The Wail of Waterstones Man
I should start out by saying that I didn’t like this book, in fact I quite intensely disliked it. Which is strange, because I agree with almost all of it. I mean it felt like I was being shouted at by a particularly irate student at a Labour Party fringe meeting, but in terms of subject matter: fine.
James O’Brien, who earns his crust arguing with strangers on the radio, has produced an updated version of Cato’s 1940 Guilty Men. Except this era’s cohort, rather than allowing us to slide into a world war, have just made Britain a bit shitter.
Over 350 pages we are treated to the evisceration of ten (nine men and one woman) public figures who represent a nexus of media and political power, which has allowed Britain to be irrevocably damaged. In each case perpetrators, having wreaked havoc, were able to escape unscathed and even go onto greater things.
Beyond this it’s quite hard to think of anything substantial to say about this book. My principal thoughts on finishing it were unsatisfyingly trite. I agree with most of it but found it largely unfulfilling. There are perhaps too many ad hominem attacks which come across as unpleasant. There is a strange grand-eloquence which is slightly annoying and that will at times confuse and belittle some readers (I have a nasty suspicion this may be the intention).
However my lasting impression is that of having learned nothing. There is nothing here that I didn’t know as a moderate consumer of news living in the UK for the past thirteen years. I feel like I have just been subjected to the belligerent recitation of Guardian articles and come away with nothing for the experience. This is unforgivable, first because this book costs £20 and the Guardian is free, and second because enumerating the ways in which Boris Johnson damaged Britain is easy, finding ways to fix the damage is far harder.
The problem is that there doesn’t appear to be anything resembling a political philosophy under all this. It is not clear how O’Brien believes Britain should be run - yes there are notions about honesty and integrity and public-spiritedness but the problem with Liz Truss is not that she was corrupt, but that she was just plain wrong. It isn’t that Dominic Cummings was just fine if we leave aside the lie on the bus and the jaunt to Bernard Castle. These people have a political philosophy which is deranged, but to show that there has to be an alternative.
The lack of a coordinated schema against which he can measure his guilty men (and woman) means many of his criticisms are contradictory and make little sense. Take the trio who represent the media: Rupert Murdoch, Paul Dacre, and Andrew Neil:
Rupert Murdoch is the personification of cynicism; he adopts whichever politics allow him to make the most money. In effect he has no politics. Paul Dacre, on the other hand, is the real deal. He genuinely, and fervently, believes in the stuff the Mail group churns out. He, in effect, has too much politics. Murdoch, in his pursuit of profit, dictates an editorial line to his editors. Whereas Andrew Neil is vilified for not doing so and allowing The Spectator to print bilge. There may be some golden mean in there, but O’Brien doesn’t do much to point it out.
Andrew Neil is one of the more mysterious bêtes noires of the modern British left. Owen Jones has been waging a one man crusade against him for almost a decade. To be honest I cannot see why. I rather think they dislike the idea of him rather than him as he actually is. Neil chairs The Spectator and who formerly edited the Sunday Times after it was bought by Murdoch. He also has a high profile, if short-lived, role in setting up the unquenchable dumpster fire which is GB News.
It’s a fair bet that Neil has pretty right wing politics. But I watched him on the BBC day in day out for years and I don’t think you could determine that from his interviews. He was a tough interviewer for both Conservative and Labour ministers and shadows. Indeed, in the 2019 election campaign his piece to camera about Boris Johnson being too scared to sit down for an interview with him was a far greater blow than any the Corbyn was able to land.
O’Brien accepts that there is nothing much wrong with Neil as an individual (except that he disagrees with him) but that what is appalling is the way in which he represents ideological capture of the BBC and a left wing equivalent of Neil would never be allowed to rise through the ranks of BBC News. This may well be true. But it seems a tad vituperative to include Neil on a list of people who have ruined the country because you don’t like something he supposedly represents.
That perennially Insipid organ of the British left, The New Statesman describes O’Brien as “the conscience of liberal Britain”. If this were true then liberal Britain would be a pretty awful place where people just yell ‘racist’ at those they disagree with and think it is clever to always enclose the words ‘think tank’ in quotation marks. It would also be going out of business.
Fortunately it isn’t. There are a whole host of progressive ideas which can be debated and argued for. Just don’t look for them here.
There is a way to write forceful, aggressive polemics but it isn’t this. You need an idea, a project, a philosophy against which you can critique people and their ideas. Without that you are just someone yelling into the wind that David Davis is “as thick as mince”.