Brexit

Not for the first time, Theresa May's words on Brexit are coming back to haunt her. The PM once famously said that no deal is better than a bad deal. But in the Commons just now, Labour MP Peter Kyle had this to say to the PM: 'Isn't it true that no Prime Minister is better than a bad Prime Minister?' Mr S thinks that Kyle has a point. But given that the Labour MP is no fan of the party's leader, does his logic also apply to the prospect of a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn?

I may have spoken too soon when I predicted that the Daily Mail might not suffer from its Brexit volte-face. At the Daily Telegraph’s Christmas charity phone-in last Sunday, I was struck by how many donating readers mentioned the Mail’s desertion, and by reports of recruitment by the Telegraph of disconsolate Mail readers. There are rumours that the Mail’s new editor, Geordie Greig, has personally rung to plead with readers who are cancelling their subscriptions. Geordie is a charming man, but obviously he cannot speak to all the disgruntled tens of thousands. The Mail has chosen to switch from an insurgent to an establishment position just when that establishment is more discredited than at any time since the 1930s.

Key Cabinet Ministers are urging Theresa May to avoid a vote on her Brexit deal on Tuesday night. I report in The Sun this morning that they fear that if it goes ahead, the government will lose by a margin so large that it could bring the whole thing crashing down. One Secretary of State tells me that it would be ‘group suicide’ to press ahead with the vote. Number 10 say that no decision on whether to find a way to avoid the vote has been taken yet; senior figures there say that decision will not be taken until Monday. But they do admit that they are making little headway in trying to quell this rebellion. One Cabinet Minister tells me that they are heading for a three-figure defeat.

An Oxford professor's claim that it was “very likely” that  overspending by Vote Leave swung the referendum for Brexit has taken off like wildfire. Professor Philip Howard's analysis made the front page of yesterday's Independent under the headline: 'Illegal Facebook spending 'won 2016 vote for Leave''. So do the numbers behind the headline add up? Prof Howard, director of the Oxford Internet Institute, calculated that: Around 80 million Facebook users saw the Vote Leave campaign ads on social media during the period of excess spending; 10 per cent of users clicked through; 10 per cent of those users switched their vote as a result, giving over 800,000 switched voters. This argument falls at each hurdle.