanwhile, somewhere at home, the actual sandwich is sitting there in its box, fully assembled, perfectly balanced, doing exactly what it was designed to do. Bread holding things together. Cheese providing substance. Chutney offering a bit of perspective. The whole thing quietly smug.

And that, really, is the point. We spend a lot of time congratulating ourselves on preparation. Systems, planning, getting ahead of the game. We stream clever people directly into our ears, we nod along, we feel informed.

And then it turns out we’ve simply picked up the wrong container.

You can call it human error if you like. I’d call it a design flaw in identical plastic boxes.

Anyway, I’m now somewhere north of Gloucester, slightly underfed, faintly greasy, faintly more technologically advanced than I strictly need to be, and contemplating whether to buy a coffee that tastes of burnt optimism and a pastry that claims to be artisanal but will, in all likelihood, dissolve into disappointment.

Smells Like Pensioner Disappointment, really.

Changing Time

There’s something faintly heroic about the country twice a year deciding, in unison, to fiddle with every clock it owns as if this will somehow improve matters. A sort of national ritual. Like bleeding a radiator, but for time itself.

Now, I appreciate that in 1916, when the country was trying to squeeze every ounce of usefulness out of daylight, coal and factory hours, shifting the clocks probably felt like a clever wheeze. More light for work, less waste, Germany possibly annoyed. Very brisk. Very purposeful.

But here we are, a century later, and I find myself standing in the kitchen trying to remember how to reset the oven clock, which insists on blinking 00:00 like a small act of rebellion, while the car has updated itself automatically and now disagrees with the microwave. This, apparently, is modern efficiency.

The official line is that all this still suits the working population. You hear it said with the usual air of calm authority, as if nobody has looked out of the window in January. It allegedly moves daylight to where it is most useful. Which sounds splendid until you notice that, in winter, plenty of people still leave for work in darkness and come home in darkness, just with the gloom rearranged a bit.

That is the truth of it really. The clock change does not abolish winter darkness. Britain in winter simply has a limited supply of daylight and no amount of ministerial fiddling is going to change that. All we are doing is deciding which end of the day gets to be slightly less depressing.

We are told it helps children going to school, and fair enough, there is at least a proper argument there. If we kept summer time all year, sunrise in some parts would drift so late that children would be setting off in something close to midnight with school bags. But let’s not pretend this is some elegant economic masterstroke. It is a dreary compromise with the Earth’s axis.

Then there is the claim that it gives workers more light after work. Yes, in the shoulder months it probably does. March and October get a mild lift. People can leave the office and still see a tree. Wonderful. But December carries on being December, entirely indifferent to our administrative tinkering. By then the day is already over by teatime and no amount of confidence from policy wonks alters that.

As for the old stuff about saving energy, that now feels like one of those arguments repeated mostly because nobody can be bothered to go back and fetch its coat. Lighting patterns have changed, heating habits have changed, daily life has changed. We are not all sitting in Edwardian parlours gasping with gratitude because the lamp stayed off for another forty minutes.

For retired people, of course, the whole thing takes on an extra layer of absurdity. My day is not ruled by a factory siren. If I want more morning light, I can get up later. If I want more evening light, I can go outside earlier. I do not need Parliament to perform surgery on the clock in order to help me identify lunchtime.

What I do get is a couple of days of feeling slightly out of joint, a house full of clocks holding different opinions, and the annual hunt for the one stubborn device that requires a sequence of button presses last seen in the cockpit of a Soviet submarine. Usually the oven. Always the oven.

And still we do it. Twice a year. Because we’ve always done it, because it sort of helps somebody somewhere, and because the country likes a bit of pointless faff so long as it comes wrapped in official language and mild inconvenience.

I’ll reset the oven later. Or I won’t. It’s only time, after all.

Siphoning the Tank and Calling It Strategy

I was listening to Kemi Badenoch yesterday, explaining her energy policy in an interview, and I had one of those faintly unsettling moments where everything sounds confident, brisk, and entirely untethered from how the thing actually works.

The pitch is wonderfully simple. Drill more oil and gas, collect the taxes, and use that to bring down bills. If that is not quite enough, trim a bit off welfare and redirect that as well. Cheap energy sorted. One can almost hear the satisfying click as the pieces fall into place.

Except they do not.

What you actually have is a neat little loop. Gas prices spike, household bills follow, and tax receipts from producers rise with them. The government then hands some of that money back to consumers. Round we go. It feels like action, but it never touches the price-setting mechanism. The cost of energy remains exactly where it was determined in the first place.

And the scale matters. UK households spend on the order of £70 to £90 billion a year on energy, depending on prices. North Sea tax revenues, even in strong years, are a fraction of that. You are trying to steady a very large ship with a rather small rudder.

The North Sea element is the bit that sounds most reassuring. We will produce our own energy, keep the money here, take control. It has a pleasingly Churchillian ring to it. The awkward detail is that oil and gas are sold into global markets. The UK produces about 1% of global oil and a bit over 2% of global gas. That does not move prices. We are a price taker. Even Badenoch now concedes this will not directly lower bills, which rather leaves the whole exercise doing something other than what it is being sold as.

And even before you get to that, there is the small matter that the North Sea is not what it was. It is a mature basin, roughly 90% depleted. What is left is harder to extract and more expensive. New projects are marginal and tend to need higher prices to make sense. Which is an odd route to "cheap energy".

Then there is the time horizon. Once you build a platform, you are in for decades. You do not casually switch it off because the economics turn awkward. Add in decommissioning, where the bill is expected to run to roughly £40 to £45 billion in total over time, with billions already being spent each year, and the picture starts to look less like energy independence and more like a long-term financial commitment with a sizeable exit fee.

Now, to be fair, there is nothing remotely controversial about squeezing more out of existing licences. In fact, Labour's government is doing exactly that. The infrastructure is there, the investment is sunk, and it would be perverse not to use it. The curious twist is that once Labour is doing something sensible, it suddenly becomes suspect.

Hovering over all of this is the phrase "net zero", used as a sort of all-purpose villain. The difficulty is that a large slice of the public has been sold a cartoon version of it. Many seem to think it means abolishing fossil fuels entirely and immediately, which it does not. It means balancing emissions with removals over time, and in practice still involves oil and gas during the transition. It is much easier to knock down that misunderstanding than engage with the actual policy.

At which point we arrive at the welfare twist. She said in the interview that welfare would be cut, with the implication that the savings help fund cheaper energy. Which sounds tidy until you look at who pays and who benefits. You take money from those most in need, then spread relief across everyone, including plenty who were never in difficulty to begin with. It is a curious redistribution that starts by tightening the belt of the poorest and ends by loosening the collar of the comfortable.

And all the while, the underlying machinery remains untouched. Gas still sets the electricity price in the UK. Global markets still drive gas prices. When they spike, we all feel it. None of this changes that. It simply moves money around after the damage has been done.

What is striking is not that there is a critique of current policy. There is plenty to criticise. It is that the proposed alternative never quite gets beyond reacting to it. Less net zero, more drilling, fewer subsidies here, more subsidies there. It has the feel of someone determined to steer away from Labour without first checking whether they are still on the same road.

In the end, you are left with a system that depends on high fossil fuel prices to fund relief from high fossil fuel prices, tied to a declining and expensive basin, locked into decades-long commitments, and carrying a decommissioning bill measured in tens of billions. It sounds decisive. It feels robust.

Then the quarterly energy bill lands, and nothing about it has changed.

The Gas Regulator

There is a particular moment on any motorhome trip when you realise you are not, in fact, the master of a finely engineered travelling residence, but the temporary custodian of a collection of mildly resentful components waiting to let you down.

Ours came when the gas simply stopped. Not tapered off, not a gentle warning. Just... nothing. No heating, no oven, no reassuring hiss of civilisation. A sort of silent, judgemental absence where warmth used to be.

At this point you go through the usual rituals. Check the bottle. Check it again, in case it has reconsidered. Wiggle things that ought not to need wiggling. Peer at the regulator as if it might confess. Eventually, with mounting reluctance, you accept that the smallest and cheapest part of the entire system has decided to end the holiday.

The regulator. A device roughly the size and visual importance of a doorstop, now revealed as the single point of failure for heat, food, and basic human dignity.

What follows is a rapid descent into improvisation. Tea, for example, becomes an engineering problem rather than a cultural constant. I found myself making it in the microwave, which felt faintly illegal. The mug rotates, the water heats, and you stand there knowing you have crossed some invisible line. It works, technically. But so does eating beans cold from the tin.

Heating was handled by two 250W electric heaters, each about the size of a small book. Very neat, very portable, and about as effective as trying to heat a sitting room with a pair of hardbacks. They did their best. Not enough to make you comfortable, but just enough to suggest that something, somewhere, was vaguely in charge. Handy in emergencies, which is to say, entirely inadequate but better than nothing.

All of this, of course, hinged on being on hookup. Without that, it would have been less "quirky inconvenience" and more "Victorian hardship with better upholstery".

The hunt for a replacement regulator then began, which is where the motorhome world reveals its other great truth: somewhere, always, there is a caravan shop that looks like it hasn't changed since decimalisation and yet contains precisely the obscure item you need.

In our case, Charmouth. An establishment that appears to run on instinct rather than inventory. You walk in, describe your plight, and a man disappears into the depths before returning with exactly the right part, as if summoned.

I bought two, obviously. One to fix the problem, and one to sit in a locker for the rest of its life, radiating quiet smugness and ensuring that this never happens again. Or at least that when it does, it will be a different obscure component, just to keep things interesting.

Regulator fitted, gas restored, civilisation resumes. Heating returns, the hob lives again, and tea is once more made in a manner that would not alarm your grandparents.

You do, however, come away with a quiet respect for that small, unassuming regulator. And a slightly louder intention to carry a spare next time, because if there is one thing a motorhome will teach you, it is this: the trip is not governed by the big expensive bits you worry about, but by the cheap, anonymous ones you barely noticed until they stopped everything.

The Banana

You would think, on first principles, that a banana peel ought to be the same shape as the thing it contains.

`

Nice, clean cylinder. Logical. Consistent. The sort of tidy solution that would get approving nods in a design meeting and a small note in the margin saying “elegant”.

Instead, what you actually get is a five-sided object pretending, at a glance, to be round. A fruit that has clearly decided that geometric integrity is for other people and that it has places to be.

Except it isn’t even reliably five-sided, which rather undermines the whole notion that there’s a plan. Some come in at four, some at six, and occasionally you find one that looks like it was finished on a Friday afternoon with whatever sides were left in the box. You start out assuming there’s a standard. There isn’t. There’s a range.

At first you assume this is just botanical sloppiness. A lack of discipline. The sort of thing that would have a project manager pacing about asking why the outside doesn’t match the specification of the inside, and why the specification appears to be optional.

Then you try to imagine the alternative. A truly cylindrical banana. Perfectly smooth. No ridges, no seams, no clues. Just a polished yellow tube with all the helpful accessibility features designed out of it.

And suddenly it becomes clear that this would be a terrible idea.

You’d stand there, holding it, rotating it like a confused archaeologist. Where do you start? There’s no edge, no weak point, no hint. Just a continuous surface resisting all attempts at entry. You’d dig a thumbnail in, fail, escalate to a knife, and end up performing what feels like minor surgery on a piece of fruit.

The current banana, with its faintly pentagonal - or occasionally hexagonal if it’s feeling adventurous - peel, is quietly admitting something rather important. It is not there to satisfy your sense of symmetry. It is there to be opened without fuss.

Those ridges are not a failure. They are deliberate lines of weakness. Pre-installed access points. The equivalent of the little notch on a plastic packet that saves you from chewing through the corner like a Labrador.

Which does rather undermine the initial complaint. The peel doesn’t match the inside because matching the inside would make it worse.

It’s an inelegant solution to a practical problem, which is probably why it feels so familiar. Anyone who has ever added a slightly ugly bracket, cut a slot where a neat hole would have done, or left a panel a bit proud just so it can be removed again, will recognise the thinking.

The banana is not badly designed. It is designed by someone who has actually tried to open one.

I still check how many sides mine has before eating it. No idea why. It hasn’t changed the outcome so far.

Truth Social - A Brand Name in Search of a Product

There was a rather eye catching story this week about Meta being fined after a jury decided it had not exactly covered itself in glory over what happened on its platforms. Not a regulatory wrist slap, but an actual finding of liability, which is a slightly different kettle of fish. Real consequences, real money, and the faint suggestion that, at some point, someone might be expected to take responsibility for what is said and done under their roof.

Which does make you wonder, idly, what would happen if the same standard were applied elsewhere.

Take Truth Social, for instance. A name that sets out its stall rather boldly. Not "Possibly Accurate Social". Not "Depends What You Mean Social". No, straight in with "Truth", as if the thing had been personally blessed by a panel of philosophers, judges and disappointed schoolmasters.

Now, in law, of course, this is what they call puffery. A bit of marketing flourish. The sort of thing that allows "Best Coffee in Town" to be served lukewarm in a chipped mug without anyone summoning the authorities. No reasonable person is supposed to take it literally.

The trouble is that Donald Trump has spent so long treating facts as optional that the platform name no longer looks like branding. It looks like a joke that got out of hand. Not because everything he says is false. That would be too sweeping, and unlike him we should try to stay on speaking terms with reality. It is worse, in a way. Truth is never the standard. It is just one contestant among many, and usually not the one he backs.

That is the real problem. He does not merely get things wrong now and then, like the rest of us. He asserts things without evidence, repeats them after they have been debunked, and says the opposite later without the slightest sign that this should trouble anyone. Accuracy, in his world, is not a duty. It is a decorative extra, like chrome on an old American car.

So there is something deliciously absurd about a man with that relationship to truth presiding over something called Truth Social. It is a bit like opening a restaurant called Fresh Fish and serving Findus from the back of a freezer. Or launching a garage called Precision Engineering and attacking an engine with a lump hammer and misplaced confidence.

Legally, of course, nothing much can be done about the name. Courts are not going to sit there solemnly considering whether the word "Truth" created a binding obligation to tell it. They have enough to be getting on with. And so the law shrugs, quite reasonably, and says that branding is not a warranty.

Fair enough. But it does leave us in the faintly ridiculous position where Meta can be hammered for what happens on its platform, while Truth Social can carry on under a title that bears roughly the same relation to reality as "All You Can Eat" does after the third Yorkshire pudding.

So no, Trump does not lie every time he opens his mouth. Sometimes he says something true by accident, in the way a stopped clock manages a little moment of glory twice a day. The point is not that falsehood is literally constant. It is that truth is plainly not in charge.

And that, really, is the joke. It is called Truth Social, when "Reckless Assertion Depot" would be nearer the mark. But I suppose that did not test as well with the focus groups.