Rod Liddle

Rod Liddle: Ever since I criticised a leftist icon, the Beeb hasn't stopped calling me

5 October 2013

9:00 AM

5 October 2013

9:00 AM

Ring, ring goes the telephone every minute God sends. Sometimes I pick it up and say hello, sometimes I don’t. I know who is calling, anyway. It is one or another media representative from the bien-pensant absolutist liberal left, and they are all in a dither about a man called Ralph Miliband, of whom they had probably never heard until a few hours ago, and whom they have most certainly not read. Their sense of excitement, these youngish callers from a multiplicity of BBC news stations and, of course, Channel 4 News, is palpable; it fizzes and crackles down the line, their outrage and their delight at possibly finding someone who might add to their outrage, perhaps cube their outrage. Unless it’s just the jackdaws hacking away at the telephone lines again. It could be that.

The phone only ever rings like that when I’ve made a transgression against the sensibilities of these relentlessly busy people by saying something with which they disagree. Then all hell is let loose and my wife wanders into my room with a terribly weary expression on her face and says, ‘Why can’t you just keep your bloody mouth shut for once, you imbecile?’ and slams the door. Quite often the provisional wing of the bien-pensants gets involved, the Press Complaints Commission. But only when it’s the liberals who have been transgressed.

The odd thing is, it never, ever happens when I have a go at the right, no matter how recklessly, personally or unpleasantly. Sometimes when I’ve been spiteful about the crop of smug and inept public-school boys who currently run this country, I sort of hope that the phone will start its incessant ringing, because it would make a nice change. But it never does. I could write an article insisting that David Cameron was created from the frozen semen of Adolf Hitler by Soviet scientists and that he enjoyed nightly intercourse with feral goats — and the Beeb and Channel 4 wouldn’t give a monkey’s. ‘He’s probably right,’ they’d all be saying to themselves, ‘for once.’ There would be no calls for sackings, or prosecutions. The Guardian Comment is Free website would be utterly uninterested.

The problem on this occasion was a blog I had written for The Spectator agreeing, in a small part, with an article written by the Daily Mail’s Geoffrey Levy about the sociologist and, uh, activist, Ralph Miliband — father of the Labour leader Ed, of course. As it happens, I don’t think it was a particular brilliant article — as I said in the blog, I thought Levy’s hatchet was constructed from thinnish gruel, to coin a somewhat confusing metaphor. I don’t think the comments of a very young Ralph Miliband about Britain being full of horrible gung-ho nationalists should define the man forever as a hater of the country which took him in, as an émigré from Belgium, all those years ago. Nor do I think that Ed’s politics owe very much to his father’s view of the world, which, like that of most mid-20th century Marxist academics, was Manichean and corrupt. Further, if the Levy article was a smear, an attempt to sway voters away from Labour, I don’t think for a second that it will have worked; if anything, Ed’s stoic defence of his father might have swung a few votes his way.

But Ralphy? Not good, really not good. A competent writer (for a sociologist, at least — certainly a lot better than his mate C. Wright Mills), but possessed of views which wished to see the overthrow of the British state. A view steeped in a sort of intellectual, distanced, hatred; effete and pointless and hugely damaging to the Labour party, of which Ralph Miliband was a member for most of his later life. (To his credit, he never quite signed up to the Communist party.)

My real objection is the way in which these British-based Marxist academics are still revered, still taken seriously, despite having been proved wrong about almost everything. It is true that Ralph Miliband was markedly less of a poisonous influence than the ghastly Eric Hobsbawm, or the gentle and deluded E.P. Thompson, or Raymond Williams, or Stuart Hall or John Berger. Universities are just about the only place in the western world where you will find people who sign up to the dull, Victorian, mechanistic plodding of Karl Marx; somehow both Marx and his disciples have a sort of tenure in the soft social sciences, the faux disciplines of sociology and lit crit and meeja studies, and of course any module with the word ‘ethnic’ or ‘cultural’ in its heading. It is a form of radical chic dilettantism, laughable today (ever since Malcolm Bradbury created Howard Kirk in The History Man), but dangerous in the scary postwar years when the Communist party controlled several major unions and still posed threats both existential and via the ballot box.

And I repeat the charge. If George Osborne’s dad was as far to the right as Ralph Miliband was to the left, and this fact was reported (having read interviews with Osborne’s father, this might not be far from the truth), nobody would howl in anger that this was a smear, would they? The BBC and Channel 4 News would, instead, leap in and kick the living daylights out of Osborne Sr and think themselves entirely justified in so doing. Ralph Miliband may have been a lovely dad, but he was a damaging and unjustly revered influence. It should not be a crime to say as much.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Love it! Especially the bit about the feral goats!

    • Rtd Colonel

      feral got to be better than domesticated surely?

  • rtj1211

    Well, actually, if you take the 2012 General Election, the only newspaper calling someone a nazi was the Daily Mail.

    It’s owner is a tax avoider so why he should be allowed anywhere near politics is something you should ask yourself.

    ‘I don’t pay tax myself but I’ll tell all you oiks who do how your taxes should be raised and spent’.

    Now that to me sounds like the definition of someone who hates Britain……..

    • StateWeShouldBeIn

      These tax minimising newspaper owners are everywhere- do you reckon the Guardian’s GMG Hazel Acquistion 1 Ltd in the Caymans is a newsagent?

    • Dogzzz

      There was a general election in 2012? I shall take the rest of your blatantly false bile with a massive pinch of salt.

    • rodliddle

      I don’t disagree with that, as it happens.

    • Rtd Colonel

      Look at the unusual but legal Milliband property arrangement – good olf Ralph taxes only apply to the little people – hypocrisy QED

  • The_Savage

    “The odd thing is, it never, ever happens when I have a go at the right, no matter how recklessly, personally or unpleasantly”.

    This explains why the real right will never be in power in this country. Where’re cowards.

    • McRobbie

      NO, just more courteous and willing to accommodate differences in views. Good people in other words. To be accused of being cowardly for allowing different opinions to be heard seems a bit..well.. left wing.

      • The_Savage

        Very noble Bristish attitude, but unfortunately, those left wing and liberal differing views now dominate the Bristish psyche. Give people liberty and you give your enemies the liberty to attack you. Despostism protects a society from these desctructive ideologies.

    • Steve

      Wrong end of the stick old chap. He meant that the BBC and Channel 4 are not interested if he attacks the right, because they love that. He didn’t say whether or not the occasional Tory targets of his bile are prone to object.

  • Guest
  • slasha666

    “Rothermere now began a campaign in favour of the Nazi Party. The Daily Mail criticized “the old women of both sexes” who filled British newspapers with rabid reports of Nazi “excesses.” Instead, the newspaper claimed, Hitler had saved Germany from “Israelites of international attachments” and the “minor misdeeds of individual Nazis will be submerged by the immense benefits that the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany.””

    “Lord Rothermere also gave full support to Oswald Mosley and the National Union of Fascists. He wrote an article,Hurrah for the Blackshirts, on 22nd January, 1934, in which he praised Mosley for his “sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine””

    • Pootles

      But the Rothermere realised he had the BRITISH Union of Fascists all wrong (they were anything but Conservative) and withdrew his support. In fact, the BUF, late the BU, faced a pretty effective press boycott for most of its existence, and both Mosley and Harry Pollitt (Stalin’s best friend in Britain) were banned from the airwaves by the BBC

    • ChrisTavareIsMyIdol
    • StateWeShouldBeIn

      True, but on 14 July 1934, Rothermere said to Mosley

      “‘As you know, I have never thought that a movement calling itself
      ‘Fascist’ could be successful in this country, and I have also made it
      quite clear in my conversations with you that I never could support any
      movement with an anti-Semitic basis, any movement which had dictatorship
      as one of its objectives, or any movement which will substitute a
      ‘Corporate State’ for the Parliamentary institutions of this country.’”

      And while we’re at it, let’s not forget the Mirror’s support for Mosley at the same time. I don’t buy and can’t stand the Mail, but support absolutely their right to free speech (notwithstanding the fact this article had all the subtlety of a fifth form debating society). I do like the fact that the left really don’t like it up ’em so soon after their disgraceful treatment of Lady Thatcher in death and her surviving family….

    • Eddie

      And now the leftwing in Britain supports the new Nazis on the block – the Muslims. Hoorah for hypocrisy!

    • Rtd Colonel

      as did the mirror – go figure – common link national SOCIALISM

  • vdftryttujyujyuju

    funny how Miliband was in uproar over criticism of his dad but supported the lefties celebrating thatchers death

    Sign petition for UKIP to participate in the 2015 TV General
    Election Debates, over 24,000 have already signed. Please blog, tweet, facebook

    • sunnydayrider

      Are you serious?

      • Dogzzz

        Clearly yes. I think that IF the next national election (the EU Parliamentary elections) are won by UKIP, then they will have earned the right to be on the platform and be heard in those debates.

        It is ridiculous to ban a party that gets the most votes in a national election from the debates, when the party who will come fourth in the EU election, and also stands no chance of winning the general election outright, and who may come fourth in share of vote in that election (Lib Dems), are going to be there.

  • TheTortorian

    It’s worse, Osborne’s dad voted Liberal.

  • ChrisTavareIsMyIdol

    I don’t think any sensible person would argue with anything in this article. The big question is why I’m forced to pay a license fee so that left wing propaganda can be thrust down the populations throats night and day?

    • Chronicle Comment

      Don’t pay. I’m 21 years unpaid and going strong.


        Correct, i chucked it in 10 years ago, find something else to do.

        • Bob Hutton

          I don’t pay a telly license – I watch dvds and iplayer. As long as the iplayer is not “live” it is legal to watch it without a license.

          • Sebastian

            Ahh, so you’re a thief. Well done you.

            If you’re going to blubber on about the license fee that you refuse to pay, you could at least have the decency not to watch the programming produced with the money the rest of us do pay.

            This article is a nonsense. Rod LIddle has spent his entire career courting controversy, this is just one flipside to his pointless career. His final point is completely ridiculous.

          • Ridcully

            If what he’s doing is legal then he isn’t a thief; the real thief is the channel that forces us all, on pain of prosecution, to pay for it, whether we watch it or not.

          • Bastards

          • Sebastian

            The license fee is set by a minister and backed by law, if what they’re doing is legal then they aren’t thieves.

            The only difference is that what they are doing is entirely open and honest, whereas what he’s doing is exploiting a loophole to enjoy the benefits of something he refuses to pay for and claims to despise.

          • tjmac7

            if they pump out enough shit you can’t blame a man if a bit lands in his eye.

          • Sebastian

            No, though you must surely concede that if you go on the internet, search for it, press play and then sit and watch it, you’re more likely to get ‘hit in the eye’ by it.

            I don’t care if you people want to sit on here whinging about the license fee, but have the decency to stick to your convictions rather than steal the quality programming the rest of us pay for.

    • You are forced to pay that fee, _//exactly because they need the money//_ in order to be able to transmit, to force the propaganda down everyone’s throats night and day. Raising the consciousness of the revolutionary-masses cannot be done without “funding”. Ask the FrancoPakiSoviets who fund IEDs in Afghanistan, and “Mercs for Jerks” in Gambia.

      It’s like what the late great Sir Peter Bauer said about “foreign aid”…. It’s a tax forced upon poor people in rich countries, so that the money can all be given to a few rich people in poor countries.

      • maurice12brady

        David Davis — You are a tonic, a veritable effervescent drink! — If you were a firework you’d be a roman candle. Laughed till I spilt my coco. Seriously — is there any guidance on practical licence fee avoidance?

        • Don’t watch TV.

        • Treebrain

          Yes look at the TV Licensing site.

          Withdraw the ‘implied right of access’ to prevent your home being inspected.

          Claim that you only watched recordings and not live tv and you do not need a licence.

          Look at YouTube as clips show licensing agents bluffing and failing as they try to gain entry to premises!

      • anotherjoeblogs

        It’s like what the late great Sir Peter Bauer said about “foreign aid”…. It’s a tax forced upon poor people in rich countries, so that the money can all be given to a few rich people in poor countries.

        am gonna nick that one, a real beaut.

    • D B


    • UKSteve

      A guy at work sent me this. It was my inspiration.

      • DougS

        Great link, thanks.

  • Bert

    Pravda seem to be worse lately – is that War starter Cambell stalking every newsroom?

  • Eddie

    Nail on head – cubed!
    Does anyone actually still believe that the BBC and Channel 4 (both funded by us via the licence fee) are unbiased and politically neutral?
    A report last year stated that the BBC was biased and did not give enough coverage to people’s concern over immigration, instead insinuating – as only smug lefties who assume they permanently occupy the high ground can – that anyone who thought that was, hint hint, a racist and so not a normal decent person worth listening to at all.
    I can say with authority that the entire education system is full of such members of the self-declared ‘liberal elite’, who ironically are the biggest appeasers and excusers of fascists if they have a dark skin and a religion called Islam behind them.
    Universities are also full of hypocrite lefties on £60k a year for attempting to indoctrinate their students into being similarly pro-left, pro-EU, pro-mass immigration, pro-Islam. They used to be pro-Soviet Union too until it collapsed.

    • Eddie

      And let’s remember too that, when the left realised it would never impose socialism on Britain, they tried another tack: unlimited mass immigration of those who would mostly vote Labour.
      Of course, capitalist pigs also supported this policy to keep wages down and put property prices up.
      So ordinary people have been well and truly toasted, innit?!
      And now millions more Asians and Africans are on their way after getting into other EU countries like Greece.
      Well, some London boroughs are now over 80% non-white, so are obviously in great need of some ethnic colour and interesting headdresses…

    • sayonara223

      Channel 4 isn’t and has never been funded by the licence fee:

      Do you seriously think the BBC would allow the precedent of non-BBC organisations to obtain direct licence fee funding?

      • Eddie

        Wrong wrong wrong! Trust me – a proportion of Channel 4’s income comes from the BBC, which comes from the licence fee.

        • David Lindsay

          Rubbish. You have no idea what you are talking about.

          But then, you also think that the BBC supported the Soviet Union. And that the Left supports the EU. You are not Paul Dacre, are you.

          • Eddie

            Idiot. But well down to the usual dishonest, abusive, straw man standards of left wing debate.

          • David Lindsay

            You have been found out. Channel 4 is not, and has never been, funded by the license fee.

          • Eddie

            Listen, twerp, Channel 4 is very much funded by the BBC – via programme sponsorship. You have thus been exposed as an ignoramus.

          • David Lindsay

            Oh, dear…

            Give it up, you silly, silly, silly little man.

          • hoddles

            Like the Daily Mail, which is probably the source of your information, you should stop digging when you find yourself in a hole.

          • Eddie

            I do not buy The Daily Mail – mainly because I lack a lady hole, like its other readers. I can assure you I am no such hole at the moment.
            Really, the level of debate amongst lefties is so infantile as to need nappies. Accusing anyone who disagrees with you or proves you wrong of reading The Daily Mail (a perfectly acceptable women’s issues newspaper) is just daft.

          • Rtd Colonel

            buy the mirror they only supported mosley’s national socialist blackshirts – at least they were consistent in support of left wing totalitarean parties and didn’t oscillate like the mail

      • Eddie

        Do you know what ‘programme sponsorship’ means? It means the BBC funds Channel 4 by co-funding its programmes. And where does the BBC’s money come from eh?

        • sayonara223

          The BBC buys sandwiches from M&S too. So by that rule, M&S is licence fee funded.

          • Eddie

            You have no idea of how media businesses work. Without the BBC’s underhand funding, Channel 4 would fold. Not bad, considering its news programmes support Hammas and anyone who hates Israel and Jews.

          • sayonara223

            You have no idea what I do for a living. Your assumptions about me are as ill-informed and stupid as those which underlie your other statements.

          • rodliddle

            Hmm. He’s right about Channel Four not existing without the BBC, though.

          • sayonara223

            Perhaps Channel 4 should receive direct funding from the TV licence. With a body to dispense the money to Channel 4, the BBC and anyone else worthy of it, with the body elected by the licence fee payers directly and setting the level of the fee directly.

            At the very least the screams of rage from the BBC would be amusing.

          • HookesLaw

            Perhaps channel 4 should just rely on advertising. Or shut down for 23 hours a day.

          • Rtd Colonel

            if your are as well informed as you imply then you must be mentally ill or morelikely a complete ligging tosser

          • sayonara223

            Charmed, I’m sure.

    • Dogzzz

      They are not politically neutral, but they are also not particularly left wing either… No don’t laugh yet, at least humour me as I explain the true nature of the massive and blatant political bias of the BBC…

      There is a political agenda which the establishment of this country must follow. It is globalist, it is in favour of expanding the control of supra-national power (whether it be via continental bodies such as the EU, or the UN, or other NGOs) It is in favour of supporting political action to “tackle climate change” in spite of all the real scientific empirically measured evidence clearly falsifying the CAGW hypothesis, they are in favour of anything that weakens the nation state, such as large scale immigration and emmigration. They are in favour of enacting the same laws in many different countries at once (homosexual marriage for example), they are in favour of weakening the traditional nuclear family, in favour of other, weaker alternative family ‘types’ which are more likely to break-down and lead to the state having a much more formative role in bringing up children and indoctrinating them in how to be what they consider “model citizens”.

      This globalist, anti-family, anti-individualist, anti-nation political agenda is the agenda that the establishment of this, and many other, countries. It is directed from a supra-national level through the EU, NATO, UN, NGOs, Think tanks, political charities and from those members of the international elite in industry, politics, military, commerce, diplomacy etc… who stand to benefit most from it.

      The BBC is THE establishment broadcaster, who represents and conditions (brainwashes) the public to accept that agenda more than any other.

      Any political party which vears away from that agenda, or threatens that agenda is attacked, or ridiculed or ignored.

      The reason that the BBC appears to be biased in favour of labour, is because the labour party represent and are invested much more in this agenda than any other UK party, therefore the labour party get the least flack from the BBC. If labour veer from this agenda, they are attacked.

      When labour were opposed to the EEC (in opposition in the early 1980s) The BBC treated them as a joke. When the tories were split and partly opposed the EU in the late 1990s and through most of the naughties, they were treated as a joke.

      The reason UKIP were given a lot of beneficial coverage at about a year ago by the BBC, is that when they are at between 5 – 10% in the polls, they can kill the tories chances of election in 2015, and keep the agenda safe in labour’s hands. Whereas if they start to get above 25% (which they were very close to in May’s council elections) in a 4 party system of first past the post, then UKIP suddenly become a MASSIVE threat to the agenda. Hence why the BBC turned and began to savage UKIP.

      The BBC protect an establishment agenda to eventually create a global government, with more and more power and control and wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people, with less and less democratic oversight or accountibility. It is nakedly corporatist. In favour of massive multinationals who can move vast sums of money to avoid taxation (hence the labyrinthine complexity of the tax system created by Gordon Brown. For every tax loophole he closed, he opened 5 more), where these corporations buy up smaller competitors and eradicate fair competition, where they provide government functions for guaranteed profit and are incentivized to implement the state’s agenda. This is not capitalism, it is not socialism, it is the bastard offspring of both, encapsulating the worst aspects of both. It is corporatism.

      If you have followed the climate change debate, and read the documents produced at the global climate summits, you see the agenda written in black and white and already agreed by many international governments. If you read UN documents, it is set out in Agenda 21.

      The BBC are biased, but it is not about being in favour of any one particular party. It is about protecting the political agenda of creating a corporatist one world government and turning the balance of state as servant to the people, on its head. Making the people the servant of the state.

      • Fred Smith

        Political left and right are largely outmoded terms but we are stuck with them and people assume they know what they mean.

        It is about making the people the servant of the state and imposing power structures which are not well defined or accountable.

        I’ve always associated turgid bureaucracies and ever growing the reach of the state with the left. That’s why I’m naturally inclined to regard the BBC as left wing.

        However, there are large companies which are turgid bureaucracies themselves, and which have influence on placing legislation, through H&S or environmental concerns, to suit their interests, so which are effectively part of the state.

        Then we’ve seen profits being privatised while losses are socialised and enterprises too big to be allowed to fail. That’s not capitalism and it’s not socialism either, it’s an unwholesome cocktail of the worst elements of both.

        Then we have NGOs which have managed to worm their way into the decision process at a high level which is a far cry from transparency and democratic control.

      • richard

        I’ve no idea about globalism, Dogzz, but I suspect that you are on to something. My grandfather was a socialist – the real thing! Injured in a mine, worked as a bricklayer most of his life, struggled through the Great Depression and a stalwart of the Labour and Union movements. He was also a patriot and a small-c conservative. People – even the ‘bosses’ with whom he had verbal dust-ups – liked him. The so-called ‘Lefties’ at the B.B.C, whose suggested sympathy for the working classes never extends as far as doing any actual work, would loathe and despise him.

      • ramesesthegrumbler

        Shhhhsh! You’ll end up dead in a wood!

  • derekemery

    In Marxist theory the state is the institution of organised violence
    which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the
    conditions of its rule. Therefore if he was a Marxist he would have to be against the state.

  • BlueCrashDive

    Newsnight with the ranting, raving Alastair Campbell was a hoot. He demanded the Daily Mail chap answer the question and as he always does, Campbell wouldn’t let the chap speak.

    The BBC, Guardian, Independent etc. are such hypocrites.

    Well done Rod.

    • Bert

      So ironic that a man who’s theories could have damaged Britain was defended by a dangerous, document tampering loon who actually HAS damaged Britain.

      • Graeme Harrison

        Even more ironic that an erstwhile shill of the BBC is cheered to the rafters about anything.

      • Dogzzz

        That such an alcoholic, manic depressive, lying, war-criminal, pornographer should ever have been allowed to hold any postition of influence or power within the highest levels of our government shows the utter corruption at the heart of our establishment today. The man is mentally unstable, has the ethics of a Nazi war criminal, excused the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of dark skinned followers of Islam, based on blatant lies, as if it is of no consequence. How the BBC could ever give such an evil, foul, disgusting excuse for a human being air-time speaks volumes for it’s own blatant political bias and its own vile values.

        The BBC, a bunch of corrupt, wastful fraudulent liars, cheats and paedophile enablers and protectors, and Alistair Campbell. Both are disgusting sewer dwellers who suit each other.

        • Pootles

          Well said, that man! Certainly couldn’t have put it better m’self. I do wish the old has-been like Campbell, Straw, Knnock and the rest would just go into proper retirement.

        • Rtd Colonel

          Blair lite?

        • Tim Reed

          A thousand recommends if I could!!!!

        • John Clegg

          So you don’t like him either?

        • Ridcully

          “alcoholic, manic depressive, lying, war-criminal pornographer..evil, foul disgusting excuse for a human being.”
          Well yes, but let’s not forget he has his bad points too!

        • ArchiePonsonby

          Not a fan, then, Dogzzz? Actually Rod’s point that Milliband the Elder didn’t join the CPGB tallies very much with what a dedicated Marxist and big noise in the Electrician’s Union told me when I was a mere lad; i.e. that it was a mistake to actually join a left-wing party, as the names on file were all available to Special Branch!

  • David Lindsay

    The Daily Mail might consider looking into the fact that an official phone number for Iain Duncan Smith’s Leadership campaign was in fact for the house of Nick Griffin’s father, a Vice-President of that campaign, who answered that phone with the words “British National Party”. That was not in the 1930s. It was not even in the 1960s. It was in the present century.

    Then there are the youthful ties of numerous members of the present Government to apartheid South Africa and to Pinochet’s Chile. And then there are the Nazi sympathisers in the aristocratic backgrounds of many an MP from either Coalition party. Cameron himself is related by marriage (so, a matter of his choice) to none other than the Astors.

    “Hurrah for the Blackshirts!”, indeed.

    • Tony_E

      The Daily Mail might consider looking into the fact that an
      official phone number for Iain Duncan Smith’s Leadership campaign was in
      fact for the house of Nick Griffin’s father, a Vice-President of that
      campaign, who answered that phone with the words “British National

      Do you have any evidence to back that claim? If so, please supply it or a link to it.

      • David Lindsay

        Oh, you could find that as easily as I could. It was a big story at the time. But it did IDS no harm within his party, because the fact is that this is the kind of the thing that the electorate at large expects of the Tories. This is just who the voters think that you are: very old, very rich, and very nasty, especially about race.

        • Tony_E

          If it’s so easy to find, please go ahead and point the way David.

          • David Lindsay

            Here, for a start – .

            “The phone Mr Griffin answered was a BNP one in the couple’s home,” but it was also the number given to journalists by the IDS campaign. That was how they got hold of it.

            A Vice-President of that campaign had a BNP phone in his house. “And he claimed the BNP are “right in the middle of British politics,” and “identical” to the Conservative party” – .

            IDS won the Leadership, and a mere seven years later he entered the Cabinet, where he remains to this day.

          • Dogzzz

            So that Edgar Griffin, a tory for decades, was treated very badly for having an idiot left wing racist lunatic as a son. And you are trying to claim that the tories are the same as the BNP on the back of this???

            The tories welcome all cultures and races into the UK, even at the expense of the British culture.

            They are opposed to nationalisation and state ownership of common production and services (such as energy water, railways etc)

            They are profoundly pro European.

            In all these areas, The tories are the same as labour, and opposite to the racist national socialism of the BNP.

            I am not conservative supporter, and indeed I hope that UKIP give the tories a deserved thrashing at the next EU parliamentary elections, but to even imply that there is no difference between the BNP and the tories is frankly insane!

            MInd you… this article is from 2001, when the BNP was moving rapidly leftwards and may have been at the time when they crossed paths with the tories and shared some of the same views.

            Certainly these days, the BNP are a far left nationalist socialist party, whereas the tories are a centre-left bunch of corporatist social democrats.

          • David Lindsay

            Take it up with Edgar Griffin. Or with Iain Duncan Smith.

            That they were identical was the stated view, to the biggest news provider in the world, of the Vice-President of the Leadership Campaign of the man who went on to win that Leadership Election, and who now sits in the Cabinet.

            That Campaign gave as that Vice-President’s number for media contacts what was in fact an official BNP phone.

          • Dogzzz

            No I am taking it up with you, regurgitating a 12 year old claim which is not backed up by the statement in the article you listed. Edgar Griffin would be much more sympathetic to his delusional son’s parties real agenda. His stating that they are the same as the tories, is factually at odds with reality.

          • David Lindsay

            Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.

            He is probably dead. But you could always ask the Cabinet Minister Iain Duncan Smith why the Vice-President of his successful campaign for Leader of the Conservative Party publicly stated that there was no difference between that party and the BNP, and gave an official campaign number for an official BNP phone, since he had such a thing in his house?

          • gerontius

            You’re a second-rate smear monkee.
            Leave this kind of thing to Damian – he knows what he is doing.

          • JM

            I hear Damian’s retired, however Rod Liddle and the Daily Mail were always far better at smear than him.

          • Mr Grumpy

            If you’d read your source a little more attentively you’d know that he was “one of the 40 vice presidents of Mr Duncan Smith’s campaign team in Wales”


            But I’m sure he was an exceptionally important Welsh vice-president.

    • Pootles

      But IDS saw active service in the Scots Guards, and his father was a Battle of Britain pilot – so how can you say any of these dreadful things! Quick, where’s my small onion?

      • Daniel Maris

        Here, try this chilli powder – Alistair Campbell says it works really well.

  • Mark_ld

    Don’t worry some people from the left are born with a second Bile Duct so as to help them with their hatred. It’s nothing personal and they tend to try to win the argument by flooding the airwaves with moral hypocritical poison.

  • Peter Stroud

    What you said, Rod, was absolutely correct. Well done: keep it up.

  • I am also a “radio ham”, call sign M3LBG. We do know something about how television receivers work today – and even more about how they use to work when they were all traditional “analogue radio receivers”.

    In the old days, such as up to perhaps five/10 years ago, any TV receiver “radiated” rather strong signals at quite well-known frequencies, from its own internal detection and signal-processing circuitry. These frequencies were directly related to the broadcast frequencies – although not the same as those – and so could be very very exactly searched for and detected outside the set. the same principle was used by German U-Boats in the Battel of the Atlantic in WW2, to detect the “local oscillator frequency” of Allied ships’ radios, from many miles away, _even if the ships were simply “receiving”! _

    So it was originally possible to have something such as a “detector van”, which could find the TV’s oscillator/frequency-changer’s radiations, up to say 30-40 yards away.

    Not so today! “Modern” digital TV receivers have their radio parts so well screened, and so small, and operating on such little power, that it is arguable that any stray radiated signals from these – and it would be hard to see what those were for the technology is now different – would not go more that a yard or so.

    Can someone in the street detect whether your laptop in receiving wireless? No it can’t: it however CAN detect if your router itself is radiating, but it would not be able to “see” any stray constant-frequency-outputs from your PC’s wireless receiving module, which anyway is the size of a chocolate button, is inside a metal shim, and is thinner still.

    A few years ago, I had the fleeting good fortune to peer surreptitiously inside a BBC “detector van”. There was NOTHING inside the back of that van. Its roof was bristling with scary aerials, and there was a coaxial 50-ohm wire hanging down inside it, connected to….nothing at all. Not even a PL259 plug or an N-type male, was on the end of the thing! I was hustled away by a couple of angry dudes who then slammed the back doors.

    The “detector vans” still exist merely to frighten single mothers in their prison-estates in places like Bootle, Norris Green, Crockie and Tockie. These wretched, oppressed, downtrodden and forgotten serfs of socialism, itself peddled by the Milibands, Hobsbawms and other GFNs (look up what a GFN is) have nothing to do all day but watch the TV. they also don’t know – not having been informed on purpose – that the TV-protection-money-duded have _no warrant to enter their property_ , and rely simply on seeing the glow of the screen being on.

    Do not pay the TV license fee, ever.

    Sevety-Threes de Mike 3 Lima Bravo Golf, and QRT

    • Flintshire Ian

      If I was a detector van driver I would want some serious danger money to get out of my van and knock on a door in any of the places you mention. So they probably don’t.

      More likely, the detector system works on relational databases back in an office not signal detection. Addresses on post code based systems like the autofill system you are offered by on line retailers are checked against a similar database of addresses with valid tv licences and flags placed against those that don’t appear to have a licence. To buy a new TV you also have to provide an address at the point of sale which is another flag.
      If your address is flagged, they might then come knocking on your door to check as part of an area campaign. Probably with the Police pre-warned in case things warm up a bit.

    • Pootles

      What a interesting post – best for a while. Even more interestingly, my family lived in Bootle from the 1890s until the 1970s – they were of the type once known as the respectable working class: English (with some Welsh), hard working, Great War serving, blitz defying, patriotic people in a supportive, extended family. All gone now.

  • Dogzzz

    Absolutely true. What is terrifying about the left, is not so much their utter economic incompetence, or their damaging envy and hatred of our history, but their total rejection of any concept of free speech. They are viscious opponents of anyone’s right to disagree with them.

    • In the end, the Left will “have to go”. One does not care deeply how this will be done, but to do it must.

      I have often favoured while being the Principal Secretary of State for War, voluntransporting the entire shebang to the South Sandwich Islands (the smaller ones.) Down there, there is nothing of what the Left don’t like and want to forbid others to have.

      So they will be really happy just to have each other.

      • Reasonforall

        Brilliant plan, off-shoring the disagreeables and undesirables. And it’s not like Britain has no experience with these sorts of population transfers. So all should go smoothly.

        And, no, liberals wouldn’t be completely content without right-wingers. Who else would provide the comic relief?

    • rodliddle

      I like “viscious”; sort of savage AND sticky, like a dildo with a mind of its own.

  • TheTortorian

    The first series of the BBC’s “The Hour” was about a battle between Communists and Socialists at the BBC. I was astonished that Ralph didn’t feature as a character and fear that their internal political dynamic has changed but little.

  • Mark_ld

    Don’t be fooled this is a co-ordinated political take-down of the Mail.

    • Eddie

      And is it an example of institution indirect discrimination? After all, The Daily Mail is well-known as a women’s paper – despite feminists thinking most women are leftie Guardian-reading feminists. They are not – they read The Daily Mail, with its 70%+ female readership.

      • Rtd Colonel

        even with the failed put down “The sidebar of shame”

    • Holly

      Miliband is not wise enough to quit while he is ahead.
      I sussed Miliband’s true intentions the second he kept upping his demands. Like some demented hostage taker, who wants a car..No a van
      ..No a chopper…No a burger…and a Coke…DIET!
      The bloke is an absolute political, very unfunny joke.
      The public will turn on him when they too feel they have been ‘had’, and Miliband’s defence of his ‘dad’ was perfectly timed to use as an excuse for his underhand intentions. A bit like his underhand tactics to beat his brother.

      The only thing standing in his way, are the public.

  • Ricky Strong

    Spot on Rod.

    Everyone knows you simply can not say a bad thing about the left. They are on a par with Islam when it comes to hurt feelings. And that is precisely why they can never evolve and change with the times.

  • Madeleine

    excellent piece, Rod. The bods at the Beeb should be made to read it and possibly learn.

  • The_greyhound

    Central to the modern pinko-libtard thesis is the proposition that dissent is forbidden. This is in line with their quasi-religious commitment to their irrational belief system. Any view which challenges their dumb orthodoxies is to be stigmatised by an “ism” or a “phobia” and shouted down – they remorselessly play the man, never the ball.

    The reason of all of this is almost comic. The entire spurious structure of leftist thought collapsed a generation ago. Only North Korea an Mr Mugabe keep the faith alive. So these arrogant stupid dogmatists can’t afford a discussion about anything – it’s damned difficult to argue for communism when even China eagerly embraces capitalism. So all that is left is to forbid debate of any kind.

    See the Guardian’s love affair with press censorship for details.

  • Jez

    Hang in there mate.

    You know you’ve hit the button when your very livelihood and well being is in the cross-hairs of the venomous Liberal Left enforcers.

    You’ll be reet pal. x

  • arnoldo87

    Two points Rod:-
    1. I heard that the goats weren’t feral.
    2. Your wife is very astute.

    • Colonel Mustard


  • James Weaks

    Hear Hear

  • Smithersjones2013

    The only thing that Rod has left out is that these sanctimonious hypocrites think lowlife Labour gutter vermin like Sion Simon are humorous. Remember this piece of disgusting and disgraceful idiocy?

    If I recall the left wing MSM said nothing but then thats the way partisan bullying bigots behave……

    Of course when you look and see what Brown, Watson, Simon, Whelan, Balls, Campbell, McBride, Maguire, Draper et al did in the name of Labour, if the left wing MSM had condemned Labour in power they would have done nothing else throughout the Blair and Brown years. The public would have been inundated with their sanctimonious outrage. After all Labour was just one enormous 13 year smear (you know the brown one on the public toilet wall) and guess what Ed Miliband made not one complaint about it. Not a dickie bird. Instead he happily took promotion after promotion until he rose to lead the party……

  • Robert Taggart

    How Liebore must be missing the wise words of one of their late dozy luvvies – Clive Dunn aka Corporal Jones – “they don’t like it up ’em” !
    What is it with the left in general and Liebore in particular ? – they be always quick to question others integrity and quicker still to call others names. But, when others do unto them as they do unto others ? – they ‘don’t like it up ’em !!

    • milliboot

      Exactly ! Ed Milliband was quite happy to have a picture taken with a “Thatcher is dead”T shirt wearing fool before the funeral, grinning his head off.Has he apologised to Carol and Mark Thatcher ?

  • Ian Young

    The BBC called Liddle up as they were looking for a professional contrarian and distaste from people across the political spectrum for these low grade tacky pot shots at Ed Miliband by insulting his father means they are thin on the ground. Rod’s cheaper than Littelejohn and a slightly sharper tool in the box than James Delingpole.

  • JWil42

    Liddle always likes to say exactly the opposite of the general point of view. Always the gee whizz type of article. That’s how he makes his living. He is perverse. So why should we give him any credibility.

    • Martin Jennerson

      “If George Osborne’s dad was as far to the right as Ralph Miliband was to
      the left, and this fact was reported (having read interviews with
      Osborne’s father, this might not be far from the truth), nobody would
      howl in anger that this was a smear, would they? The BBC and Channel 4
      News would, instead, leap in and kick the living daylights out of
      Osborne Sr and think themselves entirely justified in so doing.”

      Completely correct and Rod states the obvious truth as usual

    • Daniel Maris

      Perhaps you didn’t realise, but you’re only allowed to patronise someone if you are actually their superior.

      • JWil42

        The truth is that the Daily Mail article is muckraking of the worst kind. It is the lowest of the low, whatever their entrenched position on defending themselves. I am sure that they are going to be be sorry they ever went down this path. I am not a Labour supporter and I am not a supporter of the BBC, far from it, but the people at the Mail are only a hairsbreadth of being right wing extremists who dispense their poison with great relish and if it wasn’t for the adverse reaction they would get from ordinary, decent people of this country the floodgates would be open for them to say anything they like. I put the owner of the paper in the same category as Rupert Murdoch. As someone said, its the enemy within we have to worry about.

      • Indianchap

        Is that why your attempts at patronising fail so miserably?

  • Pete222

    Wow….a gallery of truly great writers thrown into the bin by Liddle in one sentence. I’m beginning to wonder if the bigotry and the sheer arrogance of Rod and his Chums has reached the point where they think it impossible to have a radical left wing perspective and, at the same time, love this country. What does he do about the Diggers and the Levellers? Or even Cromwell? Would he have simply thrown the Chartists to the wolves? Would he have stopped Engels writing that rather definitive book on English industrial cities? Was Keir Hardie a simple lamb bound for slaughter? What about William Blake and Tom Paine? There’s always this confusion inserted into these texts about the USSR, even though so many of the binned writers spent their lives denouncing it (you really think Stuart Hall was a closet Stalinist?). Miliband especially, even wrote damned letters to The Times denouncing the Soviet’s authoritarian blasts into Czechoslovakia.

    Get this: there is a great British radical tradition. It has added enormously to our history. It has had tinges of ‘socialism’ since the 17th Century, long before the name was coined. Of course, the late 19th Century and 20th Century radicals looked at Marx, and, of course, many of its leaders read him: after all, you cannot exactly have a course on modern politics or economics without seeing his position as rather pivotal. Or would you simply ignore him in a University curriculum?

    And. get this: if you study this tradition, and read some of those rather elegant writers that you so summarily dismiss (I mean, is there any historian who can match Hobsbawm’s grasp of English?), you will discover a real and deep love of country.

    It just so happens that the underlying patriotic text of these thinkers is not God Save The Queen – it’s Jerusalem.

    • Daniel Maris

      George Orwell’s politics were not that dissimilar to Ralph Milband’s and no one accuses him of hating the British, for the good reason that he gave great evidence of loving Britain, its landscape and its people.

      Miliband, on the other, hand seems to view this country with a cold, contemptuous intellectual eye, unloving and sneeringly indifferent to our history and culture.

      • Indianchap

        Britain is not owned by you exclusively. It includes and stands for many things. The fact that Miliband was critical of the British institutions of his time – a time when anti-Semitism was the rule in many influential quarters and in popular culture – is really none of your business. He was a free man and he had no obligation to show you any badge of patriotism because you are not a patriot by his book anyway.

        George Orwell had much to recommend him but he was a shameless anti-Semite though very late in life he learned to hide his tracks.

        Here are some comments by Orwell on Jews DURING THE HITLER WAR, taken from his works in Penguin:

        “…thoughtful people [in Britain] say Jews use this country as a temporary asylum but show no loyalty to it. Objectively this is true, and the tactlessness of some of the refugees is almost incredible. For example, a remark by a German Jewess overheard during the Battle of France: “These English police are not nearly so smart as our SS men”. “

        Here we see the astoundingly perverse sadism of ascribing pro-SS sentiments to Jews.

        Or this:

        “The other night examined the crowds sheltering [from bombing] in Chancery Lane, Oxford Circus and Baker Street stations. Not all Jews, but I think, a higher proportion of Jews than one would normally see in a crowd of this size. What is bad about Jews is that they are not only conspicuous but go out of their way to make themselves so. A fearful Jewish woman, a regular comic-paper cartoon of a Jewess (sic!), fought her way off the train at Oxford Circus, landing blows on everyone who stood in her way. It took me back to the old days on the Paris Metro (sic!).”

        Note that sentence in particular: “What is bad about Jews is that they are not only conspicuous but go out of their way to make themselves so.”

        His sickening claim is that Jewish refugees, poor damned souls who had fled the gas chambers somehow, having lost dear ones and all property, were all contemptuous of Britain.

      • Indianchap

        You bray:

        “Miliband, on the other, hand seems to view this country with a cold,
        contemptuous intellectual eye, unloving and sneeringly indifferent to
        our history and culture.”

        Well, if the likes of you with your rancid back street philistinism are good specimens of the said culture who can blame him?

  • Good to see all is not lost with regards to Journalism in this country, we need good journalism to say unpleasant things sometimes just as an army needs an intelligence service to suggest there might be treason from within, or a possible flanking maneuver about to occur, even if such warnings eventually turn out later to be wrong.

  • simon

    The only shameful thing about the Daily Mail’s outlook on Lenin’s many lickspittles (who shall all remain unidentified) is that on this occasion it was hounded into making a retraction and did not stick to it’s guns. There is nothing I could trust about a Junta of such legendary cruelty as Lenin and Stalin or their many recent followers If one would know a fact or two about soviets local or national then read Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book entitled ‘The Gulag Archipelago’.A grim, hateful eugenicide that set a nation back many decades. Any apologist for that regime deserves the full range of treatments described in Chapter One. I have all 3 volumes in hardback. That book should be in every school library. Along with Fahrenheit 451, and Orwell’s 1984,and Animal Farm. Perestroika was a sham move,as was Glasnost. I was never a linguist but I would say that glassness also implies unseeable actions. A certain man escaped from a vicious regime and then had the chutzpah to try and seed his host country with those very same poisonous ideas that the simple and bone idle find so appealing. Had Iossif Vissarionich not died of a stroke in 1953 he would have fulfilled the last 99.9% of his ‘Doctors Plot’. As historians are so fond of reminding us, a certain Austrian was the only architect of all things racially biassed. Any line by line reading of a REALLY old Talmud will reveal much to those intent upon getting the skinny on racial and religious antagonism. Astounded? You might be. Hitler is oft remembered for it, but had that arch demon, the smallpoxed, web toed, monster Stalin lived another 15 years there would not be a Jew or offspring of one left alive ANYWHERE on this cratered planet.

  • Reasonforall

    It looks like British right-wingers feel as put-upon as their American cousins. Poor, poor babies – on both sides of the pond. So much privilege, yet so little respect. 🙁

    • Ridcully

      The “poor little babies” are the Leftists who squeal like stuck pigs when they finally get a taste of their own medicine.

  • Seem to remember Rod Liddle ( or was it his Brother Stewart ?) was the Editor of BBC Today Programme ( or they would call it a show these days…) notwithstanding the trolling on here, his wife has a point. from time to time ignore the background noise and keep your powder dry for when it can be most effective…. and you are assured of a fee

  • justejudexultionis

    How useful are the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ in the twenty-first century? After all, they were first used during the French Revolution.

  • Richard

    Attacking one of Brtain’s most beloved Marxists! No more Daily Mail for me.

  • EwanUzarmi

    Fabulous, Rod.
    The Mail’s opponents are damn lucky that Levy’s article was given such a clumsy headline, they could have got a more sophisticated one by walking onto the nearest building site at tea-time and asking the plasterers for suggestions. Lucky too that the article gave such prominence to Milliband’s teenage opinions, when the garbage he wrote as an adult was more than enough to expose his institutionalised silly-ism.

  • Ripple

    The Left would be lost without its double standards. ‘What’s unfair to me is perfectly fair in your case because I say so’. Infantile: but they don’t call the Republicans the ‘grown-up party’ for nothing.