Alex Massie

“The greatest politician in the world”, a friend quipped recently, “is the Westminster projection of Ruth Davidson”. I do not think this was meant altogether unkindly. It was, in part, a reflection of the age-old truth that what you cannot have so often seems more attractive than what you can. Davidson is a formidable communicator; interested in ideas but blessed with the common touch. She has a no-nonsenseness about her that contrasts favourably with the grey men and women occupying chairs around the cabinet table in Downing Street. Better still, she is neither tarnished by nor responsible for Brexit. That alone is enough to give her a freshness that seems especially energising these days.

The stramash between Theresa May’s government in London and Nicola Sturgeon’s ministry in Edinburgh over the need for the devolved parliaments to consent to the UK government’s EU withdrawal bill is, as the wags say, the world’s most boring constitutional crisis. So much so, indeed, that many voters in Scotland – to say nothing of elsewhere in the realm – remain splendidly indifferent to it.  The Scottish parliament yesterday refused to give its consent to the withdrawal bill. Legally, this changes little. Politically, it has the potential to change many things. Nicola Sturgeon, with the support of Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens, says she is “protecting devolution” and standing up for the Scottish parliament.

As time passes, some things become clear. The problem isn’t Brexit; the problem is the Brexiteers. Or, to put it slightly differently, while Brexit may be sub-optimal, the Brexiteers are much worse than that. They are awful.  Extraordinarily, Jacob Rees-Mogg is now the bookmakers’ favourite to be the next prime minister. As the champion of the backbench Brexiteers he can no longer be dismissed – or, indeed, indulged – as an enjoyable eccentric. He is serious and perhaps now merits being taken seriously himself.  As an intellectual matter, Brexit remains a respectable cause.

In the early days of The Independent, when the newspaper was self-consciously serious to the point of being mildly priggish, Royal events were frequently relegated to the news in brief column. This week, nodding to those sunnier days for The Independent, the happy arrival of the Duchess of Cambridge’s third child was greeted by the headline “woman gives birth to baby boy”. Well, indeed.  It is tempting to treat the news that Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, is pregnant as a matter of equally trivial non-news news.

What a dismal week this has been for British politics. And it is still only Wednesday. The distinguishing feature of this political moment is its shabbiness. The two stories dominating the news this week, Windrush and Syria, each demonstrate as much.  The Windrush scandal – it ceased being a saga some time ago – is shameful. But it is not simply a question of Home Office incompetence (some of which is only, when dealing with matters of significant complexity, to be expected) but, worse, one of Home Office vindictiveness. It is a feature of the system, not a bug within it. A system which, quite deliberately, excises humanity and common sense from its calculations and concentrates, instead, on box-ticking and raw numbers.

Sweet baby Jesus, is there nobody in the Department for Exiting the European Union who can give David Davis a briefing on Irish politics? Not a full, in-depth, Donegal-to-Kerry briefing; just the basics will do. And if there isn’t anyone at DEXEU who could do this, perhaps some kind soul at the Northern Ireland office could pop over to give Davis a quick tutorial? The Times reports this morning that this kind of briefing is urgently needed. Of course the paper doesn’t quite put it like that but this is the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from Davis’s own remarks at a conference in London yesterday. According to our gallant bulldog, the question of Brexit and the Irish border is being complicated by the Irish government.

Sometimes it is the little details that tell you everything you need to know. So when, as Politics Home revealed yesterday, the chief whip meets Tory backbenchers to assuage their concerns over the transitional arrangements for the fishing industry as the UK edges its way out of the EU and tells them not to worry because, look, “It’s not like the fishermen are going to vote Labour” you know there is something deeply wrong at the heart of the government.  This, remember, is what passes for the government’s intelligence unit. And with leaders like this, who needs enemies? It is not evident whether the ignorance is more startling than the complacency or vice versa but neither appraisal reflects well on Julian Smith, the chief whip.

If you wished to get to an easy Brexit, well, this isn’t the starting point you’d choose. Once again, the Irish question complicates life for Theresa May’s government. Today’s EU proposals suggesting that, in the absence of a satisfactory deal of the kind proposed back in December, Northern Ireland should, essentially, remain within the EU customs union are both evidently unacceptable to the UK government and a reminder that this is still a negotiated process. What is put on the table today is not necessarily what will be on the table when it is over.  It is difficult to see how any UK government could agree to a 'solution' which, in many essentials, shifts the UK’s external frontier to somewhere in the middle of the Irish Sea.

If you wish to understand this government you might begin with Robert Conquest’s third law of politics. Namely, that 'The simplest way to explain the behaviour of any bureaucratic organisation is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies'. This is certainly a more plausible hypothesis than any obviously available alternative. Indeed, there are times when you begin to think this government’s mission must be to persuade us that, contrary to the evidence hitherto presented, a government led by Jeremy Corbyn might be no bad thing. Or, at any rate, no worse than the government we have now.  Take Liam Fox and Boris Johnson, for instance, notionally two of Brexit’s 'Big Four' though increasingly, like Arsenal, relegated to sixth place.

I don’t really object to bad policy, it’s the rotten politics I can’t stand. There would be something almost amusing about a Conservative prime minister gravely intoning, in effect, 'Labour are right; please don’t vote for them' if it weren’t so head-thuddingly stupid.  Remarkably, however, this is the position into which Theresa May has put herself. Labour’s policy on university tuition fees may be a) ruinously expensive and b) a boon to the most affluent but it is c) easily understood. Labour would – or, rather, say they would – scrap tuition fees.  Responding to this – and, more broadly to their problem with 'younger' voters (i.e.

The thing to understand about Brexit and Remain voters is that Brexit is only part of the problem. Many Remainers cast their votes with only moderate enthusiasm. They were not motivated, most of them, by any great enthusiasm for the European project. But they took what they considered to be a prudent, pragmatic, view of the national interest. They wanted a moderate, quiet life; and the status quo, however irritating it might sometimes be, was at least a known quantity and therefore preferable to the great unknown that must be unleashed by Brexit. Remain was a proper, old-fashioned, Tory choice.  And therefore, of course, rather unfashionable.

The good news is that the latest civil service analysis of the most likely impact of Brexit is more optimistic than previous civil service estimates of Brexit’s consequences for the British economy. The bad news is that they’re still pretty gloomy. The best case scenario, modelled for officials at the Department for Exiting the EU, envisages a two per cent hit to GDP by the 2030s. The worst, trading in a 'No deal is better than a bad deal' environment, suggests an economy eight per cent smaller than would otherwise be the case.  As Brexit bonuses go this seems on the thin side. No wonder the reaction to Buzzfeed’s scoop on the latest analysis is an exercise in proving the reality of confirmation bias.

The continuing saga of Henry Bolton’s notional leadership of Ukip continues to amaze and amuse and appal in equal measure. The press loves a freak show and, in the absence of anything better, Ukip is the best circus in town. You might think it odd to give so much attention to a party that won just 2 per cent of the vote in last year’s general election — but this is all about Kipperism, which is bigger than Ukip. Much of the time, it seems as though this is Ukip’s Britain. The rest of us just live in it. It amounts to the most stunning reverse takeover in modern British political history. The party’s death throes recall David Cameron’s original description of Ukip as a collection of ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly’.

Time is beginning to run out for Nicola Sturgeon. That, at any rate, is one conclusion to be drawn from today’s YouGov poll for the Times. As many Scots now disapprove of Ms Sturgeon as approve of her and the SNP’s poll ratings continue to show no signs of benefitting from the Brexit bounce the party expected.  That bounce continues to elude the nationalist movement. And if this has surprised the SNP, it has also surprised every other party leader in Scotland just as, to be frank, it has surprised most of us in the commentary game too. It turns out there is limited enthusiasm for responding to one constitutional clusterfuck with another.  Even so, it is important to note that support for independence – at 43 per cent – has only barely diminished.

As Gore Vidal said, “Every time a friend succeeds, I die a little” and by that exacting standard, Tim Shipman has become a significant trial to his many friends. I thought of this again when it emerged – as they say in Westminster – that the cabinet would meet to discuss the future shape of Brexit. It seemed telling that this actually counted as a bona fide 'news' story. That is, it was a man bites dog moment and therefore worth putting in the newspapers.  Then again, readers of Fall Out, Shipman’s sequel to his best-selling account of the Brexit referendum entertainment, would not have been surprised.

It is a measure of devolution’s success that politicians, provided they are of sufficient stature, can make waves and news even though they are not members of the House of Commons. In their different ways – and with their very different destinations in mind – both Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson demonstrate as much. The United Kingdom – for such it just about remains – is better for this.  For some time now, we have been waiting for Davidson to make a Brexit intervention. This morning she obliged.