Ross Clark

Why is it that whenever some organisation comes up with some half-baked prediction of doom for the UK economy post-Brexit it is splashed all over the news, yet real data on the economy gets ignored? Yesterday, the ONS quietly released the latest figures for Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF) which covers investment across the whole economy, public and private sectors, manufacturing, construction, services and extractive industries. They showed that contrary to the received wisdom that investors have fled the UK following the Brexit vote, investment grew by 1.1 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2017, to a total of £84.1 billion. Over the course of 2017 it grew by 4 per cent compared with 2016. This was higher than for any other G7 country – with Italy following on 3.

Moves by the EU to try to stop British armed forces from accessing the Galileo satellite system, and to prevent British companies from bidding for work on it, are, as one senior UK official told the FT, ‘outrageous’. Britain has contributed 12 per cent of the costs. The EU’s argument that to allow British involvement would be a security risk are perverse, given that China, Israel, Ukraine and Morocco are participating in the project. Does anyone really think that relations between post-Brexit Britain and EU will sink so low that European governments will consider us more of a security risk than China? Galileo isn’t principally a military system at all.

How many times over the past few months have some remain supporters tried to tell us that tariffs on imported goods are a very big deal indeed? Were trade between Britain and the EU to revert to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, they assert, the UK economy would be reduced to ruins. Food prices would soar, leaving millions scrabbling around in bins. British firms will never export anything ever again. This morning comes a slightly different tack. Actually, it seems that tariffs don’t really matter all that much at all. Removing them, according to reports broadcast loudly at various points during the Today programme this morning, will hardly affect consumer prices.     The reason for the sudden change of heart?

It seems obvious, doesn’t it? Jeremy Corbyn, in a comment piece in the Guardian, continues to insist that Putin might not have been behind the Salisbury attack – when even his shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, says there is ‘prima facie evidence’ of the involvement of the Russian government. Labour backbenchers sign a motion pointedly calling for ‘unequivocal’ recognition of Russian government involvement – exactly what Corbyn has refused to give. And that is just the internal opposition from within the Labour party. Political commentators are scathing of his position, myself included.

Who stands between the government and a proper, effective sanctions regime against Russia? Not Jeremy Corbyn, though he might wish he could. Putin is going to get away with the Salisbury attack, suffering little more than a token expulsion of diplomats, thanks to anti-fracking protesters. They didn’t mean it, of course. When they stood before the bulldozers in the Sussex village Balcombe, jumped up and down about mini-Earth tremors in Lancashire they thought they were doing the Earth a favour. They saw UK-produced shale gas as a dirty alternative to clean, carbon-free energy. But they were wrong. In the short to medium term at least the alternative to UK-produced shale gas was imported gas, an increasing proportion of which comes from Russia.

The Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport recently investigated claims of Russian interference in the UK electoral process. The committee might soon be forced to go one further and investigate EU interference in our political system.  How remarkable that today’s ‘legally-binding’ document from Michel Barnier, which tries to keep Northern Ireland in a customs union with the EU comes just 48 hours after Jeremy Corbyn made a speech changing Labour’s policy in order to commit the UK as a whole to remain within the customs union. I am not party to any conversations Jeremy Corbyn might have had with Michel Barnier or his team, but the Labour leader couldn’t have done better to create the impression of collusion between the two.

Jeremy Corbyn began the 2017 election campaign 20 points behind the Conservatives in the polls; he ended it just two per cent behind in the actual vote. The remarkable turnaround has been attributed by many to his effective use of social media, which allowed him to broadcast his message to people whom traditional campaigning fails to reach, people who in some cases may never have voted before. Social media is one aspect of how technology is changing politics – an issue debated at a recent Spectator lunch, in association with Michael Tobin OBE and involving a notable collection of people from the worlds of politics and technology. Do the unexpected results in recent elections really come down to who has the most effective online operation?

Most of the time I feel perfectly at ease in my own country, and that would be the case had we voted Brexit or Remain, Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn. But just occasionally Britain seems to me an utterly alien place – bizarre even. Today, Jeremy Corbyn launched his manifesto for pets. He wants to ban foie gras, make it mandatory for motorists to report that they have run over and killed cats, and pass a law giving tenants the right to keep a pet. I don’t suspect that he will encounter a great deal of opposition on these things – bar a token protest on the last from buy-to-let investors. Fox hunting aside, no political party in recent times has come to much harm by doing something to help furry, feathery or scaly animals.

The Labour benches and the pages of the Guardian are not normally places one would go for a defence of Empire – until, that is, comes along an opportunity to further a popular liberal cause in a British overseas territory. Then, otherwise liberal-minded folk, who would normally be falling over themselves to apologise for the evils of the British Empire, bizarrely come over all neo-colonial – demanding that the Government lords it over the untrustworthy natives and imposes direct rule from Westminster. This week, the Bermudan government overturned a ruling made by the island’s supreme court introducing gay marriage. The government’s decision was in response to a referendum on the island which had opposed gay marriage.