Goings-on in the BP boardroom: WTF?

BP is a genuine puzzle.  How can an enormous company of considerable long standing with some seriously impressive attributes, be so maladroit in its senior appointments?  With the summary eviction of Mr Manifold[1], BP will have had 3 chairs and 5 CEOs since 2020, and a heap of embarrassment.  This is a crazy level of volatility at the top.

It's not a company I have definitive views on; but inevitably I have had loads of dealings with them over my decades in the industry.  (They offered me a job once: but I didn't want to move to Japan.)  Here are some observations.

• Although superficially they might all look pretty similar, big multinational oil companies aren't remotely all operating under the same business model.  We can map out a spectrum.  At one end we have Exxon - fundamentally centred on building and managing physical assets; i.e. engineer-driven, and deeply suspicious of finance & trading activity, which it minimises very purposefully.  At the other end,  BP  - plenty of capable engineers and physical assets, but also exceptionally capable and commercially active traders and finance types.  At these two extremes on the spectrum, the respective P&L and balance sheets aren't very similar.[2]  
• BP has shown itself somewhat prone to accommodating the woke agenda.  The 'Beyond Petroleum' rebrand dates as far back as 2000, under the proto-scandalous John Browne[3], so that until recently the eco-'green' stuff was fairly prominent in the business, almost as much as the traditional 'green stuff'.  They have also made several 'questionable' appointments of females at very exalted levels, IMHO for the sole purpose of having wimmin in senior jobs because at least a couple of them are self-evidently not up to the job.
• More generally, they seem to hire outsiders for top jobs far more than is usual in the industry.  Really confident big companies of long standing place far more trust in promotion from the ranks of their long-term employees - rightly or wrongly. [4]
• However, the boardroom nonsense of all kinds clearly hasn't been at the expense of their trading prowess.  And overall, I have a fair degree of respect for the senior working-level management of the company across the board, who mostly seem to get on with business in an intelligent and competent way.

All that doesn't lead me to any firm conclusions about BP's future.  But the company has been such a major part of the UK business scene for so long, I have to believe many C@W readers will have well-informed perspectives on the company.  So - the floor is yours.

ND

UPDATE:  Someone pointed out to me that I couldn't possibly have been referring to Meg O'Neill, and they were right.  I wasn't.  She's good.

_________________

[1]  Cue the obvious jokes about Manifold sins and wickedness ...

[2]  Shell, incidentally, is pretty much bang in the middle

[3]  Scandal notwithstanding, Browne was a serious oil man.  He called the market correctly in 1997, judging $10 to be the bottom (when the Economist was suggesting $6 was coming) and bought Amoco. 

Arco and BurmahCastrol at the absolute bottom of the market, doubling the size of BP.  That's impressively good business judgment - speculative, but based on solid knowledge, experience and instinct, rather than a bought-in price forecast from some 'econometrics' outfit. 

[4]  The pros and cons of this can of course be argued at length: maybe for another post.

How long can Russia keep this up?

An odd barb sometimes thrown in this blog's direction (from who-knows-what troll factory) is that since Russia's invasion of Ukraine four years ago (four!) we have been predicting the imminent collapse of Russia itself.  Well, we haven't.  Ever.  In fact, right from the start we have said that ultimately there's nothing to stop Putin taking Ukraine if he really wants to - which, if anything, was far too generous to L'il Volodya and his ramshackle army.  Further, we've always remarked that the Russian capacity for enduring privation and general suffering should never be underestimated. 

But it is beginning to look as though Putin's stamina is waning.  There are so many straws in the wind: in no particular order -

• the 'victory' parade, hugely-reduced in scale and betraying obvious fears for its security, to the point where Putin could be humiliated (the word used by Russian milbloggers) by Zelenskyy's gracious 'permission' to go ahead with the parade
• widespread and debilitating fuel shortages, courtesy of Ukraine's remarkable drone campaign ...
•  ... which, incidentally, has - yet again - blithely crossed one of Russia's stated nuclear red lines in terms of its scale ("the massive launch / take-off of aerospace attack weapons ... and their crossing of the state border of the Russian Federation")
• Russia's re-engagement with US negotiators, with the usual risible sabre-rattling
• the background PR planning for a sudden 'declaration of victory' - even based on today's status quo, if necessary
• serious domestic discontent at frequent blocking of the www and the (supposedly) imminent closure of access to Telegram, all in the name of 'security'
• internal dismay at the Hungarian election result, adding to keenly-felt impotence over Syria / Cuba / Venezuela
• serious economic issues, macro and micro - see below
• angst over the pitiful battlefield performance thus far in 2026 - zero net progress** in the spring/summer offensive campaign (intended to capture the remaining Donbass territory by autumn: Kkarkiv, Kherson and Odessa are rarely mentioned these days); casualty rates exceeding enlistments; and Ukraine has achieved, at least for now, superiority in the 'battlefield air interdiction' (BAI) stakes, courtesy of its swarms of very smart drones and their equally smart deployment in Russia's immediate rear, over and above the deeper oil refinery campaign 
• etc etc: I could go on.

Oh, and on the global scale, no joy from Xi on the long (very long)-awaited deal for more gas sales to China, a farce that we've often written about here in the past - check the 'Gazprom' tag - another serious strategic disappointment.

Even so, I still don't reckon on near-term "collapse", or defenestration of Putin.  He has plenty of tools to prevent either.  But I do say he's now beginning to think seriously in terms of an off-ramp: and many powerful people in Russia are even more seriously trying to get this to the top of the agenda.

In the midst of it all, the IISS has published this sober analysis.  It doesn't predict imminent collapse either; but it does set out the genuine problems and major dilemma Putin faces.  Between now and Xmas, I'm guessing we'll see recognisable, tangible movement taking place - in one direction or another.

ND 

________________

** Ukraine has in fact started making systematic small-scale territorial (re)gains all over the front, which in recent weeks have been larger than Russia's own small territorial gains.  On both sides these are to be understood in context: they are trivial in extent - largely infiltration sorties - and essentially opportunist in nature.  But there's a big difference: Russia's are intended, and indeed celebrated, as purposeful steps towards the taking of the Donbass; i.e. they are meant to be strategic.  Ukraine's, by contrast, are tactical spoiling measures - highly disruptive for any coherent Russian offensive this year.  But if they do indeed have that effect, they add up to having an important strategic consequence.

Jury trials, for and against

Photo: BBC

A bit of a plate-spinner here, pre-scheduled.  I⁴'ve been meaning to open this one up for a while now but, well, events.

So:  judge-only trials for criminal offences?  OK, Lammy isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer [1] but then again, Justice Delayed is Justice Denied; and the backlog in the courts is appalling.  Balancing the system by waiting for victims and witnesses to lose heart (or die) is no way to dispense justice.  The guilty go free by default and simple delaying tactics.

But hey, if it's me in the dock, there are circumstances in which I probably want a jury; and I think most people agree.  And, although it's strictly irrelevant to the criminal cases I'm most concerned with, I was once party to a massive civil case in the commercial courts which in the USA would have been heard by a jury, and (all parties agreed [2]) would definitely have gone only one way - but here, being heard only by a single judge, it went the other way on a judicial whim over an odd technicality, and required overturning at Appeal.

I reckon we know where the blame lies, not least in the shocking reduction in funding for the CJS by the Tories: and covid didn't help; nor the latitude given to defence lawyers to waste time - one of the juries I sat on (a murder trial) saw some remarkable time-wasting being accommodated, albeit testily, by the judge.  Somebody has to address the situation, somehow - under whatever leadership.

So what can we agree on?

• truly, the backlog has got to be addressed decisively
• we've long ago sold the pass on really nasty terrorist cases (N.Ireland, where the threat to juries is chillingly real - and that might spread across more of the realm in years to come, you don't need me to paint the scenarios)
• having sat on three juries, I tremble at the thought of jury trials for complex cases of fraud & the like
• hey, I'm an old soldier and know all about summary justice at first hand: it has to be a very serious offence before it gets anywhere near a Court Martial [3]
• so like taxation, it's already happened, & how much more in future is all a matter of degree

What else then, does t'readership think on this most critical of issues for a society supposedly built on the rule of law? [4] 

ND

____________

[1]   And nowadays it seems to be OK to point this out: everyone else does.  This has surprised me somewhat.  I had several accounts of what a good impression Lammy made in a handful of trips to the USA in 2023/24.  But there we have it - by common consent, the man's a laughing stock.  Pity he's in charge of this difficult issue.

[2]  So clear was this to all concerned that the party which won at First Instance was desperate to have the case heard in England, and they succeeded.  Conversely, the other party had tried equally desperately to have it heard in the USA.  Some $400m was at stake. 

[3]  For any US readers, in the British Armed Forces we don't term regimental-level justice a 'CM': it's a term reserved for full military trials with defence counsel etc.  (No juries, though: an experienced panel.)  At the regimental level or below ('CO's Orders' or 'OC's Orders'), evidence is taken, but it's summary justice, CO = judge-and-jury.  As my first Sergeant Major explained, the process is straightforward:  "March the guilty party in.  Find the guilty party 'Guilty'.  March the guilty party out."  GP will be invited to elect for CM, but it never happens: Sergeant Major makes sure of that, too.  Oh no, son, you don't want that.  You definitely don't want that.

[4]  I shan't open up an episode of History Corner on you - Henrys I and II, Edward I, and Henry VII 

Streeting will land us with Miliband

I'm off on a short hol, but I leave you with my view - a prediction that has been simmering for 18 months, as you know (check the Mili tag).

• It's clear enough why Streeting might feel his only chance (ever) is to move now
• He may get 80 signatures, but he won't get elected
• Not sure if Starmer will stand and fight - John Major did (and won), but that was different in material ways
• In any case, if Streeting moves, Miliband wins

Have fun.   If I can find some wifi in a few days time, I might join in.

ND

________________

PS: the lefties at Novara are often quite good on lefty stuff, but made a really ridiculous assessment on Tuesday evening.  They said Miliband doesn't fly "because he's been rejected by the electorate before".  FFS!

1. The electorate ain't being consulted
2. errr ... Harold Wilson 1974?
3. errr ... Donald Trump 2024?
4. - plus loads of French and Italian politicians who think nothing of going round for a second bite  

PPS:  Rayner's 11th-hour "exoneration" is pretty damn' convenient, eh???  For Starmer as well as for her.  Sounds to me like the story of McSweeney's 'phone: nobody's gonna believe it. 

Stonewall Starmer goes full 'Sierra'

Not as much fun as you thought?

Having long suggested that Team Starmer fully intends to tough it out - and they had plenty of advanced notice and planning time [1] for this crisis, at least - that's how it still seems, & strongly so, at the time of writing.  There's only one oven-ready candidate in the wings, with no "anyone but [Wes]" votes against him: our old pick Ed Miliband.  

Team S is pursuing what I call the Sierra Strategy when I'm strategising in business.  Recall the Ford jallopy of that name?  Having had many years of consummate success with its predecessor, the smart rust-bucket Cortina line[2], Marks 1-4, Ford went for a fairly 'bold' new look.  The 'jelly-mould' hatchback found immediate disfavour, and despite the usual launch promotions sales were not good.

Ford had a massive call to make:  re-skin and rebrand it fairly promptly with as much commercial dignity as possible, or double down.  They doubled down with massive corporate determination.  Advertising, deep discounts, promotions of all kinds, a smarter Ghia variant that was half-decent - everything in the marketing man's book of tricks.  For several years!  Dunno what this campaign cost, or how the counterfactual might have played out: but in terms of sheer brute force to get the Sierra into the top 3 or 4 UK best-sellers, they succeeded.  And that's Starmer now.

PS, Miliband is sitting there trying to figure his optimum positioning for picking up the crown when it falls.  And a coronation is what he wants: no knife-job.  My guess?  At the critical moment, he offers Starmer Foreign Secretary and a big Euro-push mandate.  Kier, we can both make history together ...     

PPS  If you think Starmer is stonewalling impressively, just watch Trump between now and the mid-terms.  He'll be looking at everything from conjuring a genuine crisis in order to call them off, to calling the results void - and calling out the National Guard in every state that returns a Dem.    

ND  

_________________

[1]  E.g. the timing of the King's Speech

[2]  The Mk 1 started life as just the plain 'Consul'.  Didn't play ideally, so they changed it to 'Consul Cortina' (as opposed to its predecessor the 'Consul Classic'.  See, these Ford guys were always sharp with marketing-based solutions. 

Election: while we wait for full results ...

 ... here's what happened in my manor (Croydon) in the Elected Mayor stakes:

Yup, at first glance it appears Reform dented the Tories a lot less than the Greens dented Labour.

It was an interesting campaign.  The Tory Mayor (whose majority last time was even slimmer) is a solid, worthy and honourable guy, who was dealt a dreadful hand by the outgoing Labour regime that had bankrupted the borough to what I believe to be the deepest degree in the annals of UK local government failures.  The least one could say is, he stabilised things: more positively, he made the best of a bad hand, broke some crazy impasses and has made some visible improvements.  But he has been subject of a relentless and dishonest sniping campaign (hey, it's politics), not by the official Labour opposition leadership - who publicly paid due regard to the fact it was their predecessors that brought the town low - but by a rather by the young woman councillor who eventually became Labour's (losing) mayoral candidate.

She's a bit of an object lesson.  She thoroughly suborned the widely-read local website, Inside Croydon, which started life as a fairly even-handed platform but latterly became her mouthpiece - presumably by her giving it a great deal of her attention including, allegedly (let her sue if she dares), leaking a lot of Council stuff to them.  She also ran a fairly adroit social meejah campaign; and put herself about the town bigly wearing bright red coats, to the extent her personal recognition factor was quite astonishingly high for a local politician.  She promised all things to all people (naturally) and there were no surprises whatsoever when Labour adopted her as their candidate.  Based on all this, very many people - and most certainly Inside Croydon (noticeably reticent this morning, haha) - bruited it about that she'd win easily, in spite of Starmer.  After all, the demographics of this "diverse" London borough seem strongly to favour Labour anyway, and we have no history of third parties whatsoever since the last of the "Residents and Ratepayers" candidates were elected more than 40 years ago. 

But here we are.  How so?  

(a) the Tories waged a fairly adroit campaign themselves.  (Running as "Local Conservatives" was a good start.)  Somehow, on our canvass returns, some bright spark took it upon themselves to classify electors into "anyone but Reform" or "anyone but Labour" - I'm not sure how - and voters got personalised letters accordingly.  The "abL" letter was signed by the single most well-known and admired woman in the borough, a long-time Labour stalwart and councillor of 36 years who has for decades been an omnipresent and ultra-personable networker at civic and civic-related occasions, and a tireless, nay saintly, and highly entrepreneurial charity worker.  She has long been vocally disgusted at the behaviour of said Labour mayoral candidate-woman, and gave the Tory her glowing endorsement.  In a 1,000-vote majority, I'm guessing her backing alone made the 500-voter difference.

(b) as reported earlier, Reform here are, in the immortal words of Father Jack, a shower of bastards, and certainly not sufficiently organised to take a fatal bite out of the Tories.  (Farage even cancelled a campaign visit when the infighting made it look to o risky for him.)  A better-run Reform effort could have made serious inroads into the vast traditional white working-class estate of New Addington (meriting 5 councillors - that's big) where even the Tories often have success.  At the time of writing, we haven't had the councillor results through, so maybe they did; we'll see.  But whatever, it wasn't enough to impact the mayoral outcome.

(c) as also written here before (in the context of the 2011 riots) the population of Croydon is quite exceptionally diverse and, unusually, no single ethnic group predominates.  If anything, it's black and Tamil, with Hindu and Moslem in the mix: but the latter not in remotely such numbers as make it a Green prospect (there aren't lots of "young unemployed graduates" either) - just enough to take a fair bite out of Labour in a close race.  Also, the Tories have long had very decent representation among all these groups (and the Poles) excepting possibly the Moslems - though we did have a very prominent Tory Moslem Deputy Mayor; and the blacks are very split between progressives and deeply, deeply socially conservative (= hostile to LGBTIQX+Y). 

So there we have it.  A story of just one specific local situation.  But it could very well be that local situations will be more of a factor in English politics going forward, than ever before. 

More on the overall results when we have them, no doubt.

ND

UPDATE - Croydon remains 'no overall control' - but that's a misnomer in this borough as the executive remains in the hands of the (Tory) elected mayor.  Though given that the Commissioners are in, because of the bankruptcy, even he lacks genuine control.  Other aspects:

• Minimal impact by Reform is confirmed but they did get 2 of the 5 New Addington seats (see above) 
• Kier Starmer's 20-something niece, parachuted in from absolutely nowhere with the ink still wet on her membership card, secured a seat (involving the deselection of a pretty reasonable Labour incumbent councillor and no selection process at all, needless to say) 
• Mark Adderley, husband of Nadia Sawalha, is returned as a Green despite being suspended for allegedly antisemitic remarks (and not just a few).

All good Toytown fun.

FINAL UPDATE:  here's the map.  Geo-explanation (see also above):

• the wedge on the eastern side is the mighty New Addington estate: when I was on the council, donkeys years ago, it was Labour's last and final bastion when the 'Falklands Factor' reduced them to a tiny rump.  Since then, Labour have retreated to the northern end of the estate - terraces of '60s houses & flats, 'diverse' occupants.  The Tories have worked hard on the trad white / mostly houses / right-to-buy southern end: we finally took it a few years ago but now Reform have taken over.  The only surprise is, that's about all they managed.
• The stripy top north-east sector is Crystal Palace and its lower slopes: it's gentrifying fast, with the result you see.  Labour being squeezed out accordingly, into ...
• ... the western wilds of 'Fort Neaf' (Thornton Heath) and Norbury, where I grew up.  NOT gentrified - yet - but look at Brixton!
• the rest: essentially aspirational of whatever colour or creed; plenty of successful first-generation wealth and easily recruited for the Tory cause, as can be seen from the colouring.  The odd LibDem occasionally sneaks in.

In sum: if the Tories can weather the multi-decade 'urbanisation' of the north of the borough while the gentrification spreads west and south from the top corner, there's no reason to give up on being politically competitive here; and the ghastly 8 years 2014-2022 when Labour had total control and bankrupted the place, could seem like an aberration.  Demographics, eh?

And something of a lesson with wider application?

Conjuring Putin's "Victory" out of thin air: a masterclass

Further to last week's post, Trump and Putin: making up war aims on the fly, I had intended to offer my own suggestions for an "Absolute Victory26" framing within which Putin can declare successful completion of his inane war, and call everyone back home for tea, medals, and of course a proper Victory Parade with real tanks, as opposed to the demeaning Dad's Army spectacle they are reduced to this year. 

In the meantime, something much better than my own poor efforts has emerged: a professional Kremlin strategy document [1] entitled "After Victory" on how to allow L'il Volodya his glorious day on the parade rostrum any time he cares to call it quits.  What, in bullet-points, are the declarations Russia will make that, they'll claim, add up to absolute victory?  It's referred to in the doc as "The Image of Victory" which pretty much captures what these PR men are up to.  And it meets my test of "essentially in the bag already", i.e. could be delivered tomorrow, if desired. 

I'll summarise here the proposed approach, which is quite evidently the work of some genuinely strategic thinkers:  

• 'De-Nazification' has been achieved by the deaths of so many Ukrainian soldiers [2]
• Putin has thwarted the West's plans to expand and prolong the conflict
• Victory has been achieved over a much stronger opponent than Ukraine - the "collective West"
• No longer will the West provocatively test Russia's strength
• The EU has been dealt a major economic blow
• There are territorial conquests; seizure of natural resources; a land route to the Crimea and the coast of the Sea of Azov (new holiday resorts!); and the acquisition of millions of new Russian-speaking fellow citizens
• A 'humanitarian catastrophe' was prevented in the Donbas: Russia has protected its own
• The Russian army is now 'the most combat-ready in the whole world' and has withstood confrontation with '50 countries'
• Thanks to sanctions, Russian industry has developed new capabilities and markets
• All this without general mobilisation!

Plus some conditional stuff relating to what a deal with the west might look like in terms of a final territorial settlement and sanctions lifted. [3] 

It wouldn't be hard to dispute and/or mock some of these if taken at face value - not quite the capture of Kyiv, or the expulsion of Zelensky, or, errrr, unconditional surrender, eh?  And this from the heirs of the conquerors of the Wehrmacht at Berlin '45 ...  

But that's not the point.  In its own right this is serious stuff: I can only applaud the competence of these strategising Kremlin PR-merchants.  They should be offering their services to Trump.  For a fat fee.  A 'Deal', wouldn't you think?

ND

________________

[1] One always needs to ask "are we be played here?" - of course - but this one doesn't have that feel to it at all.  There might be one subtlety: the doc is a signal to the West: "see, we have an off-ramp - so let's get round that table and we'll find a way to call it quits".  Maybe.

[2] Recall that de-Nazification of the whole body politic was one of only two stated war aims at the outset: so, silent here on regime change, of course.  The other was, ahem, de-militarisation of Ukraine ...  

[3] They assume Russia gets Donbas + existing gains in the south (parts of Kherson & Zaporizhia), but relinquishes gains in the north (around Kharkiv and Sumy): and that US sanctions are lifted but not EU

Today's elections: a small prediction

A subject we've touched on before is the stupidity of Starmer thinking that giving votes to 16- and 17-year olds will boost Labour's prospects.  Must have seemed a good idea when Team Starmer were plotting back in 2021-2, but the rise of Green and Turquoise tik-tok populism must surely have given them pause, even before we mention Andrew Tate and 'Amelia'.

But of course in Scotland and Wales, teens do indeed get the vote.

I'm betting Team Starmer will be analysing the demographics of today's voting patterns very, very carefully before proceeding with this particular manifesto promise. 

(And indeed Team Successor, if Starmer really is for the chop.  Though it it's to be the gurning Miliband, he really fancies himself on titk-tok.  For some reason.) 

ND

Polanski riding for a well-deserved fall

Whenever "Tommy Robinson" appears in the meejah it is customary to add "whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon".  But somehow it never seems necessary to add "real name David Paulden" to mentions of that remarkable political chameleon and all-round showman "Zack Polanski".

Part of this is to do with the meejah's unfailing instinct to be ultra-hesitant when contemplating a hatchet job on a new, rising political star who might one day hold the reins of power; and who even in the shorter term might not be willing to grant interviews etc if they are treated unkindly.  Well, Zach certainly qualified for this auto-deference all through his meteoric rise to prominence last year.  So of course did Kier Starmer, on an industrial scale, all through 2022-24.  Even Farage still gets a bit of auto-deference, and there's nothing new-fangled about him - just his remarkable lead in the polls.

But all these happy honeymoons come to an end.  Starmer was rapidly turned on with a combination of fury and glee by even the 'left/liberal' meejah: they knew they'd been duped, and he wasn't long in office before he presented them with plenty of pretext.    

And surely, "Polanski" has it coming soon - even when the Greens do well this week.

Because he's quite clearly a ... real piece of work, as well as being as slippery as a greased eel.  The Economist recently did a neat, gentle, but highly pointed mini-hatchet job on his being an "ego-surfing" social media narcissist-obsessive, and extremely thin-skinned and vengeful with it.  Have a read - there's lots going on beneath the surface there.  Clearly plenty in the meejah have got his number and are just waiting.

And there have been other straws in the wind.  A while back he did a podcast with the Rest is Politics team where they bounced him with a totally legitimate question on which economists guide his thinking on financial policy.  Clearly caught out, he blustered ineffectually - pretty damning for the leader of a would-be major party.  Afterwards, Rory Stewart let it be known that in the post-interview wrap-up, "Polanski" rounded on them and said (my recollection here) something to the effect of "Hey, why didn't you tell me you were going to ask that?  You know I'm just a showman: I'd have boned up on it it you'd told me".  

Is anyone surprised?

And for all his breezy hyper-adroitness on the stump, he's relentlessly digging holes for himself, presumably based on that thin-skinned egoism which seems to come with a strong aversion for being seen to back down.  He's lied about, but not totally resiled from, his "bust-boosting hypnotism" past.  And note the "not happy about unarmed coppers kicking murderous knifeman" episode of last week: he's crafted a clever-clever faux-apology but is clearly intending to maintain and even pursue the substance of his intervention.  

I think we know which of his constituencies he reckons this is a dog-whistle for (with May 7 just around the corner): but he ain't gonna get far with this line of sectarian adventurism before some hefty pushback. 

Have a care with the wording of any BTL contributions.  I'll let you know if this post gets taken down! 

ND