Weak little old ladies? These three are giants among men

The Brenda is Brenda Marjorie Hale, aka Baroness Hale of Richmond, president of the Supreme Court, who delivered that withering judgment on Boris Johnson’s unlawful prorogation of parliament.

The Nancy is Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, who started a formal impeachment inquiry that could end with the ousting of Donald Trump. The allegation: that the president attempted to trade military aid to Ukraine for an investigation into his Democrat rival, Joe Biden. Mr Trump denies any wrongdoing.

READ MORE: Cox hints at fresh election bid

So here we are: the mugger; the ultimate bad boy of Brexit; and the denier-in-chief, all of whom have learned the hard way not to mess with seemingly little old ladies.

Of the many memorable moments of Torrid Tuesday, the New York press conference with messrs Johnson and Trump was a stand out. The President, batting away the Prime Minister’s trouble at home, said Mr Johnson was doing a fantastic job and would make great progress come November.

“October. October 31st,” corrected the PM, referring to the Brexit deadline. Not to be outdone, Mr Trump shot back, “The results are going to start to show in November.” For a moment, Mr Johnson looked crestfallen.

Although he may not have felt like it as he stepped off the red-eye from New York yesterday, Mr Johnson is one very lucky man. Had almost any other person been found to have broken the law they would have been out of a job today, shunned and scorned and feeling suitably contrite. Not Mr Johnson, who joins the ranks of incompetent bankers and business chiefs in having a “get out of bother free” card in their wallets. Among the latest additions to the latter camp are the Thomas Cook executives who managed to wreck the holidays and livelihoods of tens of thousands while making sure they were all right, Jack.

READ MORE: Iain Macwhirter's view

By now there have been millions of words spoken and written on Brexit and Mr Johnson’s part in it. For all the learned, elegant, thoughtful contributions, among them Lady Hale’s summary of the court’s unanimous judgment, perhaps one of the sharpest personal assessments of Mr Johnson was made by his partner during that late night row, overheard by neighbours, before he won the Tory leadership contest. Mr Johnson had apparently spilled red wine on a sofa, which prompted his girlfriend, Carrie Symonds, to tell him that he had no care for anything, not money, not sofas, because he was spoilt. To that list of things Mr Johnson does not care about must now be added the rule and spirit of the law.

Certainly, he and his Ministers have said that of course they will abide by the Supreme Court’s decision. But at the same time they have subtly, and not so subtly, called into question the judges’ impartiality. “Let’s be in no doubt,” said the PM, there are a lot of people who want to stop this country coming out of the EU.” Michael Gove, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and a man formerly allergic to experts, yesterday found himself suddenly enamoured of them as he sought to downplay the significance of the ruling against the Government.

What is lacking, in both Mr Johnson, and the Brexit debate in general, is sufficient empathy, the ability to put oneself in another person’s position the better to understand them. It is difficult to appreciate the fear of losing one’s job if you have never had to worry where the next mortgage payment is coming from. Hard to know what it is like to lie awake at night wondering if the medication your child needs will be able to get through if there is a no deal Brexit. Easy to see politics in general as as grand game rather than realise your actions and words have real consequences.

READ MORE: Majority of Scots want PM to quit

Being wealthy does not mean a person is devoid of empathy, as Jeremy Corbyn suggested in his leader’s speech. Many a charity would not exist if that was so. But it is ironic indeed that the two western leaders setting up fights between legislatures, filled with the so-called “political elites”, and “the people”, are individuals from highly privileged backgrounds. In birth, education, careers, they are not men of the people. If anyone represents an elite it is Mr Johnson and Mr Trump.

Yet both will play the people versus the privileged card in the elections they are facing, Mr Trump in 2020 and Mr Johnson at some earlier point. Both may yet succeed. Not because voters are stupid. Far from it. They know exactly where the two leaders come from, but they reckon, irony upon irony, that these two rich and cosseted men can empathise with them and protect them when the economic and political storms blow.

There is no great mystery to this. It is the way of populists since time began: tell people want they want to hear and blame others when you are unable to deliver it.

The tactic succeeds because of the one area in which Mr Johnson and Mr Trump excel – as communicators. They may seem crass and thuggish, or calculatedly bumbling, but they put their simple case well. They reduce politics to the basics: in or out, wall or no wall, unelected judges versus Ministers, to an extent that their opponents struggle to match. What is troubling is that those opponents do not seem to realise it.

If their message was getting across the UK would not be as divided on Brexit as it has been, and continues to be. Minds are not being changed, attitudes are hardening, not softening.

In the case of the UK there are several reasons for this failure, the chief of them being the opposition’s breadth. Strength in numbers paid off in passing the law to prevent a no deal Brexit, and in taking the Government to court in Scotland and England. Had it not been for cooperation between parties none of this could have been achieved.

But now the battle becomes trickier. The opposition to Mr Johnson must take the argument on from what they are against, to what they are for. To the winners of this communications war the spoils, to the losers … who dares to say.