Tom Goodenough

Winning the Green Party leadership race on a joint ticket makes Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley the first ever job share at the top of an English political party (the Scottish Greens have been doing it for years by having two co-convenors at the top). The pair won convincingly, picking up 86 per cent of the vote in the first round. Yet whilst the margin of their win was clear, what's less obvious is how the job share will work in reality. There is, though, one valuable asset that Lucas will certainly be able to offer the Greens.

Could Jeremy Corbyn come out of the Labour leadership contest with an even bigger mandate? Few would be surprised and a new poll on the front page of the Times today suggests that such an outcome is highly likely. The YouGov survey indicates Corbyn is beating his rival Owen Smith by 62 per cent to 38 per cent amongst Labour voters - a result which would gift him a three per cent spike on last year's vote, when he won 59.5 per cent. This would spell disaster for those challenging Corbyn and make it almost certain that the Labour leader would still be in place come a 2020 general election.

It's no surprise that demands from French politicians to scrap the Le Touquet deal and shift the migrant 'jungle' from Calais to Dover has gone down badly in Britain. Today's front pages are full of talk of 'Le Stitch up'. And the Home Office has waded in to say these plans are a complete 'non starter'. This all sets the scene for a testy meeting for Amber Rudd as she crosses the Channel to meet her French counterpart, Bernard Cazeneuve, for talks today. Their meeting will be a private one but it isn't difficult to work out that Calais will be top of their agenda. What's difficult about finding a solution, however, is that all of this talk is something of a phoney war of words, at least for now.

During the referendum campaign, David Cameron sparked fury by suggesting the migrant camp in Calais could be shifted to Britain following a vote for Brexit. Now, that threat is resurfacing. This time, it's French politicians saying they'll tear up the deal known as the 'Treaty of Le Touquet' - a change, they say, which will allow migrants wanting to claim asylum in the UK to do so before they cross the Channel. The president of the Calais region, Xavier Bertrand, is amongst those calling for an amendment to the current deal. The good news for Britain? He doesn't have the power to do anything about the treaty, so his threats are all bluster. But there are others clambering for the top job in France who would have the authority to tear up the agreement.

In the runup to the referendum, we heard repeated warnings that, whatever the outcome of the actual vote, the damage to the UK economy had been done. The Bank of England, whose governor has been accused of becoming something of a fellow traveller for Project Fear, warned in its Monetary Policy Committee meeting in March that: ‘There appears to be increased uncertainty surrounding the forthcoming referendum on UK membership of the European Union’. In April, the BoE was at it again, downgrading second-quarter growth from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent. Warnings such as these risk of being self-fulfilling: if you talk about uncertainty, it’s hardly surprising that investors feel uncertain, creating a knock-on effect out of nowhere.

The good news for the Government is that net migration is down. The bad news? It's down by so little (a fall of 9,000 to a total of 327,000) that you won't hear anyone crowing about today's figures. That the 'tens of thousands' target made by the Government still hasn't been met is no surprise at all. And we can expect to see a continuation of the semantic shift from that Tory 'promise' down to a 'pledge'. So apart from telling us that, as far as net migration is concerned, it's business as usual, what do today's figures show us? For one, they make it clear that solving this issue won't be easy for the Prime Minister. Net migration from certain EU countries like Romania and Bulgaria is at a record high.

Jeremy Corbyn's embarrassing train row is a gilt-edged opportunity for his rival to try and make up ground in the party's leadership contest. Instead, Owen Smith is more intent on alienating Labour voters by setting out how he wants to block Brexit. It's a foolish move on Smith's part. So why has he done it? It seems Smith's only motivation is to try and snatch away a core group of Corbyn supporters who want Britain to stay in the EU (after all, Corbyn said hours after the referendum that Article 50 should be triggered straight away). But the dim possibility of attempting to gain traction amongst sulking Remainers means Smith has taken his eye off a far bigger prize: the millions of Labour voters who did back Brexit.

If you thought the Brexit vote marked the end of 'Project Fear', you'll be saddened to know it's back. This time it takes the form of a warning from Nicola Sturgeon about what leaving the EU might cost Scotland. The Scottish Government report into the 'economic risk' to the country of Brexit, on which Sturgeon's prediction is based, doesn't appear to be worth the paper its written on however. It puts the bill as between £1.7bn and £11.2bn - a range so huge as to render it virtually meaningless. The report also suggests a similar, although thankfully, slightly smaller chasm in possible tax revenue, this time between £1.7bn and £3.7bn down after Brexit.