Ross Clark

I always rather admired the airline pilot who managed to keep two marriages going, one on either side of the Atlantic. His job gave him the perfect excuse for his absences while avoiding the risk of an awkward moment if his two wives bumped into each other in the supermarket. But that is nothing compared with when I heard that a civil servant had been accused of holding down five public sector jobs at once, using the ability to work from home in order to disguise what he was up to. Without going into the ins and outs of that ongoing court case, it does rather raise the issue of civil service productivity. If we can end up with an employee accused of going on for months claiming several salaries, what does it say about the expectations placed on civil servants?

Has climate hysteria finally run its course? I ask because the latest Hollywood blockbuster on the subject seems to have bombed. Digger, in which Tom Cruise plays an oil tycoon so intent on drilling that he causes an ice shelf off Greenland to collapse, provoking climatic disaster, took only £6 million in its first weekend, not great when it needs £225 million of box office takings just to break even. According to seasoned observers it is on course to lose Warner Bros £185 million, which would make it one of the worst cinema disasters of all time. Not even an endorsement from Jane Fonda, who described it as ‘a new way to wake us up about climate change’ seems to have enticed the public. This didn't used to happen.

Zack Polanski’s failure to win the Holborn and St Pancras by-election is not just a disappointment; it undermines the Green party leader's entire strategy for his party and will inevitably bring his leadership into question. In a few months, Polanski has gone from being just about the most successful party leader of the moment to being the one who is surely now in greatest trouble. The entire point of Polanski’s tilting away from environmental issues towards Palestine was to exploit anger at what left-wing and Muslim voters perceive to be Labour’s soft attitude towards Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu and his war on Gaza. It was always going to run the risk of offending the lentil and sandal vote, the party’s terribly nice middle class voters.

You can almost feel John Selwyn Gummer, Zac Goldsmith and the rest of the Conservatives' green lobby quaking. Kemi Badenoch has incurred their wrath by proposing that the Environment Agency and Natural England be abolished. It is part of a package, which also involves the reduction in levies charged to housebuilders, which the Tories claim will reduce the cost of building a new home by £50,000. The pendulum has swung too far towards conservation and too far away from protecting homes and property I am not sure about that figure. House-building is also hampered by a skills shortages which will not be addressed by these measures; we will only solve that by eliminating the likes of gender studies courses at universities and by encouraging students onto bricklaying courses instead.

Exploiting more of our North Sea oil and gas reserves will make absolutely no difference to our energy security nor the prices we pay in the shops because the oil or gas would just be sold on international markets at the global price. We know this because Ed Miliband and others keep telling us so. Not for the first time, it has taken Donald Trump to expose the falseness of this argument. As I have written here before, it is obvious nonsense in the case of gas because there is no global gas price: wholesale prices are very regional, and are about three times as much in Europe as they are in the US.

Andy Burnham tells us that he left the House of Commons in 2017 because he was disillusioned with the place. It was not at all because he had lost the 2015 Labour leadership campaign to Jeremy Corbyn and fancied his chances of building a power base in the Manchester mayoralty, just as Boris Johnson had successfully done in London. But did he have to go and hide his head under a stone after he left Westminster? Burnham now seems to think that he has an answer to Brexit. Let’s discuss a slate of options and then all rally behind the consensus choice. 'We could stay as we are,' he told the Labour party conference: That’s definitely an option, if people think this is the right place to stay.

For Andy Burnham the biggest challenge is to avoid going down like Gordon Brown, who passed up the chance of calling an election in autumn 2007, when he was newly in office and public opinion of him was still quite high, only to crash to defeat two and a half years later. The memory of that time, when Burnham himself was health secretary, has no doubt fed into the reports that Downing Street advisers are considering the case for an election next spring. Has the moment of the progressive alliance finally arrived? The bad news for Burnham is that the decision is even more difficult for him than it was for Brown. He would be giving up a massive majority, and for what? Almost no one thinks that he can win any kind of majority.

Small boat arrivals are down a bit. Meanwhile, Reform UK has had a difficult year over its donations and seen its vote eaten into by Restore Britain. Compound this with the arrival of a prime minister more energetic and popular than the last one and it has become possible to imagine Labour winning the next election – and with a healthy majority. On the other hand, it is possible to see the cavalry arriving over the hill to bolster Nigel Farage’s troops – in the shape of the slavery reparations movement. The potential of slavery reparations to throw a hand grenade into UK politics should not be under-estimated.

First, the good news. The Commons select committee on energy security and net zero has called on the government to drop net zero. Now the bad news: they only mean the term ‘net zero’ not the actual policy of trying to eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050. They complain that the term has become a ‘lightning rod for opposition to climate action’, and that it has become a ‘distraction’, even though it describes perfectly what the government is – ruinously – trying to achieve. They want the policy to continue, but under a different name – though possibly not ‘net stupid’, which is Reform UK’s preferred term. Presumably it would be known by some propagandistic euphemism or other. How about a Sovietesque ‘glorious transition’?