Category Archives: Labour Party

A Lenin minus the intelligence

Dalrymple writes that an evening with Angela Merkel, Theresa May or Emmanuel Macron

would be as entertaining as dentistry without anæsthetic,


it would be like an evening with Oscar Wilde by comparison with an evening with Jeremy Corbyn.

Dalrymple notes that political correctness has

so eviscerated the exercise of wit that dreariness is no obstacle to political advancement and may be of advantage to it. The dreary are inheriting the Earth.


has even managed to make his private life, which has been far from straightforward, uninteresting. He could make murder dull; his voice is flat and his diction poor, he possesses no eloquence, he dresses badly, he has no wit or even humour, he cannot think on his feet. He has negative charisma.

Dalrymple discerns that Corbyn’s alleged concern for others

has a strongly, even chillingly, abstract or ideological flavour; he is the Mrs Jellyby de nos jours, but with the granite hardness of the ideologue added to Mrs Jellyby’s insouciance and incompetence.

For Corbyn,

goodness consists solely of sticking rigidly to some abstract principle or other, no matter the cost to others. It is enough to send shivers down your spine.


probity, cruelty or stupidity might appeal to monomaniacs, but it presages terrible suffering for millions if ever he were to achieve power: for no merely empirical evidence, no quantity of suffering, would ever be able to persuade him that a policy was wrong or misguided if it were in accord with his abstract principle.

This explains

his continued loyalty to the memory of Hugo Chávez and to his successor. What happens to Venezuelans in practice is of no interest to him whatsoever, any more than the fate of Mrs Jellyby’s children was of interest to her. For Corbyn, the purity of his ideals is all-in-all and their consequences of no consequence.


formed his opinions early and has never allowed any personal experience or historical reading to affect them.


reads not at all: in this respect, he is a Trump of the Left. He has remained what he was from an early age, a late 1960s and 70s student radical of the third rank.

His outlook on life

is narrow, joyless and dreary. He is the kind of man who looks at beauty and sees injustice. He has no interests other than politics: not in art, literature, science, music, the theatre, cinema—not even in food or drink. For him, indeed, food is but fuel: the fuel necessary to keep him going while he endlessly attends Cuban, Venezuelan, or Palestinian solidarity meetings.


  • hates his country and has never been heard to utter a complimentary word about it
  • despises any tradition that has not emanated from the working class, preferably in the days of its destitution
  • wants to dissolve the armed forces
  • believes that man is born rich but everywhere is poor, so that it is poverty and not wealth that needs the greater explanation. He has been heard to say that it is welfare that makes a country prosperous, without any concomitant recognition that wealth has to be created
  • wants unlimited immigration with the automatic right of immigrants to unlimited welfare whatever the numbers involved, as restitution for the past wrongs of colonialism

An anti-Semite, he

  • consorts with Holocaust deniers
  • is fond of Hamas and Hezbollah
  • is a member of a private anti-Semitic Facebook page
  • tolerates the grossest anti-Semitic insults of Jewish members of the Labour party
  • is obsessed with the Palestinian question which far exceeds his interest in any other foreign policy matter
  • has failed to recognise a mural painted in the East End of London (in a borough more than a third of whose population is Moslem) as anti-Semitic though it could have come straight out of the pages of the Stürmer

The only group he has ever implied are alien to Britain are ‘British Zionists’, whom he has accused of lacking an English sense of irony,

though they had probably, as he put it, lived in the country all their lives. He has never said that the Moslem bombers of the Manchester Arena lacked an English sense of irony. His own sense of irony is not very marked: he is about as funny as Walter Ulbricht.

Dalrymple points out that there are two good reasons why Corbyn should be anti-Semitic.

  1. There are 10 times as many Moslems in Britain as Jews. The latter are electorally important in one or two constituencies; by contrast, Moslems, who are highly concentrated in certain areas, are important in 30 constituencies, and their vote could easily swing an election.
  2. It accords with his conception of the world. He believes that capitalist society is not merely imperfect, in need of reform, but so unjust that it needs abolition and replacement. It is an unjust social order, in which the privileged rule unjustly and hoard wealth which rightfully belongs to others. They must be expropriated. It took one generation, two at most, for Jews to go from poverty to prosperity—the same is true of the Sikhs. For Corbyn, this is not proof of the openness of British society, but of conspiracy and illicit influence, for only conspiracy can explain success in the fundamentally unjust, closed society of his Weltanschauung. His is the kind of mind to take the reasoning of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion seriously. For him, differences of outcome among groups, whether advantageous or disadvantageous, can arise only from injustice, which it has been his duty since the age of 17 to right.

Why has so dismal a man become popular? The main reason, Dalrymple explains, is that

he promises six impossible things before breakfast to people who think they will not have to pay for them, and such people can always be found because discontent springs eternal.

Corbyn, says Dalrymple,

is a fine example of that peculiar modern type, the man who is bad, uninteresting and important, for whom lack of scruple is probity. Mass emigration, as well as mass immigration, is but an election result away.

Brexit bungled. Corbyn coming!

New red dawn

Britain braced for full socialisation

Thanks to the Brexit imbroglio, writes Dalrymple, England

could soon be Venezuela without the oil or the warm weather. The stunning incompetence of the last two Tory prime ministers, David Cameron and Theresa May, might result in a Labour government, one led by Jeremy Corbyn, a man who has long admired Hugo Chávez for having reminded him—though not the people of Venezuela—what governments can do for the poor and the achievement of social justice.

Corbyn is eminently electable

Screen Shot 2015-08-16 at 08.59.16If the rumours are true, writes Dalrymple, that certain Tories (i.e. adherents of the British centre-Right ruling party the Conservatives) have

signed up to vote for Mr Corbyn because, if chosen, he would make Labour unelectable, nothing would better illustrate the idiocy to which certain Tories are prone.

In Europe’s

Screen Shot 2015-08-16 at 08.48.59present precarious circumstances, no one is unelectable. A crisis, not necessarily of the government’s making, could easily swell popular discontent so that it would prefer any alternative; and that is without counting the fact that all governments tend to become very unpopular with time, whether they deserve it or not. Time for a change: and Mr Corbyn would certainly be a change.

Screen Shot 2015-08-16 at 08.54.01Screen Shot 2015-08-16 at 08.45.56Screen Shot 2015-08-16 at 09.12.25


Captain Underpants fires a broadside at the privileged

An unfrocked priest at home

Narcissus of the Rhonnda: an unfrocked ex-priest

Chris Bryant, a former priest and member of the British parliament, was educated expensively at Cheltenham College and at Mansfield College, Oxford.

He came to public prominence after he posted on a homosexual dating website a photograph of himself wearing only his underpants. This candour won him much respect (he described it with pride as ‘a charming scar’), and since then his rise has been rapid. He was recently rewarded by being appointed Labour shadow minister for the arts.

‘Chris’ Bryant. ‘Labour shadow minister for the arts.’ Note, writes Dalrymple,

the democratic diminutive and the Orwellian-sounding post that he occupies.

Dalrymple reports that the pious Bryant

laments that ‘the arts are too dominated by people from a privileged background‘ — like himself, Chris Bryant MP, in fact.


The health service mess

Screen Shot 2015-06-12 at 08.50.52Dalrymple lists the failings of the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust:

  • the ravening ambition of bureaucratic mediocrities
  • institutionally perverted incentives that reward those who do worst
  • the creation of a nomenklatura at the head of an apparat staffed by bullied, intimidated, fearful but unscrupulous apparatchiks
  • an inability or unwillingness to speak or write in plain English
  • intellectual dishonesty with compulsory lying on a vast scale
  • the proliferation of procedural objectives and bureaucratic tasks unrelated to reality or to the welfare of patients
  • a revolting tendency to Pecksniffian self-congratulation and self-righteousness

He calls the NHS

that vast charitable organisation for the outdoor relief of second-rate bureaucrats.

He points to the slick insidiousness of Tony Blair, who made Labour, once the party of the working class, the party of the nomenklatura. There was also Margaret Thatcher,

with her crude sub-Marxist view of the professions as exploitative monopolists. She thought the methods and disciplines of the marketplace, imposed by ‘scientific’ management but in the absence of anything resembling a market, would eliminate chronic inefficiency. This was stupid. It called into being a managerial class, cunning and unscrupulous.