The Spectator's Notes

Why must David Cameron insult Oxford, when it gave him so much?

Also in Charles Moore’s Notes: US media groupthink; ‘Islamophobic’ hate crimes; remembering George Weidenfeld

6 February 2016

9:00 AM

6 February 2016

9:00 AM

In 2000, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, accused Magdalen College, Oxford, of class bias in failing to admit a student called Laura Spence, a pupil at a Tyneside comprehensive. This was grossly unfair — how could the Chancellor know the details of a particular case? It was also outrageous in principle: why should a politician tell a university whom to admit? This Sunday, David Cameron did much the same thing. In the middle of his EU negotiations, the migrant crisis and the other genuinely important things the Prime Minister must deal with, he found time to offer an article to the Sunday Times, headlined ‘Watch out, universities; I’m bringing the fight for equality to you’. He attacked his own university, Oxford, for admitting only 27 black men and women in 2014, and said he wants to legislate ‘to place a new transparency duty on universities to publish data routinely about the people who apply to their institution… and who gets offered a place.’ This ‘will include a full breakdown of their gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic background’. Why? Why does a Conservative Prime Minister want, like apartheid South Africa, to classify people according to race, and, like a state socialist, to engineer the composition of free institutions? Why does he, who benefited so much from Oxford, unjustly insult it? Why does he question the motives of one of the few British institutions which the world still recognises as outstanding? What is the cultural rottenness, the mental cowardice which leads this well-educated, moderate man to assail the glories of his own country? Almost nothing depresses me more than this weird urge to foment a cultural civil war which no one needs.

Last week, I was in the United States, where the media are even more subject to groupthink than their British equivalents. Fox News, supposedly the conservative voice, is really much more conformist than it pretends, and specialises in noisy opinion more than real news. The only person I met who got the Republican caucuses absolutely right was Chris Ruddy, founder and CEO of Newsmax, the conservative cable channel which claims to be in ‘42 million US homes’. He told me he thought Cruz would beat Trump and the real winner would be Marco Rubio. So it proves. It is interesting that in a campaign in which all the candidates shout about the glories of America, Rubio is the only one who fastens on its global role: ‘If America declines, there is nothing in the world to take its place.’ He is right: we already see the consequences of that decline.

A freedom-of-information request by Sikhs has turned up some curious statistics from the Metropolitan Police. They show that of the more than 400 ‘Islamophobic hate crimes’ recorded in the first half of last year, 28 per cent were not attacks on Muslims at all. They were either attacks on people thought to be Muslims (often Sikhs) or attacks classified as Islamophobic because of the absurd criteria (invented by the Macpherson Report on the death of Stephen Lawrence) which define such incidents as ‘any offence which is perceived to be Islamophobic by the victim or any other person’. Muslim bodies attracting government grants obviously have an interest in there being as many such incidents as possible, so that ‘perception’ tends to extend well beyond reality. If we must have all these phobias, why not Sikhophobia and, indeed, Christianophobia? Collection of these numbers would lead to the arrest of a lot of Muslims, so I suppose it is ruled out as being Islamophobic.

The obituaries of George Weidenfeld, who died last week, missed his sense of humour. One of his gifts was mimicry. When he worked for the BBC during the war, he was well-known in the canteen for his uncanny ability to reproduce, in their original language and accent, the speeches of Hitler. Each week at that time, the BBC broadcast a programme called The Shadow of the Swastika, which played some of Hitler’s gems. George’s friend Miriam Gross records that one day the expected tape of the latest oration failed to arrive. Someone remembered George’s gift, got him into the studio, and made him invent and deliver a tirade by the Führer, which was broadcast as the real thing.

The firm of Weidenfeld and Nicolson was satirised as Snipcock and Tweed by Private Eye. The joke was slightly anti-Semitic, but it captured the combination which dominated English culture after the second world war. Snipcock brought the energy and intellectuality; Tweed contributed the English ironies and opened the doors. Something similar applied in many fields: the Tory party had Keith Joseph and Willie Whitelaw; the opera combined Claus Moser and Lord Drogheda. Harold Nicolson, -pre-war in attitude, did not like Weidenfeld’s Jewishness, but his son Nigel, partly in reaction, welcomed George, and formed their publishing partnership in 1948. Nigel’s son Adam tells me that Nigel was dismayed by George’s ‘sexual confidence’ and dynamism which made him feel ‘shy and hopeless’, but was proud to have played his part in creating a more exciting and less insular culture. The combination worked. Nowadays, both the Snipcock and the Tweed elements in Britain have weakened, to our detriment.

The story goes that George, who was famous for commissioning books from famous people, once said to his secretary, ‘Please get me Mrs Williams on the phone.’ He was put through to Shirley, who agreed to write, for a vast sum, a very dull book (I know: I have read it) called Politics is for People. George had commissioned her out of politeness. His secretary had got the wrong Mrs Williams. He had actually been looking for Marcia Williams (Lady Falkender), the celebrated former head of Harold Wilson’s political office, who, as George well knew, was a lot spicier. She duly wrote Downing Street in Perspective, also for George.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • wayne

    only 27 black students in 2014 is pretty shocking though!

    • Pioneer

      What is shocking about it?

      • grimm

        It will only be shocking if you are shallow enough not to want to look at the facts. Cameron belongs to that generation who need to show the world how opposed they are to discrimination. They imagine that black people will be appreciative of our willingness to admit our “faults”. This is delusion – the response from the black community is more likely to be “so at last you admit you are racists!”.

        Personally, I would very much like the to see the so-called black community own up to its own, very many, faults and failings.

    • Jacobi

      That depends on how good they were.
      Also, how do you define black?

  • Mary Ann

    I don’t suppose Cameron actually cares at all but he does want to be seen as caring.

    • willoyen

      exactly, as a guardian writer put it a few weeks ago ‘he’d torch a cattery if he thought it would win him one vote’.

  • Paul

    It is a socialist trait to encourage the idea that people who have opposing views are mentally ill. Something they borrowed from Stalinist Soviet Union. Hence Islamaphobia, Xenaphobia and all the other pretend illnesses with which the left demonise people who don’t agree with them.

    • paul

      What a load of bollox !!!

      • Paul

        Well what can I say to such a penetrating analysis. Well done you have proven you point.

        • Frank Marker

          I had to laugh Paul (uppercase P), for one brief moment there I thought you were under the influence of ‘double-think’?

          • Richard Baranov

            Perhaps Paul with an uppercase P should call himself Paulthehonest. Lower case paul, paulthepropagandist!

  • DaviddeAngelis

    Andrew Neil’s savaging of a BME promoter on This Week is well worth a watch:

    • sarahsmith232

      I just read that, it was a good read. I’ll have to watch ‘This Week’.
      To anyone reading – click on the link, it’s worth a read.

    • davidshort10

      Nothing that Brillo Pad does is worth watching. That’s why they put him on in the morning and the late night. He’s only there because he is viewed as right-wing and gives ‘balance’ to the BBC. A former hiree of Murdoch, taken on for the Wapping thing, is useful for Auntie to show off, but not in prime time.

  • Sean L

    “Snipcock and Tweed” for Jewish and English is so good – that group who formed the original Private Eye were brilliant. Incidentally, if any of the two was truly *intellectual* it was Nicholson surely, who remained in his study writing biographies and editing Virginia Woolf while his partner was out on the town “networking”.

    • Old Nick


  • CitymanMichael

    Rubio is a lawyer – exactly what Washington needs.
    Cameron is a PC feminist & conviction is not in his vocabulary.

  • sarahsmith232

    As so many are saying, this is generational. I’m of the same generation but unlike the Tory Toff’s have remained connected to society and in a position to be able to observe. They haven’t. They’re still stuck in a mid-1990s multiculturalist mindset.
    A lot of the problem with this lot is due to their class snobbery. These types really do believe that most are thick, racist, backward ‘swivel-eyed loons’. This is real for them. So they really do believe that most black/muslim’s are having to navigate their way through a society majority populated by repulsive racist scum. This Cameron one will care less that people like we all are scathing about his constant encouragement of this us and them victim mindset ’cause he really does believe that we are worthless, too stupid, too xenophobic, too islamophobic to be worth listening to.
    Reason why he believes that is ’cause he’s a quite ignorant class snob.

  • Suriani

    Marco Rubio the committed Catholic/Mormon/Evangelical Protestant and indeed one of the especial glories of the go-getting land of chancers.

  • AliQadoo1

    Cameron should read The Bell Curve. It explains everything he needs to know about why certain racial groups seem to be under- and over-represented in certain spheres of activity. And before the Violet Elizabeth Botts of the left start sqweaming ‘waayciiist’… it isn’t. It’s a scientific study that clashes with what they think ought to be true if only people believed hard enough.

  • Chamber Pot

    Why are there so many blacks in the NBA or in gaol. Perhaps they should put more women in gaol.

  • chalkhillblue

    “Why does a Conservative Prime Minister want, like apartheid South Africa, to classify people according to race, and, like a state socialist, to engineer the composition of free institutions?”

    Because, Charles, he is not a Conservative – surely you must know this by now?

    • Ezra Pound

      Yep. Conservatives are hopelessly idiotic on race, which is why Conservatism will be gone within 20 years. The future of Western Societies are nationalism, populism and racialism/anti-Semitism. Get used to it. It’s coming and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it thanks to the policies of the occupation governments in Europe/GB.

  • right1_left1

    Sub Saharan blacks are useless.
    Asian Islamists are dangerous.
    Oxbridge and public schools gradutes have ruined the country.
    Jews use terror to maintain the staus quo.
    The Soviet Union in the 1930’s was a killing factory.
    The white working classes represent the pinnacle of human evolution.
    Homosexualtity is a degenerate deviation

    etc etc etc

    Vote for me

    Things can be changs

    • davidshort10

      What are changs?

  • willoyen

    I’m a little confused. Surely the headline should read ‘Why must Oxford insult Cameron when he gave it so much?’