Skip to Content

Rod Liddle

I admit it: I enjoyed the Women’s World Cup

6 July 2019

9:00 AM

6 July 2019

9:00 AM

I was asked on to the BBC Today programme — my old manor — last week to talk about the Women’s World Cup. The producers had noticed that I’d changed my mind about the event and now thought it all rather good fun, having hitherto been derisively misogynistic. ‘This is the thing,’ I said to them. ‘You only invite social conservatives on when they’ve come around to your way of thinking and stopped being social conservatives. Why don’t you ask me on to talk about banning abortion, deporting all foreigners and sectioning the trannies?’ I agreed to the football chat, a little reluctantly, but told the chap that the item would be dropped approximately 11 minutes before it was due on air. This is exactly what happened, as it usually does with Today.

They are not the worst offenders, however. I was once flown to Edinburgh at your expense to take part in Question Time and they binned me an hour before the show with the words: ‘I’m really sorry — but we’ve got George Galloway, you see.’ They know how to make you feel good about yourself at the BBC.

But it’s true I’ve altered my position a little on the ladies’ football, having enjoyed the tournament so far. The quality of football has improved a bit, although it is still largely lamentable; and there is excitement aplenty and moments of great hilarity. I particularly enjoyed the epic temper strops from the Cameroonian team. My guess is that they must have all had the painters in — and I was surprised that the BBC commentating team failed to advance this possible explanation for their appalling behaviour.

But not that much of a surprise, I suppose. Any more of a surprise than the top story on the BBC Ten O’Clock News recently — about the inquiry into the Islamic murders at London Bridge — which failed to mention at any point in the entire six minutes who had carried out those murders and what had motivated them. Not a word. If it had been Methodists, or Norwegians, or fascists, they would surely have told us. But when it’s Muslims you are left to guess, to make your own mind up. ‘Why should the religion of a murderer matter?’ the BBC liberals will ask, wide-eyed: ‘We did not report the religion of Peter Sutcliffe or Dennis Nilsen, did we?’


This kind of disingenuity is very prevalent, a straw man they waft about in our general direction every time an atrocity happens. That the religion and thus a hatred of kafirs was perhaps the sole motivating factor does not interest them: they have become anti-journalists, these strange creatures, their curiosity extinguished by political diktat.

I have a book coming out in a few days’ time — The Great Betrayal: the True Story of Brexit. Yes, hurry, hurry, while stocks last, etc. It tries to explain how the narrative of Brexit changed over time to allow our parliament, the majority of our parliament, feel good about itself in sabotaging a democratic decision made by the biggest vote this country has ever seen. I think it is an interesting tale, but far more important perhaps is the last chapter, which asks where we might go from here, once Brexit has been either dropped entirely, watered down, subjected to a gerrymandered second vote or to a general election with Magic Grandpa waiting in the wings, ready to stick it to the Jews and people who work for a living.

By ‘go from here’, I mean clamber towards a sunlit upland where institutions that are either intended to reflect or enact the majority opinion actually do so — I refer, primarily, to the BBC and the civil service. But also where institutions that are intended to reflect a thrilling diversity of ideology and opinion actually do so, instead of being straitjacketed by a kind of vapid cultural Marxism (which conveniently ignores the class aspect of Marxism, something which I believe Karl himself took quite seriously). I mean our universities.

I do not have an answer, in truth. I don’t know how we turn this stuff around without imposing diversity of opinion targets on each institution — which, given that they have diversity targets for everything else under the sun should not come as too much of an encumbrance to them.

How do we persuade universities that people who do not swallow their self-flagellating imbecilities should not be expelled from their courses or their jobs, and have a right to be heard on campus — because in some cases, they may indeed be correct in what they say? How do we shoehorn a degree of diversity into the BBC, which, despite investigation after investigation, refuses to accept that it is indeed deeply biased (on immigration, all gender stories, Brexit, Europe, refugees and so on)?

My own solution might be to drag the entire staff from their Kensal Rise flatshares and make them work in the fields picking Brussels sprouts and strawberries for five quid an hour, plus occasional beatings, until they undergo a Damascene conversion. Hell, it worked for Pol Pot, although he did receive a lot of bad press as a consequence. The bubble of the BBC, its utter lack of political diversity, is an enormous problem for the country: it reflects the views of four or five million affluent liberals (who deserve their views to be heard, of course, but not to the exclusion of every other view).

Worse still than the BBC is the civil service, which, as an insider reported recently in the Sunday Times, was root and branch opposed to Brexit and tried everything it possibly could to sabotage our leaving of the European Union. As we saw with its recent and odious attack upon Jeremy Corbyn for being in allegedly frail health, this is not a left-wing bias. It is a metropolitan middle-class liberal bias. It infects every institution which through our taxes we pay for. How do we change it?

Spectator.co.uk/Rodliddle
The argument continues online.


Show comments
Close