Ross Clark

Just what would be it take for the Guardian to stop suggesting Conservatives are racists? We now have the four great offices of state held by: a man baptised Catholic but now a functioning atheist, a man with a Jewish father but who was brought up in the Church of England, a son of Pakistani immigrants and of woman of Indian origin. But has it led to the Left championing what might – were the Cabinet a BBC programme – be celebrated as an explosion of diversity? You’ve guessed it. According to the Left, Boris’s Cabinet is not an example of ‘vibrant’ modern Britain in action, it is instead a case of the new PM 'parading a set of token figures to legitimise his agenda'.

If, as expected, Boris Johnson heads off to Buckingham Palace next Wednesday to become Prime Minister, I fear that a fleet of ambulances may be required at the Guardian’s headquarters in King’s Cross – as the newspaper’s collective Boris Derangement Syndrome moves into its final, and possibly terminal, phase. All week the Guardian has been running ever-more desperate stuff in its final attempt to dissuade Tory members from voting for Boris – which looks like being as successful as its appeal for readers to write heartfelt letters to US citizens, imploring them not to vote for George W Bush in the 2004 US Presidential election.

Amazing what a bit of discipline can do. No sooner has Boris Johnson warned that anyone who wants to serve in his Cabinet must accept that leaving the EU without a deal is retained as an option, than the work and pensions secretary Amber Rudd is telling TalkRadio: 'Both candidates have said that no deal is part of the armoury going forward and I have accepted that'. This is remarkable because four months ago Rudd was one of three Cabinet ministers who helped block a no-deal Brexit on 29 March. She, along with David Gauke and Greg Clark, abstained on an amendment to block a no-deal departure is all circumstances. The amendment was carried by 43, leading May to seek an extension to Article 50.

Yesterday, the Welsh government announced new guidelines to make school uniforms gender-neutral, which would mean an end to trousers being advertised for boys and skirts for girls. You can imagine the outrage if the UK government now tried to over-ride that decision, saying it was a load of silly nonsense. The rumblings in Cardiff would bring down a building or two: how dare you interfere with the decisions of Wales’ democratically-elected government, would come the cries. And they would have a point. When the Welsh voted – very narrowly – for devolution in 1997 that was that.

You can tell a lot about the Left simply by reading the list of subjects which are trending on Twitter. Top spot this afternoon goes to the hashtag #BoycottHeck. If you are wondering what that means, Heck is a family firm based in North Yorkshire which until the weekend ran a blameless business making gluten-free sausages. Besides its traditional pork sausages, it has also established a reputation for its vegetarian sausages – winning plaudits from a great number of warm-hearted, peace-loving people of the Left. That was, however, until Boris Johnson passed by on the campaign trail for the Tory leadership contest, and posed for a photo opportunity in a Heck-branded apron with the company’s products.

I often see National Trust vehicles around my way – transporting animals, digging, cutting wood and constructing bridges and the like. They do not appear to me to be electric-powered. I shouldn’t be surprised if, like my car, they are still powered by filthy old diesel. I am sure, like me, the Trust would rather use clean vehicles – it has already announced its ambition to source 50 per cent of its energy needs from renewable sources by next year. But for the moment the Trust, like the rest of us, would struggle to live on renewable energy alone. That hasn’t, however, stopped the Trust this morning announcing that it will divest the £45 million it has invested in oil and gas companies.

As Jeremy Hunt has repeatedly claimed during the Conservative leadership campaign, to set a deadline of 31 October for leaving the EU is foolish. Why tie yourself to that date if a deal with EU negotiators seemed close to being sealed? But if you have fallen for that argument, it seems no less puzzling why you would want to set a deadline of 30 September instead – as Hunt has done this morning. That is the date, he has announced, that he will decide whether a deal is achievable or not. If it is, he is prepared to carry on negotiating with the EU indefinitely. If it isn’t, then he will commit to a no-deal Brexit a month and a day later. His announcement will, of course, be listened to eagerly in Brussels, where 30 September will have been underlined in red.

Jeremy Hunt’s case to be Conservative leader is that he is the sensible, low-risk option. While Boris is now committed – thanks to his interview on Talkradio yesterday to leave the EU on 31st October, come what may, ‘do or die’, Hunt is holding out the prospect of some flexibility. The last day of October, he said this morning, is a ‘fake deadline’. Trying to force Brexit on that date, he said, could lead to a general election, a Corbyn government, followed by no Brexit at all. If the government were close to cutting a deal, he has said, then we should extend the deadline. If there were no deal in sight, on the other hand, Hunt says he would take Britain out of the EU without a deal.

Whatever you think of Boris Johnson’s ability to be Prime Minister you have to admire the PR skills of Carrie Symonds. Last Thursday evening an event occurred which could seriously damage Boris’ chances of winning the Tory party leadership contest – a domestic row between the couple in which the police were called to her flat. Unsurprisingly, it dominated the news agenda over the weekend. In a sense it still is way up the news agenda. But over the past 36 hours the focus has subtly changed. The ‘scandal’ is no longer what was said, and thrown, in an upstairs flat in Camberwell last Thursday, but the provenance of a soft-focus photo of the couple – apparently all smiles again – sitting in a Sussex garden.

A neighbour records a domestic row through the wall of their flat, takes the recording to a newspaper which then publishes details of the conversation. I wonder what The Guardian would have made of that in 2011 when it was on its crusade against press intrusion which led to the Leveson Inquiry – especially had the newspaper been a red-top. Eight years ago, it was hacking into the messages on mobile phones which caused the controversy – a practice which led to criminal trials and a comprehensive, judge-led inquiry into the ethics of the press.

Why are MPs so pathetically in thrall to Extinction Rebellion? This morning, while the world was focused on the Conservative leadership campaign six Commons select committees (Treasury, BEIS, Environmental Audit, Housing, Communities and Local Government, Science and Technology, and Transport) jointly launched a 'Citizens' Assembly' on climate change. If you think you have heard that term before, it was one of the central demands of the climate change activists who occupied Oxford Circus for two weeks in April. One by one, they seem to be having their demands met as if they were a conquering army as opposed to a ragbag of anti-capitalist protesters. They demanded that Parliament declare a ‘climate emergency’ – which it duly did on 1 May.

Heathrow Airport commences the consultation on its third runway plans today with a very big problem on its hands: a man who has threatened to lie down in front of the bulldozers to stop the runway seems very likely to be Prime Minister by the time the consultation has concluded. In theory, the project ought to be dead in the water – although, as Lord Adonis pointed out on the Today programme this morning, that would be to underestimate Boris’ capacity for u-turns. According to some reports, Boris has already assured fans of Heathrow expansion that he will respect the decision of Parliament to go ahead with the project. But to take that at face value, too, underestimates Boris’ ability to make simultaneous, mutually-exclusive promises to different audiences.