Uk politics

Does Theresa May understand what life is like for the just-managing families she purports to stand for? The Tory party has seen a fair bit of snipping over the past few days over whether the Prime Minister’s £995 Amanda Wakeley trousers, which she wore for a newspaper interview and was then ridiculed about by one of the Cabinet ministers she sacked. Nicky Morgan told the Times that ‘I don’t think I’ve ever spent that much on anything apart from my wedding dress’ and that the pricey garb had been ‘noticed and discussed’ in party circles. You might expect that in order to look the part on the world stage, a leader would want to ensure his clothes were well-tailored and impressive.

Even I can’t say I’m upset that Zac Goldsmith has lost his seat. For the last few days, now, my journey into work has been an assault course created by cheery Liberal Democrat activists campaigning in Richmond - they earned their victory. Not once did I see anyone campaigning for Zac Goldsmith. Not that I wanted to see any of them:  this whole by-election was an elaborate hissy fit by Zac. Voters were being used as political props, to add extra theatricality to his flouncing out of the Tory Party. If he wanted to resign the whip to fight Heathrow, he should have done so. But to resign his seat and stand again put everyone to the trouble of having to vote again – it was an act of self-indulgence that was rightly punished by voters.

One of the crueller caricatures in the 2004 satirical film ‘Team America: World Police’ is a little puppet of Matt Damon who is only able to say ‘Matt Damon’ in a rather feeble and pointless fashion. The actor himself felt he was being cruelly parodied because of his opposition to the Iraq War, and was ‘bewildered’ by the suggestion that he was barely able to say his own name when he was able to learn entire scripts. But the point from the screenwriters seemed to be that beyond his own name, Damon wasn’t really offering anything to the debate about the war. Labour has a Matt Damon problem on immigration at the moment.

The news that Theresa May offered to do a deal on expats – only to be rebuffed by Angela Merkel – is unsurprising. The Prime Minister has ended up in a pretty bad, unbecoming position on EU nationals using them as bargaining chips in a way that has appalled her critics (and even some of her supporters). So it’s not surprising that she wanted to get this awful business over with in her recent meeting with Merkel. She suggested: let’s just agree an EU-wide deal whereby everyone’s expats can stay where there are. But, again unsurprisingly, Merkel rebuffed her. Before their meeting, Merkel said publicly that they would not and could not talk about Brexit, due to the strict rule on not negotiating in any way until the invocation of Article 50.

When the pound plunged a few weeks ago, Andrew Marr opened his Sunday show by saying that this might be a good thing because ‘it had been too high for too long’. It was a minority opinion, and one not seen much in the hysterical reporting of the pound’s plunge. At the Spectator’s post-Autumn Statement briefing last week, kindly sponsored by Old Mutual Global Investors, we raised this a bit. The pound’s fall might make overseas holidays more expensive for Britons, but it also makes our goods far cheaper for the rest of the world. We worry about a worst-case WTO scenario of 10 per cent tariff on cars, for example, but a 13 per cent currency plunge rather makes up for that. So was the pound overvalued?

In the autumn statement, Philip Hammond chose to mock Boris’ failed leadership bid. This wasn’t the first time that one of the Foreign Secretary Cabinet’s colleagues had had a laugh at his expense. At our parliamentarian of the year awards, Theresa May joked that Boris would be put down when he was no longer useful. But Boris and his circle are getting rather fed up with him being the butt of the joke, as I say in The Sun today. Those close to Boris feel that these gibes undercut him on the world stage. 'If they want the UK to be taken seriously, they need to back him not mock him’ one close ally of his tells me.

'Theresa May and I have made it clear that we are very committed to returning the public finances to balance,' said Philip Hammond on the Today programme this morning. But his Autumn Statement did the reverse. It abolished the deadline for balancing the books, and talks instead about keeping the overspend to about 2pc of GDP. It’s a significant change, and a move away from austerity. The massive shift in debt, towards 90pc of GDP, is something he is choosing with his £23bn discretionary infrastructure splurge. To govern is to choose and as Nick Robinson rightly said, the Chancellor has chosen infrastructure over extra support for the ‘just about managing’.

Once, journalists trawled the Red Book (ie, the Budget statement) for stories. Now, the Office for Budget Responsibilities does this for us. There will be plenty in it for Brexiteers and Remainers. The former will be delighted that the OBR pretty much trashes the main assumptions made in HM Treasury’s now-notorious dossier on jobs, recession, house prices etc. But then again the OBR estimates a Brexit effect on the deficit: £3bn this year, peaking at £15.4bn in 2018/19. This has delighted Remain campaigners who now, at long last, have ammunition to write about the costs of Brexit - especially if you add the figures together and come up with a £50-odd billion Brexit effect. Expect plenty of this in the papers tomorrow.

This morning’s Marr show was something of a financial matter, with the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell sharing the sofa. As Andrew Marr pointed out, having the pair of Chancellors share a sofa is a ‘great tradition’, but one that had a stop put to it when George Osborne was in charge. Now the tradition has come back – but it this morning’s performance might be a good example of why Osborne chose to put a stop to it in the first place. The general consensus seems to be that McDonnell came out on top – with commenters saying that he ran rings around Hammond. Naturally, lots of the talk was about Brexit. But Hammond stayed fairly quiet on the topic, refusing to reveal the government’s negotiating cards.

Michael Gove makes a semi-persuasive case for patriotism in The Times this week. Brexit and Trumpism are largely just assertions of the basic, healthy human impulse to love one’s homeland, and to defy the international structures, and liberal sneering, that denigrate this impulse. The reality is that the moral status of patriotism depends on which nation you belong to. It depends whether your nation espouses liberal values. If it does, then your patriotism is linked to a wider-than-national creed. If it does, then your allegiance is also to an international cause: you respect and love your country as a particular expression of this creed. After fascism, the idea of national allegiance subtly shifted in the West.