Ross Clark

The rearguard Remain lobby, which has far from given up on its ambition to reverse the Brexit vote, has put much store in the alleged electoral malpractice of Aaron Banks and his Leave.EU campaign, as well as the actions of the now-defunct Cambridge Analytica. Along the way it has found the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) eager to investigate. There has, however, been a drawback to this strategy: it has invited examination of the Remain campaign’s own spending and use of personal data. Sure enough, a report published by the ICO today offers some possible dynamite.

Labour, as we know, is a party which has fallen into the hands of a dreamy left-wing idealist who is out of touch with the public, and who has managed to push out the party's down-to-Earth moderates - people who, like Tony Blair, understand that if Labour wants to win power it must appeal to broad swathes of Middle England. That, at least, is how it seemed until this week. But it all looks a little different after 20 backbench Labour MPs defied the whips to vote against the Chancellor’s decision to raise income tax thresholds. Jeremy Corbyn had instructed his MPs to abstain. It is astonishing to read the names of the rebels: Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Lucy Powell, Jess Phillips, Margaret Hodge.

Now it is London museums bleating about Brexit. A memo from the V&A released under Freedom of Information laws, warns darkly: 'we will struggle to keep the museum open to the public in the immediate short term'. A no deal Brexit, it is claimed, could affect visitor numbers from the EU, diminish donations and also affect the ability of the museum to stage travelling exhibitions. As with so many Brexit scare stories, it has the whiff of hysteria. But if the V&A and other museums do ever feel the pinch they could, of course, resort to an action they should have taken years ago: start charging an entry fee. It is astonishing that our museums and galleries are prepared to forgo a source of income that virtually all other museums and galleries around the world take for granted.

As Nick Clegg, George HW Bush and many other politicians have proved to their cost, manifesto promises matter. How damaging, then, will Philip Hammond’s brazen abandonment of the 2017 Conservative pledge be, whereby financial discipline was supposed to 'guide us to a balanced budget by the middle of next decade'? Now, Hammond seems to be trying to tell us that running a public deficit doesn’t really matter. While George Osborne delayed and delayed the date he promised to bring the public finances back into balance, Hammond has apparently abandoned any idea of ever doing so. There is now no target for eliminating the deficit at all.

If Britain crashes out of the EU with no deal and the Conservatives plunge to a defeat against Labour in a subsequent general election, Theresa May, not without reason, will take the blame. But the blame will not be all hers. William Hague will deserve a fair slice of it as well.   It has become quite clear that May is not going to achieve a decent deal. The task is beyond her. She does not have the imagination to know where to go next, and she has already painted herself into a corner. She staked her entire authority on her Chequers plan – a solution which, it soon became clear, had virtually no support other than that of May herself.

In two weeks’ time, Philip Hammond is expected to declare an ‘end to austerity’. Today’s figures on wage growth are a reminder of why he needs to tread extremely carefully on this. What he will mean is that austerity is over for the public finances – he is confident enough to start increasing government spending again. Many individuals and families, on the other hand, remain deep in personal austerity. There is very little room for tax rises without making people feel poorer. News that wages are growing at their highest rate – 3.1 per cent – since the economic crash of 2008/09 is, on the face of it, a cause for celebration.

Now that fracking has resumed in Lancashire after a seven year hiatus, the green lobby which sought to frustrate it and delay it at every turn can reflect on what they have achieved: keeping the UK's carbon emissions rather higher than they would have been, had our native fracking industry been allowed to develop more quickly. In the short term at least, the alternative to burning UK-produced shale gas is not, as the green lobby says, using more energy from wind and solar farms. We do not currently have anything close to the electricity storage capacity to cope with a supply which comes exclusively from intermittent sources, and is it not clear at present how this will be resolved. For now, the real alternative to shale gas is either coal or imported gas.

How funny. Remember how, when Unilever announced back in March that it had decided to move its headquarters from London to Rotterdam, it was all to do with Brexit? According to the Guardian’s subheadline on 14 March: 'Brexit and favourable business conditions in Netherlands said to be behind decision'. The following day an FT leader asserted: 'Unilever’s protestations that [the move] has nothing to do with Brexit do not convince'. It went on to add: 'The decision is clearly coloured by the approach Theresa May has taken on Brexit, and by the way she has handled relations with business.

Congratulations once again to the BBC’s anti-Brexit propaganda unit, for its news website headline this morning: “Car sales plunge as Nissan warns on Brexit”. It takes talent to pin something on Brexit which even the Guardian admits is caused by something quite different – indeed, something which might more naturally be seen as constituting a case against the EU.     It is true that there was a sharp fall in car sales in September – which at 338,834 were 20.5 per cent lower than the same month in 2017.

Much as I deplore the integration of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law there are some battles which really aren’t worth fighting. Today, Theresa May announced that civil partnerships are to be made available to heterosexual couples for the first time. This follows a ruling by the Supreme Court in June that the current arrangements – whereby gay couples can enter into a civil partnership but not heterosexual ones – are in conflict with the convention. Why on Earth did the Government resist this change in the first place when it was so plainly obvious that it was discriminatory? David Cameron made a huge fuss about enabling gay marriage – presenting it as if it were the greatest breakthrough in individual freedom since the Magna Carta.

Farming out the development of post-Brexit UK migration policy to a professor from the LSE was a political masterstroke by the former Home Secretary Amber Rudd. How much harder it will be for Remainers to condemn the government’s position on migration as some kind of racist, xenophobic exercise knowing that it has been formed in one of the liberal establishment’s favourite seats of learning. Yet there is nothing in Sir Alan Manning’s report which could not have come from the pen of a ‘populist’ politician trying to satisfy public grievance on migration.