Why Dan Hodges is Such a Repulsive Political Commentator
Dan Hodges has long been a controversial figure in British political commentary, but not for the reasons one might respect. Unlike the incisive minds of Fleet Street or the shrewd analysts who navigate the nuances of policy and power, Hodges has carved out a niche as an attention-seeking contrarian with an apparent disdain for consistency, intellectual honesty, and genuine political insight. His commentary is not only shallow but also frequently misleading, designed more to provoke than to inform. Here’s why so many find him repellent.
A Man Without Principles
Perhaps the most striking feature of Hodges’ political analysis is his total lack of ideological consistency. A self-described “Blairite,” he swings wildly between championing centrist orthodoxy and embracing reactionary talking points, depending on what will generate the most engagement. While shifting perspectives in response to changing political realities is a hallmark of good commentary, Hodges’ ideological flip-flopping appears to be less about evolution and more about cynical opportunism.
One minute, he’s lambasting Boris Johnson’s government as incompetent and corrupt; the next, he’s urging voters to back the Conservatives because Labour isn’t sufficiently hawkish on immigration or national security. His positions are dictated less by conviction and more by an insatiable hunger for attention. If consistency is the refuge of small minds, then Hodges must consider himself a genius.
Sensationalism Over Substance
Hodges is the quintessential clickbait commentator. His pieces frequently rely on hyperbole and manufactured outrage, offering little in the way of substantive analysis. He thrives on winding people up—particularly the left, whom he seems to loathe with a fervour bordering on obsession. His frequent predictions are not grounded in rigorous political forecasting but in a desire to stir controversy. And when those predictions inevitably prove to be wrong, he simply pivots to the next outlandish claim, never acknowledging past mistakes.
Just some things he has got wrong:
2015 Labour Leadership Election: Hodges incorrectly predicted the outcome of the Labour leadership contest, failing to foresee Jeremy Corbyn’s victory.
2016 EU Referendum: He anticipated a ‘Remain’ victory in the Brexit referendum, which was contradicted by the ‘Leave’ result.
2016 US Presidential Election: Hodges predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the US presidency, a forecast proven wrong by Donald Trump’s election.
UKIP’s Electoral Performance: In 2012, he asserted that if UKIP secured more than 6% of the vote in the next general election, he would streak down Whitehall wearing a Nigel Farage mask while singing “Land of Hope and Glory.” UKIP garnered over 12% in the 2015 general election, leading Hodges to fulfil his pledge by running down Whitehall in his underpants.
This tendency extends to his Twitter presence, where he plays the role of a professional wind-up merchant, delighting in riling up progressives with smug contrarianism. If one were to measure the value of a commentator by their ability to add meaningful discourse to public debate, Hodges would be in negative figures.
He said this!!
A Tedious Obsession with the Left
Despite his purported centrist leanings, Hodges’ primary journalistic obsession is not scrutinising the government, exposing corruption, or holding the powerful to account—it is attacking the left. His endless diatribes against Labour, particularly under leaders like Jeremy Corbyn, revealed not an honest critique but a deep-seated hostility that bordered on the pathological. While right-wing scandals often receive little more than a passing mention, any whiff of controversy on the left is seized upon with a zeal that suggests personal animosity rather than professional detachment.
This relentless hostility has led many to question whether he is motivated by genuine concern for the political landscape or simply by an irrational vendetta. His purported political home—Labour centrism—seems little more than a convenient badge he wears while doing the right’s bidding. In essence, Hodges functions as a useful idiot for the Tories, attacking Labour from within while doing little to hold the actual government to account.
The Ultimate Insider Hack
The British media is full of insular, self-referential figures who owe their platforms to connections rather than competence, and Hodges is a prime example. The son of Glenda Jackson, the former actress and Labour MP, he is emblematic of the nepotistic nature of Britain’s commentariat. His ascent to prominence has far more to do with who he knows than what he knows.
Despite this privileged access, Hodges often writes with the tone of an outsider—a self-styled rebel taking on the establishment. This would be amusing if it weren’t so transparently false. He is the establishment, a journalist whose main skill is churning out predictable, pedestrian takes that contribute nothing to the national conversation beyond weary eye-rolls.
A Commentator for the Worst Aspects of Modern Media
Dan Hodges represents everything wrong with political commentary in Britain today: unprincipled, sensationalist, and utterly devoid of meaningful insight. His role is not to illuminate but to antagonise, not to inform but to provoke. He is less a journalist and more a professional troll with a newspaper column.
While political commentary should challenge, provoke thought, and offer analysis based on facts and expertise, Hodges instead delivers a steady stream of drivel designed solely to stir outrage and drive engagement. His continued presence in mainstream media is a testament to the sorry state of British journalism—where clicks trump quality and where being consistently wrong is no barrier to career longevity.
Ultimately, if the measure of a political commentator is their ability to enrich public discourse, then Dan Hodges is a resounding failure. But if the measure is one’s ability to frustrate, mislead, and enrage in equal measure—well, then he might just be the best in the business.
