Monday, 4 February 2013

Lefties like Chris Huhne assume they can behave badly because they think the right way

I was reading George Eliot’s first book, Scenes from Clerical Life, last night when I came across the word antinomianism. I discovered - via Kindle’s splendid dictionary function – that this means the religious belief that no one is obliged to follow any moral law because faith alone guarantees salvation. When I heard this morning that the former Energy Secretary Chris Huhne had finally admitted lying to all and sundry about a driving offence for the past ten years, antionomianism popped into my head.

I’ve noted previously that LibDem politicians – who’ve spent decades claiming to be morally superior to MPs from the two main parties – seem to be, on average, less truthful and more criminal than Conservative or Labour parliamentarians. I think that’s because they don’t see themselves as beholden to either Big Business or the Trade Unions. It’s also because, until recently, the present generation of LibDem MPs have never had to compromise their ideals by exercising power at a national level. At a local level, where they’ve controlled many councils, they’ve earned a solid reputation as a bunch of lying, twisting, slippery, conscienceless shits.

Now, after the scandals surrounding the – thankfully - late Cyril Smith (paedophilia), Mark Oaten (rent boys), David Laws (irregular use of parliamentary expenses involving his boyfriend) and Chris Huhne (avoiding penalty points by falsely claiming not to have been driving a speeding car), and following the party’s petulant, childish, thoroughly unprincipled U-turn on boundary changes (and many other acts of mean-spirited disloyalty during two-and-a-half ghastly years of coalition government), I think we can safely say that their reputation for probity is shot at the national level as well: the simple truth is that the Liberal Democrats are a disgusting political party.

But why – oh why – do Liberal Democrat MPs who behave immorally not seem to realise that their moral failings render them unfit for office? Why do these wretches feel justified in continuing to masquerade as the keepers of the nation’s moral conscience? Why do they go on feeling morally superior to the rest of us?

In a word, antinomianism. Because they hold what they consider to be the morally correct views, they believe themselves to be intrinsically morally superior to people who hold what they consider to be the wrong views - i.e. most of the rest of us. Their faith in the central principle of the Church of Equality – namely, that everyone except the priests of that church should end up equal – well, that faith means they are good people no matter how many wicked acts they perform. That’s nothing more or less than a secular version of antinomianism: beliefs trump actions.

The principle that actions don’t matter is the one on which modern egalitarianism  is founded. Used to be we all pretty much supported equality of opportunity. But our left-liberal politico-media elite now supports equality of outcome, which means that no matter how lazy, stupid, feckless or criminal you are, you deserve the same rewards as your energetic, clever, prudent, law-abiding neighbour – again, actions simply don't matter.

And it’s no accident that Huhne was the Climate Change Secretary - climate change is one of the key areas where facts are endlessly jettisoned in favour of the over-arching belief that human beings are a planet-threatening virus.

If Huhne gets sent to prison (which seems likely) I guarantee he’ll emerge with his belief in himself as a morally decent person utterly unshaken.

When Huhne resigned as a cabinet minister a year ago, James Delingpole came up with a list of the people who’d be pleased about his come-uppance (I wrote about it here, and Delingpole’s original post, entitled "Huhne: you'd need a heart of stone not to laugh" can be found here).  Strikes me the same people will be delighted now that the man‘s lies have finally and fully caught up with him (or, in his own words, that he’s “taken responsibility” for them), so here’s the list again:
David Cameron   
Everyone in the Cabinet, even including Michael Gove who likes – and is liked by – almost everybody in Parliament. 
Everyone in the Conservative party 
Everyone in the Labour party  
Everyone in UKIP  
Pretty much everyone in the Lib Dems.  
His ex-wife.  
Every newspaper including the Daily Mirror – which really ought to like him given how pathologically left-wing he is but has happily made an exception owing to the man's unremitting, weapons-grade vileness.  
Everyone who was at Westminster with him. (In his Chris Paul-Huhne days.)
Everyone who ever worked with him at the Guardian, the Independent, the Economist and the Liverpool Echo. 
Everyone who lives anywhere near one of his wretched ruddy wind farms (with the possible exception of rent-seeking beneficiaries thereof, such as Sir Reginald Sheffield Bt).  
Everyone whose electricity bills – ie all of us – have been artificially inflated by his pointless green tariffs  
Everyone who worked with him when he was an MEP  
Everyone who worked with him at Fitch  
Everyone who knew him at Oxford or the Sorbonne.  
Pretty much everyone else we haven't mentioned already.


  1. It looks like a sensational UKIP by-election victory on the cards.

  2. Mind you, the Telegraph was spinning it as a potential disaster for Farage this morning!!! Desperation evidently creeping in. I'm already looking forward to the Tories tearing into the LibDems in public AT LAST. And, of course, to Farage (if he stands), ripping into both of them.

  3. Hoon/Huhne
    •an aggressive, speeding driver - usually young and male, often with a baseball cap on backwards. Origin: Australian slang. The OnLine Slang Dictionary.

    I caught Delingpole on "Question Time". I like his journalism, but he is a lousy public performer [I think you may have made this point somewhere else or am I misquoting you?]. Ditto Charles Moore. Delingpole was verging on the inarticulate [Dimbelbore referred to him as "James Dalrymple" which did not help]. He was sitting next to someone called Baroness Waarsi who took a long time in saying precisely nothing [articulate incompetent]. At one stage Delingpole turned to Dimbleby and used a variation of the Bambi Defence "As a fellow Christchurch man you should not be knifing me in the back". Whoops.

    1. I wrote about it here:

      Someone pointed out that Douglas Murray was a good performer and I enjoy it when Melanie Phillips goes off on one - and, of course, Daniel Hannan is great. But most of my favourite writers can't hack it verbally. I suspect liberals tend to be more articulate because they don't think about what they're saying and because on any TV or radio panel, they're surrounded by people (including the moderator) who hold the same tedious, modish views.

  4. Very very vaguely relevant ...

    A curate's egg from:
    New Scientist magazine, 4 February 2013
    Lefty nonsense: When progressives wage war on reason:

    "Of all of today's political philosophies, progressivism stands as the most pressing problem for science. Progressives, not conservatives, are the ones most likely to replace scientific research with unscientific ideology.

    "Conservatives who endorse unscientific ideas are blasted by the scientific community, yet progressives who do the same get a free pass. It is important the problem be recognised, and that free pass revoked."

    1. Apart from the progressives' belief that all truth is relative and that ends justify means, one suspects the fact that their political policies never yield the results they predicted for them (in fact, almosty invariably the exact opposite), liberals assume that the same disconnect between theory and reality is also acceptable in science.