DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Heat, fury and a very political judgement 

• e-mail

Today, at long last, the Supreme Court begins to sit in judgment over a decision that will have a profound impact on our nation’s destiny.

The 11 senior judges must decide whether or not to uphold the incendiary High Court ruling that Parliament, not the people, will have the final say on how and when we exit the EU.

Their defenders have argued that, with almost superhuman powers, they are somehow able to be guided only by intellectual legalistic principles, divorcing themselves from the consequences of their decision.

This newspaper has emphatically argued otherwise. 

Lord Toulson (not sitting in the Article 50 case), Lord Carnwath, Lord Sumption, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge. (front row left-right) Lord Kerr, Lady Hale, Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, who are the Justices of the Supreme Court of the UK who will be sitting on the Article 50 case

We believe it is utterly impossible for them to deliberate in a vacuum, impervious to the political heat and fury surrounding their ruling.

Yesterday, the outbursts of militant Remainers with huge influence only served to prove our point.

Nakedly and unashamedly, they have made clear that if the Supreme Court decision goes their way, they will use it to sabotage the referendum result – and thwart the will of the people.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said he’ll delay Brexit legislation with an interminable string of Commons amendments. 

Euro-fanatic Nick Clegg of the Lib Dems (MPs: 9) says he’ll simply vote against unless there’s a second referendum on the terms of Brexit.

And in a further twist, the Supreme Court is being asked to rule that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly must agree the timetable for leaving before it’s initiated. 

If that happens, we’re in for a full-scale constitutional crisis.

So, in what universe could it be argued that this court ruling is not political?

How long ago it seems that David Cameron told voters: ‘This is your decision.’ And how right the Attorney General Jeremy Wright now is to warn the Supreme Court that upholding the High Court’s decision would be to treat the electorate with contempt.

Our missing billions

Local Enterprise Partnerships were David Cameron’s big idea to stimulate business. 

With a staggering £7.3billion spent since 2010 and further billions committed by Chancellor Philip Hammond in the Autumn Statement, they were also among his most expensive.

So how depressing that the Mail’s Investigations Unit today reveals that – of the billions that can actually be accounted for – vast tranches have been given to projects run by those who decide how to spend it. 

We reveal that on 276 occasions, payments were made to LEP officials, their own companies or schemes from which they stood to benefit.

With a staggering £7.3billion spent since 2010 and further billions committed by Chancellor Philip Hammond in the Autumn Statement, they were also among his most expensive

Yet, incredibly, there are no rules to prevent them doing this and they are able to operate almost completely in secret.

After the scandals of the Troubled Families Programme – which had no discernible effect despite lavish funding – and the A4E welfare-to-work scheme, which was mired in fraud allegations, the Government must expose LEPs to the full glare of public scrutiny.

They have benefited from billions in public money. Taxpayers deserve to know exactly where their cash has gone.

The last three governments have promised some form of cap on the lifetime cost of elderly care but all have failed to deliver. 

The devastating effects of those broken pledges are all too apparent today, as local authorities seize the family homes of huge numbers of old people to meet spiralling nursing home bills. 

With our rapidly ageing population, no one pretends this is an easy problem to solve. 

But it simply must be tackled. 

Elderly people stand to lose everything they’ve worked a lifetime for because they have the misfortune to live too long. Is this really the mark of a civilised society?