Ross Clark

It took all of five minutes for news of the Bank of England’s first rise in base rate for over a decade to be blamed on Brexit. The Guardian’s live blog, for example, suggested that the rise was 'to prevent the cost of goods bought in the UK from spiralling further', following the fall in sterling. Well no, actually. The explanatory notes from the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) explain that it voted 7-2 to raise rates because the slack in the UK economy has fallen. With unemployment at a 40 year low, it fears that inflation could run ahead of itself unless dampened by an interest rate rise. The inflationary effects of low sterling, it adds, are falling away, but 'net trade is bolstered by the strong global expansion and the past depreciation of sterling.

When will the climate change lobby finally realise that it is undermining its own arguments through hyperbole? Yesterday, the Lancet published its latest climate change ‘indicators’, accompanied by a comment piece in the Guardian by Christiana Figueres, former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and now chair of the Lancet Countdown advisory board.  The piece, headed 'Climate change isn’t just hurting the planet – it’s a public health emergency' makes the assertion that climate change is affecting 'the health of you, your family, your neighbours – each and every one of us.

There is a weird psychology behind economic forecasts. We know they are going to be wrong, because they always are. Yet such is our appetite for information – any information – that nevertheless we can’t stop ourselves taking them seriously. The Sunday Times this morning has gone big on a report by serial doomsayers the EY Item Club claiming that the government needs to move quickly to obtain a transitional deal on Brexit or face a collapse in business investment. Even with a deal it predicts that the growth in business investment next year will fall to 1.5 per cent, from 2.1 per cent this year. Maybe. But then again, maybe not. There is absolutely no evidence from previous EY Item Club forecasts to suggest that this is better than a figure plucked out of the sky.

As an object lesson in how the process of regulation is hijacked by rich and powerful interests, today’s introduction of a £10 Toxic – or ‘T’ – Charge on cars over 11 years old entering Central London during peak hours could hardly be bettered. Almost everyone is in favour of clean air, but the effect of this charge will be to tax the poor and excuse the wealthy while adding to the revenues of car manufacturers who have shown contempt for emissions laws. The charge is to be levied only on cars which fail to meet the Euro 4 regulations on car emissions – which effectively means any car manufactured before 2006, when the regulations were introduced. If newer cars really did emit fewer emissions the concept would be reasonable enough.

So the government has finally worked out that it isn’t a good idea to charge benefit-claimants 55 pence a minute to listen to piped music while they wait for someone to deal with their claim. But how ridiculous that no-one saw it coming, and that it look so long to correct a problem that should have shown up from the beginning as political dynamite. At this rate it will only be another few months before work and pensions secretary David Gauke works out, too, that making people wait six weeks for their first payment is costing the government far more politically than it is saving the Exchequer.

Oh, the glorious hypocrisy of it all – the dozens of actresses, UN goodwill ambassadors among them, who have come forward to make accusations against Harvey Weinstein – and yet whom said not a word between them when they were on the make and he was in a position to help them with their careers. I should say that if you are important and mature enough to serve as a UN ambassador you ought to be brave enough to report wrongdoing that is going on beneath your nose – and not wait until there is a bandwagon on which to leap.

In August I wrote here about the government’s pre-announced ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2040, and how it could turn out to be a hostage to fortune if the necessary technology fails to be developed. Today, in its Clean Growth Strategy, the government announces another dubious target: insulating a million of the leakiest homes with the aid of £3.6 billion raised through the Energy Company Obligation – which is a levy on all energy customers’ bills. The proposal seems to work on the assumption that it is possible to insulate an old property,  bringing it close to the insulation standards of a new home, at an average cost of £3,600 per home. That is hopeful, to say the least.

Funny, but I had picked up the idea, especially over the past year or two, that the Left was rather fond of the concept of street protest. Every time I am in Central London I seem to run into hordes of placard-holders protesting against ‘austerity’, student tuition fees, animal rights, save the NHS, war in Syria, Universal Credit and what have you. While I might disagree it has never occurred to me to try to challenge the right of these people to take to streets to make their views known. I just hope they have a good day out. But there are limits, it seems, to the Left’s enthusiasm for street protest. It only seems to extend to people with whose causes it agrees.

Many assume that if an election were held soon, Jeremy Corbyn would win. But what if, say, the government fell in 2020 and Labour won a working majority? At 71, Corbyn becomes Britain’s oldest prime minister since Churchill, and at first is one of its most popular. His appeal grows as he takes on some of the country’s favourite demons. Few listen to the protests of water and electricity shareholders as their stakes are seized — most are focused on their own bills, which surely will come down now. There are cheers at Victoria Station as the news flashes across screens that Southern Railway is to be nationalised. At hospitals, medical staff are filmed applauding as PFI contracts are terminated and taken on by the NHS. Stock markets show an upwards blip.

Funnily enough, you don’t come across too many pieces in the Guardian blaming black people for crime or women for bad driving. The newspaper would perhaps consider itself a pioneer in trying to drive out racial and gender stereotypes from daily life. It seems a different matter, though, when it comes to the inadequacies of white men, or, more specifically, elderly white men, to throw in a bit of ageism as well. An extraordinary piece in today’s Guardian tries to link what it calls 'climate denial' to race, gender and age.