My long-standing theory of British general election results is that they are all deserved. This is true not just of big victories e.g. Labour in 1945 and 1997, the Conservatives in 1979 and 2019, but also of no-score draws, such as the two elections of 1974. In our system (though first-past-the-past sometimes exaggerates) the voters are, collectively, always right. Dare I turn this retrospective rule into a prediction? If I did, I would say that the Tories now deserve to lose, but that Labour does not deserve to win. Logic therefore demands a Labour lead but no overall majority.

Small British charities and voluntary groups are doing such good work in Ukraine, but being discouraged, and sometimes refused charitable status, by the Charity Commission. The Commission seems to have an ingrained preference for the charity ‘big boys’. It does not appreciate that little charities are much less self-protective in danger zones, thus reaching those in real trouble more quickly. I can now illustrate an aspect of this good work numerically. With a little help from me, Richard Lofthouse (of whom more later) has drawn up an inventory of British-based organisations supplying British 4x4s repurposed as field ambulances and other humanitarian vehicles to Ukraine. These organisations are, in no particular order: British-Ukrainian Aid, 243 vehicles; car4Ukraine, 170; Drive Aid to Ukraine, 43; Jeeps for Peace, 105; EM Rogers (a transport company acting philanthropically), c.30; Prytula Volunteer Hub, 60 +; Pick-ups for Peace, 160; Mighty Convoy, eight; Ukrainian Action, 200; Peterborough Cathedral, ten; Highlands for Ukraine, one (but lots of related medical and food aid too); Mission Ukraine (the one I have seen in action), 76; and an informal group of lawyers co-ordinated by Chris Pool, recently named Liberty Trucks Ukraine, 302. Total, inexact but not far off, 1,500 vehicles – and probably out of date already. This list of groups is almost certainly incomplete. Please let us know of other toilers in the field. The Charity Commission needs to recognise that oaks are growing out of acorns.

More on Richard Lofthouse, the compiler. I mentioned him in this column two weeks ago. Richard is trying to persuade the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to allow those handing in 4x4s for the Ulez scrappage to let their surrendered vehicles be given to Ukraine for such repurposing. This would not compromise non-commercial owners’ right to receive the scrappage compensation payment of up to £2,000. In this idea, Richard has the support of the Mayor of Kyiv, Vitali Klitschko, but Mr Khan’s people remain evasive. No one knows why. After all, helping the Ukrainian wounded would be a much better use for the vehicles than the scrapyard, not least because most of them are not, strictly speaking, scrap. They are working vehicles with MOTs whose life has been artificially cut short by Mr Khan’s policy. Why not let them do good work rather than just being crushed in a massive bonanza for scrap merchants? There must be more than 10,000 suitable 4x4s waiting on the Mayor’s death row. The average field ambulance in Ukraine lasts fewer than six weeks, so the need remains huge and the vehicles’ end would be glorious. Charities, not Transport for London, could pay the small scrapyard fees owed to owners by the scrapyard themselves. Couldn’t Sadiq Khan at least run a pilot scheme?

A friend who banks with Coutts wrote to the bank after the Nigel Farage affair to ask whether it had done research on his own opinions and about the implications of its ‘B Corp’ status, the kitemark of wokery to which businesses are encouraged to aspire. Some of what the B Corp advocates is the sort of concern for staff, customers and the public good which any company should show, but it is much more political than that, as the Farage affair exemplified. As B Corp UK’s ‘B Lab’ explains on its website, its strategy ‘is rooted in the global Theory of Change, aiming to redefine the role of business within our economic system so that every business is a force for good’. This redefinition includes words such as ‘inclusive’, ‘equitable’ and ‘regenerative’ as weapons of political action. Their interpretation can become coercive: ‘In addition to meeting high standards of social and environmental performance as a Certified B Corp, you must also meet the B Corp Legal Requirement which reflects your company’s commitment to a triple bottom line of people, planet and profit.’ After several put-offs and ignoring of emails, my friend eventually received a reply from Coutts, saying that no research had been done on him: ‘Rest assured this [the Farage farrago] isn’t a reflection of our wider bank culture.’ A ‘thorough and independent review into recent events’ was in progress, it said. Feeling that he was being given ‘stock stuff’ about Coutts’s practices, my friend also talked to rival private banks, Hoare’s and Weatherbys, to see what they might offer. He reports that, ‘they are as bad as Coutts, and both champion their B Corp status’. I suspect many businesses grab B Corp status as protection against social media attacks. I think potential customers, such as my friend, are right to ask where all this is leading.

Before the age of 70, you fall. After it, you ‘have a fall’. When I first noticed this distinction, it irritated me, because it seemed to deny agency to the fallen. As I observe old people more closely, however – and approach the threshold myself – I see the phrase reflects reality. A 50-year-old falling probably does it out of haste or carelessness. He/she often has some choice in the matter. An 80-year-old, however, often has the unpleasant experience of somehow existing separate from his/her body. The spirit is willing, but the flesh goes its own stupid way. So yes, when you are old, a fall is not you, but something happening to you.