Littlejohn - mentalist?

I don't know why, but I looked at the transcript of Richard Littlejohn's webchat on the Daily Mail website the other day. Obviously, the most pertinent questions were never asked. Questions like, 'do you actually believe what you write, or do you know it's cobblers?', or 'why do the corrections that follow your mistakes get published in the paper, but never flagged up in your section on the Mail site?' or 'why are you such an arse?'

But one question got asked that revealed a Melanie Phillips-esque level of conspiraloonacy.

Jim asks:
Richard, why are the Government so keen on such high levels of immigration? I live in the South East and it's clear that the last thing we need are more people.
Obviously, I don't agree with his last bit, but here's Littlejohn's reply:
After the Tories won their third victory in 1987, Labour decided it could no longer rely on the working class - so it set about importing a new one. There's a chapter on this - and emigration - in Littlejohn's Britain.
What? Labour set about importing people to vote for them? In 1987? Ten years before getting into power? That's just nuts! Although it explains some of the lame comments on the article I mentioned in 'They go together like Batman and Robin'.

Littlejohn apparently believes that Labour deliberately imported voters, starting ten years before they got into power. Since immigration has risen since 1997, but the Labour vote has steadily shrunk, I wonder where any evidence for this idea comes from? Actually, I don't. There isn't any. It's just mental. This is tinfoil hat stuff of the highest order.

Connected to that is a familiar piece of nonsense. John asks:
Why as Brits are we so futile in protesting about all these stupid people, in authority, blighting our lives?
Littlejohn answers:
The silent majority is just that - silent. That's why we're governed by noisy minorities.
I've always thought that was a brilliant piece of rationalisation. Utter nonsense, of course. I've come to hate the tabloids more than I ever thought possible after starting this blog, but I take comfort in the fact that few people actually buy this shit, in both senses of the word - and fewer people are buying it as time goes on. But if you think you're the voice of the people, you have to have some reason handy to explain why nobody actually takes you seriously. I mean, banning hopscotch? Do me a favour. Of course nobody's going to be up in arms about that. Because it's cobblers. But if you can tell yourself that's because the people who agree with you about it prefer to remain silent, I suppose it would make you feel better. As well as never having to question yourself, ever.

These are both pretty strange delusions. Everyone agrees with me, but they just stay silent about it (and I wonder how different the comments section of his column would look if the Mail didn't edit out all the negative ones), and Labour deliberately imported voters a full decade before they had the power to do so. Because foreign people are guaranteed to only vote one way after all.

I would say it was time to put Littlejohn in the loony category with Melanie Phillips and David Icke, but then I've never been 100% convinced he believes the crap he spouts himself. It's a bit like the 'Lord, Liar or Lunatic' stuff CS Lewis said about Jaysus. Of course, the CS Lewis thing is no good because it leaves out the category of just 'wrong'. But we can include that here. Littlejohn is either making nonsense up for cash, he's a nutter, or he's an idiot who gets things wrong all the time. There's no equivalent of 'Lord' here because its so easy to demonstrate how wrong he is. Last time he was on Question Time he said tobacco had been banned but cannabis has been legalised.

So is he wrong, mad or making shit up?


septicisle said...

He's both mad and wrong. I remember when he used to do 606 on Five Live that a guy rang up once and started talking about politics rather than football, vehemently disagreeing with Littlejohn's politics and he told him to shut up, which about sums him up. I'm sure there's also a streak within him which enjoys the controversy some of his columns create, otherwise he wouldn't write such complete bilge like the article he did after the murder of the 5 prostitutes in Ipswich last December.

Little Ern said...

I cannot stand the man. He's a paid-up rabble-rouser.