Not Saussure

March 3, 2007

Rod Liddle explains why Rory Bremner’s to blame

Filed under: Politics, UK — notsaussure @ 1:20 am

Rod Liddle isn’t my favourite columnist, but he’s very good on Peter Hain in this week’s Spectator (free registration required):

It is always cheering to encounter a politician who refuses to offer up the easy answer to challenging questions but instead delves beneath the surface and, with candour, delivers himself of an opinion which runs counter to the popularly held belief. So let’s hear it this week for Peter Hain, the agreeably tanned candidate for the post of deputy leader of the Labour party.The question in this particular case was this: why does the British public view politicians, and especially leading members of the current administration, with cynicism and bitterness? The easy, glib answer for Peter would have been: ‘Because of the opportunistic and cynical behaviour of people such as myself.’ That’s certainly the popular view, but it is an analysis which Mr Hain — having given the matter much thought — eschewed. His own answer to this conundrum was beguiling and counter-intuitive: ‘Rory Bremner’, he said.

And Mr Liddle goes on to explain, with detailed analysis, Mr Hain’s all-too-often misunderstood principles:

Principles are much more complex creatures than most people really understand. A principle is still a principle even if it was formed yesterday afternoon just before tea, or shortly after colleagues begin jockeying for position in the deputy leadership race. There is no inconsistency here. Mr Hain did not say how long he stuck by his principles, after all. The important thing with principles, as any idiot should gather, is to stick fervently to them until it is no longer expedient to do so. That, if you like, is the principle behind principles.

Technorati Tags: , ,



  1. Well, Ron Liddle may not be your favourite columnist (and I don’t even approve the concept); however, I think you do him a small injustice.

    That was not a good article: it was an ace, a gem, excellent.

    [Aside: I don’t think I have felt disappointed by anything of Mr Liddle’s that I have read (though of course that cannot be expected to continue for ever). But there is one problem with him (and so I hope this gets to his attention). His visual image is not at all good; if he wishes to make a very distinctive point (perhaps a could-not-care-less attitude to some of the conventions of society), that’s fine by me. But untidy/unkempt is not a good choice. Perhaps something outlandish, or even “different outlandish” on every occasion: though that could be mistaken for inconsistency, and we would not want that. Perhaps some of his friends could advise.]

    Best regards

    Comment by Nigel Sedgwick — March 3, 2007 @ 7:25 am

  2. Um, thanks Nigel. I suspect you’re right. The tv people seem to want me to look like a sack of shit, however. Not that it’s difficult meeting their requirements…….

    Comment by rod liddle — March 6, 2007 @ 2:54 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: