Skip to main content

Simon Heffer is pointless

The dead tree press seems to devote a remarkably large amount of space to the opinions of the conceited. Some proclaim their conceit with wit: Julie Birchill for example; some with noxious venom: Jan Moir; yet others are not only conceited but also ignorant and just plain dull: step forward Simon Heffer of the Daily Telegraph.

Today's hurricane of bombastic ignorance covers a detailed and complicated subject that Mr. Heffer knows nothing about, namely high speed rail. In Mr. Heffer's world ignorance of a subject does not preclude having the most forthright and determined opinions. So, despite having no understanding of the economics or the engineering of transport, he is able to share with his readers his clear view that a high speed line in the UK is "pointless folly".

I have no clear idea as to whether or how a high speed rail network in the UK makes sense, but I am equally sure that Mr. Heffer has the same or less knowledge of the subject as I do. I am prepared to consider the argument on its merits. Heffer, however, has MADE UP HIS MIND.

On the other hand, Heffer has made up his mind on quite a few subjects. His considered views on grammar were published last September as "Strictly English: the correct way to write... and why it matters". The problem was, despite his obviously trenchant and settled views, he kept contradicting both himself and the most respected sources on the subject. It was, in short, a classically amateur confusion. Far from revealing himself as an authority on the subject he came across as a slightly bumbling bore.

But then, that is Simon Heffer all over: he confuses having opinions with being right.

Sure he is paid to have opinions, but the least he might do is carry out more detailed research, instead of treating his own ill informed prejudice as some kind of moral compass.

Alas, that is the problem in most of the leadership positions in the UK at the moment. Columnists or politicians do not seek to construct arguments that fit the facts, but rather they select facts to support their own pre-conceived ideas. Evidence based policy making is martyred to the ignorance and populism of soi-disant opinion formers like Heffer, Moir and the whole rank crew.

So in fact I must correct the headline I have chosen for this piece- an echo of Heffer's own piece in the Telegraph today- Simon Heffer is not pointless: he is malign. For as long as we continue to give credence to the witless wittering of this pompously ignorant man, then we are committing ourselves as a society to ignorance and repeated poor decision taking. We, the people, must learn to do our own homework and not rely on the predigested leavings of fools like Heffer and the rest of the them.

If we want to strengthen our democracy we need to do more of our own homework and to seek the advice of the genuinely informed- not merely those with the most insistent views or the loudest voices.

Comments

Tim Fenton said…
The inherent difficulty that Simon "Enoch was right" Heffer has with the world was summed up in his recent column where he bemoaned the coming of decimalisation in 1971.

His final flourish - to show his mastery of pre-decimal maths - was marred by his getting his sums wrong:

http://zelo.tv/g6wrum

On high speed rail, he's probably seen the arguments of the so-called Taxpayers' Alliance and sided with them, rather than consider the issue, as you appear to be prepared to do.
Adam Bell said…
The thing is that the sort of approach to argumentation that you ascribe to Heffer could easily be ascribed to many of the people who buy his comic - sorry, newspaper. They'll read him for confirmation not simply of their opinions, but also the meta-opinion that one forms one's opinions based on hearsay and arbitrary pieces of data. In this sense, he's really quite clever, just like Goebbels, if he wanted to sell papers rather than just force people to read them.

Popular posts from this blog

Concert and Blues

Tallinn is full tonight... Big concerts on at the Song field The Weeknd and Bonnie Tyler (!). The place is buzzing and some sixty thousand concert goers have booked every bed for thirty miles around Tallinn. It should be a busy high summer, but it isn´t. Tourism is down sharply overall. Only 70 cruise ships calling this season, versus over 300 before Ukraine. Since no one goes to St Pete, demand has fallen, and of course people think that Estonia is not safe. We are tired. The economy is still under big pressure, and the fall of tourism is a significant part of that. The credit rating for Estonia has been downgraded as the government struggles with spending. The summer has been a little gloomy, and soon the long and slow autumn will drift into the dark of the year. Yesterday I met with more refugees: the usual horrible stories, the usual tears. I try to make myself immune, but I can´t. These people are wounded in spirit, carrying their grief in a terrible cradling. I try to project hop

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo

Bournemouth absence

Although I had hoped to get down to the Liberal Democrat conference in Bournemouth this year, simple pressure of work has now made that impossible. I must admit to great disappointment. The last conference before the General Election was always likely to show a few fireworks, and indeed the conference has attracted more headlines than any other over the past three years. Some of these headlines show a significant change of course in terms of economic policy. Scepticism about the size of government expenditure has given way to concern and now it is clear that reducing government expenditure will need to be the most urgent priority of the next government. So far it has been the Liberal Democrats that have made the running, and although the Conservatives are now belatedly recognising that cuts will be required they continue to fail to provide even the slightest detail as to what they think should guide their decisions in this area. This political cowardice means that we are expected to ch