Uk politics

Every year closes with ‘fury’ as the press reacts to yet another honour for a ‘mandarin’ who has been doing something they disagree with, and 2016 is no exception. This year’s villainous recipient of a gong is Sir Mark Lowcock, Permanent Secretary of the Department for International Development. Much of the anger directed as Lowcock’s gong is really frustration with the government’s policy on aid spending, which is that 0.7 per cent of national income is spent on development projects around the world every year. That’s not Lowcock’s decision, but something that the Coalition Government introduced and that this majority Conservative Government under David Cameron and then Theresa May has remained committed to.

It’s rare that an opinion poll brings a tear to my eye. But this week one did. It was the CNN/ComRes poll published on Monday. It found that 47 per cent of British adults would vote Leave if the EU referendum was held today, and 45 per cent would vote Remain (eight per cent said they didn’t know how they’d vote). This means, as the CNN headline put it, that ‘Six months on, Brits stand by EU referendum decision’. Leavers haven’t budged. Regrexit is a myth. Even after months of being branded as idiots, libelled as racists, and charged with bringing about a hike in hate crime and possibly the end of decent politics as we knew it, Leavers remain devoted to their choice, convinced of their cause.

Yesterday, the Scottish government published its ‘plan’ for life after Brexit. It was, at 60 or so pages, more detailed than anything we have yet seen from Theresa May’s ministry. But then it would be, given that Nicola Sturgeon will not be leading the UK’s negotiations as and when they begin. Still, plenty of nationalists crowed that, whatever else might be said of the Scottish government’s document, at least Sturgeon has a plan. But so did Baldrick.  That a plan exists does not make it a good plan. Or even an achievable one. And since we are still in the early stages of the Brexit waiting game the Scottish government’s proposals have the advantage of novelty but freshness is not enough either.

‘So… was that a yes or a no?’ A number of MPs on the Liaison Committee asked the Prime Minister that question during her evidence question today. They weren’t doing it to make a point: Theresa May spent most of the hour and a half stubbornly answering a set of questions that she had clearly decided in advance with lines also decided in advance, regardless of whether those questions were very close at all to the ones being asked in the Committee room. She was most opaque on the question of whether Parliament will get a vote on Brexit, circling around the issue by listing the opportunities for MPs to discuss Brexit.

Theresa May looking embarrassed and awkward as European leaders appear to make a point of ignoring her at last night’s EU summit is such a good symbol of Britain’s place in the world that Number 10 is going to struggle to shake it. The footage, of course, was rather selective, with other clips showing the Prime Minister deep in conversation with European colleagues. But the picture plays in to anxieties about Britain’s standing after Brexit, and also anxieties about whether May will really be able to sweet talk EU leaders into giving her the deal that she wants. The Prime Minister told leaders that she wanted an early deal on the status of Britons who live in Europe and EU citizens who live in the UK.

Sleaford wasn’t terribly good for Labour, was it? Nor indeed Richmond Park. Sleaford was never very Labour friendly – although, even given that, the party’s performance was staggeringly abject. Richmond has not been historically Labour-friendly – but given its current trajectory, towards the achingly liberal and affluent London upper class, you might have expected a better performance than the one they turned in (with an excellent candidate, incidentally, in Christian Wolmar). It has long been a given that Labour will lose vast numbers of seats in the north of England (and the midlands), in a similar fashion to its capitulation, north of the border, to the SNP.

In the chaos after the Brexit vote, no one really noticed when Theresa May adopted an odd position on EU nationals*. Throughout the campaign, everyone – from Ukip to the Lib Dems, Boris Johnson to Andy Burnham – had been clear that the Brexit debate was not about deporting anyone. Those EU nationals who were in Britain should stay here. In a fractious debate, it was a note of rare consensus: no one's status was in question. But days after the referendum, the then Home Secretary sat down on Robert Peston’s sofa and suggested that EU nationals might not be safe after all, and that she might use them as bargaining chips in her negotiation. (A plan which would later backfire badly.) It was baffling, bizarre and – to many - appalling.

Want proof of how bad things are for Labour? Jeremy Corbyn and his disastrous leadership is not even its biggest problem anymore. I write in The Sun that Labour’s biggest problem, and it is potentially an existential one, is that its reaction to the Brexit vote is threatening to make it a political irrelevance More than 60 percent of Labour seats voted to leave the EU. In these constituencies, being the party that is trying to block Brexit would be electoral suicide. That’s why the Labour leadership felt compelled to accept the government’s amendment this week saying Theresa May should start the formal, two-year process for leaving the EU by the end of March. But Labour MPs in heavily Remain seats have different interests.

461 MPs have just voted for Theresa May to invoke Article 50 by the end of March. The Tory amendment to Labour’s opposition day motion passed comfortably with only 89 MPs opposing it—and Ken Clarke the only Tory amongst them with 20-odd Labour Mps joining the SNP and the Lib Dems in voting against. Now, this vote is not binding and if the government loses its appeal to the Supreme Court will not be sufficient to satisfy the courts. But it does indicate that the government will be able to get an Article 50 bill through the Commons without too much trouble. It does make you wonder why Theresa May didn’t simply ask parliament to pass an Article 50 resolution before the Gina Miller case made it to the High Court.