Skip to main content

Patronising Bastards - Quentin Letts ****

Parliamentary sketch writers have a very dated style of writing - their 'humour' feels both heavy handed and has a grotesquery more suited to an eighteenth century political cartoon than the modern day. In this book, Quentin Letts (a sketch writer in his day job) does deploy some of this style in his ad hominem remarks about individuals - and I probably disagree with about 90 per cent of his viewpoints (though I'm definitely with him on hymns, the House of Lords and justice being blind).

But - and it's a big but - what I do absolutely agree with is that subtitle - 'how the elites betrayed Britain'. Letts highlights the horror of the Establishment when the people turn against them by, say, voting for Brexit or a certain US president. Without supporting either of these it is easy to see why it is happening. Just this morning I heard on a podcast a well-known political commentator (and self-affirmed member of said elite) saying how Brexit remains incomprehensible to people like him. And that's the problem.

Letts catalogues a whole parcel of ways members of the Establishment feather their own nest without considering the ordinary people. He gives us a tour of public bodies such as the Arts Council, various commissions, the whole EU gravy train, of course the House of Lords, and far more where our liberal elite rewards those who network well and have friends in the right places at the expense of the rest of us. He is pitiless in uncovering the patronising attitude of the liberal elite to ordinary people. The same commentator on the podcast was hoping that the voters would realise how wrong they were in a wonderfully patronising fashion - he called their decisions irrational, without even trying to understand the genuine reasoning that is there.

This combination of patronising distaste and 'we're obviously right because we personally benefit from the approach' is particularly obvious if you live outside of London and the South East (think of the difference between the treatment of the Elizabeth Line and HS2). The result is lashing out the only way the masses can. Leaving the EU, for instance, may well be considered self-destructive in terms of GDP, say, but to paraphrase a northerner Letts quotes, why should he care about GDP when he never sees any of it.

This, then, is the reason I give the book four stars. There are very few commentators from the elite (which Letts certainly is) who really get what's behind the populism and how things really need to change if we are to get away from this situation. It's a difficult book to read when you do feel naturally antagonistic to many of Letts' viewpoints... but if you can put aside that feeling it's very informative.

You can buy Patronising Bastards from Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and Bookshop.org

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...