We live in a seriously screwed up country.
We say, hey! Politicians! Stop being puppets and say what you really think! Then, if we find a politician stupid enough to listen we lynch them for it. Hell, you can be lynched for being seen to agree with someone speaking their mind these days.
If the subject matter is the NHS then the politician is doubly cursed. Any criticism of the NHS is a sign that you don’t love your country, that you’re obviously a foaming right wing nut job that’s into eugenics and laughing at people dying of cancer because they’re too lazy to get a job to pay for their medical bills.
Yep. That’s the kind of screwed up country we live in.
Liberal Conspiracy, for example, have exploded into what can only be described as an outpouring of pure bile, mixing nationalism and socialism and extreme hostility towards anyone who dares even mention the NHS in anything other than reverent, respectful tones. In the most overtly nationalistic thing I’ve seen from the mainstream British Left since “British Jobs for British Workers”, the author condemns Dan Hannan (who is, at the end of the day, just an MEP) as a ‘A national disgrace’ for the crime of bring critical about the NHS to foreigners! Oh my frickin’ Lord!
UPDATE: It’s been highlighted that I’m probably overly sensitive to nationalism, even ‘good’ nationalism. There’s no ‘good’ nationalism.
The problem, as always, is that when politicians do speak their minds, there’s opportunist scumbags waiting for a nice easy straw man to torch to death.
Here’s a news flash – to improve the quality of politics it needs all parties to take their fingers off the triggers and start behaving like sane rational adults – and let people speak, let them be heard and let the actual arguments do the talking.
Sure it’ll mean sacrifice – after all, rhetoric is so much easier than winning a real argument. Sure it’ll be difficult to get used to – but don’t complain about brainless, moronic robot politicians if you’re the first in line with the cudgels whenever one opens their mouth.
Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...
13 Aug 09 at 10:00 pm
You’re kidding me?
You’re defending that twat Hannan for making up bad facts and appearing on a disgusting TV show hosted by a bigot?
I’m all for politicians speaking their minds but then they have to be prepared for the good and that bad that will draw.
Fair enough?
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Aug 09 at 10:07 pm
I’ll defend anyone’s right to free speech – even politicians. Even politicians I disagree with.
Sorry, but this culture of exploiting candidness is one of the most toxic features of our democracy.
Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...
13 Aug 09 at 10:11 pm
All for free speech but I’m also all for the implications of speaking freely. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
What else we supposed to do, stand in silence as he lies and appears on a show that is toxic?
Sunny H said...
13 Aug 09 at 10:14 pm
have exploded into what can only be described as an outpouring of pure bile
Of course, you could never be accused of chucking bile at anyone Charlotte. You only talked in nuanced politics, never caricatures.
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Aug 09 at 10:15 pm
Oh, refute away.
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Aug 09 at 10:16 pm
Sunny, you and I both know that my own style of writing has nothing to do with what’s been written over on LC.
Sunny H said...
13 Aug 09 at 10:37 pm
Orly?
So you can happily chuck bile at us, and others, while taking us to task for calling out Hannan rubbish? People in glass houses… etc.
At least he didn’t get accused of treachery eh? Now that would really be socialist…
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Aug 09 at 10:42 pm
I want politicians to be free to speak their mind. Hannan’s problem is that he’s being used as a weapon to beat the his party with.
That’s what I’m against. That ‘someone in X party said Y, so X party believes Y’ fallacy.
People who condemn those in their own party for speaking their mind are just as bad.
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Aug 09 at 10:43 pm
Aren’t we sick of politicians keeping quiet in order to get elected? Isn’t that really the very last thing we really want?
Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...
13 Aug 09 at 10:48 pm
Hannan’s problem is he’s a nob, then you have to question, what party has such a nob? In this case it’s the Tories and then you think, will they tell the nob off for lying and appearing on a bigot’s show or will they not?
Noone is saying that he represents the beliefs of all Conservatives, that would be daft but he clearly represents a few and that is alarming.
But I’m glad he ran his mouth off, more rope to hang himself with.
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Aug 09 at 10:51 pm
I suppose it’s revenge for how well Harriet Harman’s comments went down last week?
Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...
13 Aug 09 at 10:53 pm
Nah, she’s a nob too.
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Aug 09 at 10:59 pm
If you make the leader of a party accountable for every stupid thing anyone in his party says then you demand centralised, tightly controlled politics where you have just one person calling the tunes and everyone else just votes with him.
We don’t want that. We’ve had 12 years of that with Labour and if Cameron is stupid enough to crush Hannan because of this we’ll have another 12 years of it under the Tories too.
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Aug 09 at 11:00 pm
Harman does have the virtue of actually speaking her mind. I disagreed with her but I’m not condemning her for speaking out in itself – yet when it comes to the NHS you *can* be condemned just for speaking out against the NHS. It’s horrible.
Stu said...
13 Aug 09 at 11:00 pm
Noone is saying that he represents the beliefs of all Conservatives, that would be daft but he clearly represents a few and that is alarming.
Several people have clearly said they think he represents the Tory leadership, though, which pretty much amounts to the same. It’s pointless and it’s unfair and you’d be right pissed if it happened to you.
Particularly considering Cameron’s history with the NHS. It’s interesting to note that neither he nor anyone else has mentioned that once so far in this particular ‘debate’ (such as it is).
Sunny H said...
13 Aug 09 at 11:01 pm
I want politicians to be free to speak their mind.
And we should be free to criticise politicians I assume… rather than be greeted with lines like In the most overtly nationalistic thing I’ve seen outside of the BNP
This is just some attention grabbing attempt. You criticise politicians all the time. When some lefties do it then it’s an attempt to shut down debate. Lame. Anyway, I don’t really expect anything else here since you’ll find any excuse to associate lefties with the BNP.
Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...
13 Aug 09 at 11:02 pm
I’m a big fan of ‘buck stops’ thinking, it means a tight ship is run and that as an MP or MEP you are a reprentative of that party, I think you can have a balance of leadership resonsibility and free speech.
I don’t want Cameron to sack him, I want him to say summat, one way or the other on Hannan’s chatter and appearence on an awful show.
Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...
13 Aug 09 at 11:05 pm
I’m out of here, circular debate can only go on so long before I start calling people names.
peace out!
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Aug 09 at 11:14 pm
I get worried when people on the left use nationalist rhetoric, yes – like ‘british jobs for british workers’ and the serious horrible clamp downs on immigrants from outside the EU etc.
The difference between us is that you see that as an anomaly for Labour, whereas for me it fits the logic of the whole movement perfectly consistently.
It *was* a horribly nationalistic post though – uncharacteristically so for LC, I must say, but alarming nonetheless.
Jamie said...
13 Aug 09 at 11:34 pm
exploiting candidness
It’s not exploiting candidness. Hannan misrepresented facts, distorted statistics and misled American viewers.
Aren’t we sick of politicians keeping quiet in order to get elected?
Of course, but to say that excuses them for talking demonstrably untrue rubbish is absurd. Are you suggesting we don’t criticise politicians in case it hurts their feelings?
revenge
That’s just ridiculous and I think you know it too. Hannan said some stupid things to some stupid people on an utterly stupid right-wing TV network, and he got called on it. Wouldn’t you be surprised if nobody raised any objection? That seems to run rather contrary to libertarianism to me.
As for an ‘outpouring of pure bile’ and ‘the most overtly nationalistic thing I’ve seen outside of the BNP’ – wow. Ok. I said that the NHS was something that people could be proud of. I also said we live in a county safe, civilised country free from oppression.
I’d really like to now how that makes me so grotesquely ‘nationalistic’. I suspect you are looking for nationalism/socialism (or perhaps even national socialism?) where there is none.
Bilious? Yeah, maybe a little. Eh.
Charlotte Gore said...
13 Aug 09 at 11:40 pm
Yes, I’m acutely sensitive to nationalism, but that’s just me, that’s just how I read it. A ‘national disgrace’ is perhaps more loaded with meaning than you intended.
Jamie said...
14 Aug 09 at 12:23 am
I’m sorry you interpreted it as such a jingoistic heading. Personally, I do think Hannan’s behaviour has been, in the literal sense, quite disgraceful. I’m aware we disagree on that though.
The nationalistic element of the post came from the fact that, actually, I find very little reason to be nationalistic and cannot identify with those who wear pride of country so overtly when it is based purely upon things unearned, that have required no personal effort to achieve (think stereotypical pride in being English ‘coz of FOOTBALL or FRY UPS)
One of the few things that I think it is quite acceptable to be proud of, however, is a country’s desire to provide help for those most in need. You don’t find that everywhere, so in this case, I can agree with those who say they are ‘proud’ of Britain on the grounds we have a system that at least attempts to provide health care for everyone.
National pride is such an unusual concept for me, and , I would imagine many other liberal readers and writers today, that I thought it worth associating with the debate. It seems that a large number of people who similarly don’t often think in terms of ‘nationhood’ or pride in the institutions of our country, agree.
This is not to say such people are necessarily proud of the country itself, or the government, or any other particular aspect of the nation. I certainly am not. I am not a Labourite in any shape or form, and I disagree with a great many facets of what seems to constitute Britain today, but I do admire the NHS (in a purely apolitical manner).
To read that my post could be discussed in the same breath as the BNP seems a touch sensationalist. To identify with and respect what is undeniably a British institution does not, and should not, immediately mean one has anything at all in common with the very worst shades of nationalism.
Ian B said...
14 Aug 09 at 12:37 am
Maybe it’s time for Sunny Hundal to rename his blog something more honest like, say, Illiberal Propaganda.
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Aug 09 at 12:39 am
Okay, but imagine now that I exploit your love of the NHS for my own political ends – knowing that you’re full of patriotic pride for something, knowing that you feel what you’re feeling now… what if I now basically get you and lots of other people like you to attack my enemies, who I’m telling you are going to threaten this thing you love?
Anywhere there’s strong emotion attached to nationalist sentiment – however noble the intentions – is pretty scary for me, whether it’s jackbooted racists or not.
I still haven’t quite forgiven Brown for “British Jobs for British Workers”
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Aug 09 at 12:45 am
Alright I’ve edited the post a bit. It was a bit harsh in fairness.
Ian B said...
14 Aug 09 at 12:45 am
The nationalistic element of the post came from the fact that, actually, I find very little reason to be nationalistic and cannot identify with those who wear pride of country so overtly when it is based purely upon things unearned, that have required no personal effort to achieve (think stereotypical pride in being English ‘coz of FOOTBALL or FRY UPS)
Ah yes, the fabby fabian worldview. The superior elite class despising the lesser masses for their inconvenient attachment to harmless traditions, which must be relaced instead by absolute loyalty to the state apparat.
S’funny, I’ve just been reading a bunch’o'Keynes, and it’s interesting to note how the evil old pederast’s utopia has come to pass. The dominant, ruling class now in society is, as he dreamed it would be, the civil service, wisely running the lives of the rest of us untermenschen, beyond questioning and democratic control. Hence the unbridled fury when somebody dares question them.
Jamie said...
14 Aug 09 at 12:51 am
I think this is in danger of becoming exaggerated and over analysed now.
You’ve turned ‘admiration’ of a system that provides widespread healthcare into ‘love’ and ‘patriotic pride’ and twisted an individual, apolitical respect for an institution into conspiratorial intrigue and ‘nationalist sentiment’. I’m not even sure who you mean when you mention ‘enemies’.
Best not to ask what you might mean by ‘people like you’.
Lastly, what’s Brown’s ludicrous ‘British jobs’ slogan got to do with it?
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Aug 09 at 1:00 am
It was a hypothetical question, that’s all. Just curious about whether or not your newly awakened feelings for the NHS (and how easy it is to use those feelings for the NHS to drum up a good bit of Anti-Tory hatred) might help you understand how parties like the BNP work, and why Brown thought “British Jobs for British Workers” was a good idea. :S
By ‘people like you’ I meant ‘people who, like you, love the NHS in the same way that you love the NHS’
Ian B said...
14 Aug 09 at 1:05 am
“In danger of becoming exaggerated…”
er,
Those who have struggled for freedom and justice have shaped a country safe and civilised, without fear of oppression, tyranny, death or disease in which nearly everyone is represented and enfranchised.
Was somebody standing behind you slowly waving a union jack and humming Rule Britannia while you wrote that? We’re without fear of death or disease? What, did Clement Attlee grant us fucking immortality? Why wasn’t I told of this?
Jamie said...
14 Aug 09 at 1:17 am
Charlotte: Again, identifying a belief in a British institution with a belief in rampant, misguided, ignorant, racist nationalism doesn’t quite work. They are two very different things. I don’t need help understanding how parties like the BNP work, but thanks for your concern that they might be able to erode my mushy liberal brain and exploit my fondness for universal healthcare.
It is acceptable to be proud of something decent. If that decent thing was created by your country, then it is absolutely fine to quite like the fact that it did so. To equate this with dangerous nationalism is rather reactionary and muddles what real, insideous nationalism does, and how it works.
Ian B: Yes, Labour gave me immortality, I am on their payroll and, in fact, wearing Union Jack contacts as I type.
Jamie A said...
14 Aug 09 at 1:18 am
Dan Hannan did irk me with his half-true picture of British healthcare. It just reeked of oppertunism, presenting a half-true picture of British healthcare to an audience who presumably wouldn’t know much about the NHS. This went a tad far in condemning John Redwood for a pretty inoffensive statement though, so I’m with you to a point.
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Aug 09 at 1:29 am
wow, seriously, I’ve forgotten how many preconceptions people bring from Liberal Conspiracy…
identifying a belief in a British institution with a belief in rampant, misguided, ignorant, racist nationalism doesn’t quite work.
That’s not what I’ve done. What I’ve done is said that the mechanism through which LC have used love for the NHS to bash the Tories is nationalism. I didn’t say it was the same brand of nationalism used by the BNP, but at the same time I don’t believe there’s any such thing as ‘good’ nationalism. There’s just degrees of bad for me.
they might be able to erode my mushy liberal brain and exploit my fondness for universal healthcare.
I didn’t say that either, nor do I believe that’s something that’s likely to happen. What *is* happening though is people using love for the NHS to score cheap party political points, with everyone fighting over who loves the NHS the most, which is sickening.
Roger Thornhill said...
14 Aug 09 at 1:34 am
@Charlotte “horrible clamp downs on immigrants from outside the EU etc.”
Only because they are no longer allowed – yes, not allowed – to clamp down on intra-EU immigration. The immigration is one thing but the real crime is the “not allowed” part – a truth that dare not speak its name.
Jamie said...
14 Aug 09 at 1:43 am
Mechanism? I’m not sure about that. I wrote a post, under no guidance or encouragement from anyone else, and I chose to post it on LC. If you want to accuse anybody of using ‘love’ for whatever to incite ‘hatred’ for whomever else, accuse me.
Tory bashing? I titled the post ‘Daniel Hannan is a national disgrace’, not ‘The Tories’. I did briefly criticise Cameron for not reprimanding Hannan (which was before he did), but calling out a politician telling porkies does not mean I’m simply Tory bashing. You might look for shady behind the scenes goings on, but, well, there isn’t. I’m not attempting to score cheap party political points, and I might remind you that the Twitter campaign was started by Graham Linehan, not some Labourite apparatchik.
I do take your point on everyone fighting over who loves the NHS, though. It was quite disheartening to see No.10 jump on the bandwagon, instantly rendering it sadly non-independent. Similarly, if there’s to be criticism of such overt NHS love, then it must be that it detracts from discussion of how it could be improved, and runs the risk of people highlighting genuine failings being labelled cynically mock-contraversial.
On the other hand, I can’t see much terribly wrong with people expressing appreciation for something that is, on the whole, a good thing.
DavidNcl said...
14 Aug 09 at 9:09 am
It’s not on the whole a good thing. It’s on the whole a monstrous thing. Socialist provision of healthcare result in worse services (cf male cancer survival rates between the UK and the US) delivered at higher social and economic cost.
Expressing apprection for the collectivist horrors of the NHS means your either a fool, a tool or worse.
Rankersbo said...
14 Aug 09 at 9:43 am
And I thought this was going to be about Alan Duncan…
Rob said...
14 Aug 09 at 9:51 am
My sympathy in this debate is with Charlotte, for a simple reason: I’m a natural born skeptic. I don’t believe in sacred cows, and the attempt to turn the NHS into something that we all have to support unquestioningly just rubs me up the wrong way. Dan Hannan is, quote obviously, a bit of a nob – 30 seconds of listening to him speak can tell you that – but that shouldn’t prevent reasonable critiques of state-provided healthcare.
The spectacle of large numbers of people lining up to salute the world’s fourth-largest employer just spooks people like me. I’d be equally spooked if it was a #welovewalmart or #welovegoogle campaign, with the minor difference that I’m mostly free to avoid either of those. If you don’t get that feeling then I suppose it must be hard to appreciate why anyone is bothered by it, hence the disagreements.
David Chiverton said...
14 Aug 09 at 10:48 am
The problem with the current transatlantic spat over the ‘proud Brits’ are trying to argue with people who don’t really care what they think. The wing-nuts of the GOP/Fox News/talk radio don’t have any interest in the actual details of the NHS, just the horrors it represents to their political base. All the counter argument has done is drown out those of us who do want to see fundamental reform.
As for Hannan, the man is entitled to say what he thinks, but seeing him willfully distorting facts for the benefit of Fox News viewers did grate. Hopefully he’ll chase the almighty TV dollar and-bugger off over the pond full-time.
David Chiverton said...
14 Aug 09 at 10:50 am
Complete grammar failure in that last post. It is early for me!
DavidNcl said...
14 Aug 09 at 12:12 pm
This blog may be of interest to some National Death Service
(I am in no way connected to it, but I do subscribe to their RSS feed).
Jack Hughes said...
14 Aug 09 at 12:16 pm
Dudes
Can someone explain the ‘errors’ in Hannan’s Fox News interview instead of all this blah-blah Guardianista dog-whistle stuff.
Just a simple list will do. For example is the NHS not the world’s 3rd largest employer ?
Tom Papworth said...
14 Aug 09 at 12:19 pm
Charlotte,
While I sympathise with what you are saying, this is an inevitable function of representative politics. Representative politics explicitly recongnises that most people cannot devote the time necessary to consider all the facts before making decisions, so voters delegate responsibility to people who can.
The result is that on many issues, the individual voters have only a small understanding of the issues and don’t have time to look into it more.
It is therefore easy to sway voters using simplistic but attractive arguments (just look at the popularity of protectionism). I repeat, this isn’t because voters are stupid, but becasue they don’t have the time to look into the issues in great depth.
Naturally, this means that what Galbraith called Conventional Wisdom comes to dominate. (Cripes! I’m quoting Galbraith!!) Depart from the policy status quo and you risk damnation.
In the end, much as I sympathise with your comments, they are naieve. The burning of heretics is the inevitable consequence of representative democracy. I suspect that in your heart you know this, which is why you advocate a system where each can find his/her own path, rather than be forced to seek concensus.
Tom Papworth said...
14 Aug 09 at 12:20 pm
I really ought to have spell-checked that before submitting it.
Jack Hughes said...
14 Aug 09 at 12:21 pm
Chiverton, Jamie A, Jamie, Daniel Hoffman-Gill, I’m looking at you.
Just explain what he said that was untrue.
Tom Papworth said...
14 Aug 09 at 12:24 pm
Rankersbo said…
“And I thought this was going to be about Alan Duncan…”
I’ve actually more sympathy for Alan Duncan. Recording a private conversation and then making it into a You Tube clip is pretty low. Hannan spoke on camera; Duncan chatted over a drink.
If politicians can’t ever make unguarded comments then Alan Duncan will be proved right, and nobody will want the job!
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Aug 09 at 12:32 pm
The burning of heretics is the inevitable consequence of representative democracy. I suspect that in your heart you know this
Yes, but what can you?
Tackling ‘bad politics’ is more than just about slamming bad policy ideas. It’s about highlighting the way that mainstream political debates are entirely driven by fallacious arguments and other ambient bullshit – all of which seem inherent to our system of democracy that demands equivocation, obfuscation and appeals to emotion rather than reality to win elections. I think that institutionalises bad policy and special interest politics, too.
Tom Papworth said...
14 Aug 09 at 1:14 pm
Charlotte,
I agree. My point is not that one should be afraid to preach heresy. My point is that one should expect to be burnt.
Hannan is lucky. David Cameron has forced people to resign for speaking their mind. Michael Howard forced at least one Tory MP to stand down for the crime of suggesting that taxes would be cut.
DavidNcl said...
14 Aug 09 at 4:11 pm
Actually, one can find a transcript of Hannan’s interview here.
Accurate and understated. I suspect Hannan real crime is to apeare on something as déclassé as Fox shudder and worse hate figure Hannity's show (and earlier Glen Baby Eater Beck's show).
Or is it this:
Laurence Boyce said...
14 Aug 09 at 4:39 pm
“There is no good nationalism.”
This is exactly right, and given that the BNP is something of a joke, I’m not sure who is posing the greater danger. All these NHS lovers would doubtless protest the tag of nationalism, but I’m afraid the word “national” in the NHS is a dead giveaway.
Tom Papworth said...
14 Aug 09 at 4:57 pm
I am reminded of Voltaire’s comment about the Holy Roman Empire.
I’m not sure how “national” the NHS is, it’s not healthy and the service is dreadful.
DavidNcl said...
14 Aug 09 at 5:28 pm
More from FEE
Subscribe to their RSS feed, commie filth, and you can have righteous anger every day! How long will your crazy world view remain intact I wonder.
Foundation for Economic Education
DavidNcl said...
14 Aug 09 at 7:11 pm
Tumbleweeds from the commies like Chiverton, Jamie A, Jamie, Daniel Hoffman-Gill I see. Did ya expect more?
See ya in the morning folks. btw… Glen Beck’s Friday show rules!
Tinter said...
14 Aug 09 at 7:30 pm
All well and good to be unhappy with nationalist sentiments- I myself am no fan. But whereas a hint of it from the left results in BNP comparisons, Hannan going all over American television and repeatedly opening with American nationalism (your constitution is the best, world owes you a debt, what a great nation, ect), results in… a defense of him? Standing against criticism?
Allergy indeed…
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Aug 09 at 7:50 pm
Hang on, is Hannan being unpatriotic or nationalistic? Sheesh. Make your mind up.
Tinter said...
14 Aug 09 at 9:10 pm
Way to dodge the point. Where did I say I was part of the #weloveNHS crowd? I don’t have any special affinity for them, you are just avoiding the point.
When they engage in what you percieve as UK nationalism, its compared to the BNP and slam it as something you can never tolerate.
When Hannan opens and continues many of his TV appearances with full-on pandering to American nationalism, you write… a lengthy defence.
It appears your profesed hyper-sensitivity to all nationalism doesn’t quite trigger universally, no?
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Aug 09 at 9:31 pm
I don’t really think you can argue that hannan’s comments were nationalistic. He’s spoken highly of the US constitution not *because* it’s American.
The Hannan well is truly poisoned now though. Sad.
Jack Hughes said...
14 Aug 09 at 10:08 pm
‘Fox News’ is one of those trigger words that gets lefties all excited and primed for a boilerplate response.
It’s like the US healthcare system – they don’t seem to need any personal experience of either because the daily kos and the grauniad have already told them what to think and say on these subjects.
Jack Hughes said...
14 Aug 09 at 10:23 pm
Charlotte,
You are right about Hannan. His card is well and truly marked at the BBC now. They’ll trick him into the studio to discuss the ‘Yellowness of Bananas Directive (2009)’ then ambush him with this stuff.
Tinter said...
14 Aug 09 at 10:54 pm
Mmm-hmm. Well I think claiming that America is what has driven democracy across the world and that everyone owes them a debt is more than a little nationalistic. Most of his interviews he drops how great this and that is about America the nation. But this causes you no problems, apparently, certainly its not vile nationalism like when anyone who disagrees with you uses any such rhetoric.
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Aug 09 at 11:09 pm
Your argument isn’t very good. Saying what you like about someone else’s country isn’t nationalistic. Calling someone ‘unpatriotic’ and ‘a national disgrace’ because they’re critical about a national institution to foreigners *is* nationalistic.
I can point to lots of nationalistic stuff from GOP nutters, too, which I do find sickening. Fox are being nationalistic – Hannan is pandering to them presumably because he finds the American response to him a bit too flattering to resist.
Tinter said...
15 Aug 09 at 2:38 am
So you admit that Hannan is pandering to nationalism from the GOP? Why do you defend him for “speaking his mind” when he does that, but when others (and here, you specifically included those not engaging in attacks through nationalism but all nationalism) get the hardest criticism you can come up with?
I don’t really agree with the tone of #welovetheNHS, but Hannan isn’t contributing anything at all either and you are happily ignoring that fact. He is reaping as he sows.
DavidNcl said...
15 Aug 09 at 10:16 am
No2NHS on Facebook
Caron said...
15 Aug 09 at 10:53 am
I’m fine with politicians saying what they think, and I welcome it, but that doesn’t mean to say that I’m not going to pick them up if they talk nonsense as Daniel Hannan has done. He’s taken a few Daily Mail scare stories and given them credibility in the US without mentioning what the NHS does achieve, which is provide, day in day out, free treatment to millions of people.
I think it’s quite amusing that Labour politicians are grabbing on to Daniel Hannan as if he’s their saviour -Tom Harris is desperate to get him speaking at Tory party conference.
I suspect that he will be the biggest feature of their election campaign – and that would be really said cos it would meant that they were saying that if we didn’t re-elect them, the bogeyman would get them.
I think that the response to Hannan’s comments, though, which has come from a fairly wide cross section of people, not just political activists, shows that we want to keep a system of health care that is free at the point of need.
We know that the NHS isn’t perfect but if our reforms were implemented it would be a lot better, more people centred and less bureaucratic. That’s the debate I want to have and the debate that would mean something.
Can you imagine, though, what the American right, currently feting Hannan as a hero, would do to an American politician who came over here and slagged the US off? They’d go absolutely nuts. Bush Sr tried to portray Clinton virtually as a traitor cos he’d gone to some anti war demos here.
I don’t think they’re right, and I also think that Labour ministers are going completely over the top painting him as a traitor.
I think it’s fine he speaks his mind, but I would have expected more of a party leader who says he’s committed to the NHS than just a bit of a shrug of the shoulders. He certainly hasn’t reassured me that the NHS would be safe with the Tories, and most of the horror stories associated with it come from a time when it was hideously underfunded during the last period of Conservative Government. The thing is, Hannan is not some lone, eccentric voice in the Tory Party – there are plenty people who think like he does. These are usually young men who haven’t been anywhere near the NHS because they come from such rich backgrounds that they don’t need to.
DavidNcl said...
15 Aug 09 at 2:43 pm
Caron:
“I’m fine with politicians saying what they think, and I welcome it, but that doesn’t mean to say that I’m not going to pick them up if they talk nonsense as Daniel Hannan has done. He’s taken a few Daily Mail scare stories and given them credibility in the US without mentioning what the NHS does achieve, which is provide, day in day out, free treatment to millions of people.”
In what sense has Hannan been talking nonsense. The “Daily Mail” scare stories – such as thousands infected with MRSA, poor cancer survival rates, drug rationing etc are true, widespread and a national disgrace.
In fact, your the one talking nonsense about free treatment. It’s not free. We pay through the nose for it and the the (stolen) money is spent badly.
Anyway, go on point something out that Hannah has claimed that is in fact untrue.
“I think that the response to Hannan’s comments, though, which has come from a fairly wide cross section of people, not just political activists, shows that we want to keep a system of health care that is free at the point of need.”
On the other hand I thing the response to Hannan’s comments are manufactured by a statist propaganda mill, shilling for a statist political party in hock to statist unions striving to create the fear in teh masses for obvious reasons.
“We know that the NHS isn’t perfect”
It’s terrible. It’s Orwellian, expensive, cruel, unclean and ineffective.
“… horror stories associated with it come from a time when it was hideously underfunded during the last period of Conservative Government…”
No. Flat lie. The horror stories are from now. Chase the the National Death Service blog link I posted above. Or consider this NCPA – US Cancer Care Is Number One. Spending on the NHS has risen from 6% of GDP to 11% of GDP and nothing good has happened in terms of patient outcomes. It’s still shit. The non market approach doesn’t work, it’s impractical, inefficient and inhuman. Double the spend again and it will be even more shit – and we’ll be bankrupt.
DavidNcl said...
15 Aug 09 at 3:12 pm
The tedious old god botherer is covering this is covering this issue here
(I’m not on Cramer’s wavelength tbh, but hey….)
DavidNcl said...
15 Aug 09 at 4:38 pm
more on Palin’s success with the “Death Panels” tactic here
ian said...
15 Aug 09 at 8:51 pm
i am stund by our American friends atitude to the nhs it seems they only care about themselves not about all the people, pay if you can die if you can’t
MancUnionist said...
16 Aug 09 at 3:41 am
Faith in the NHS appears to be based on the odd belief that a megalithic state-directed monopoly is the optimal way to run healthcare when long experience demonstrates it to be the least-effective means of running anything else.
MancUnionist said...
16 Aug 09 at 3:42 am
I of course meant monolithic. Teach me to post in this state.
Tom Papworth said...
16 Aug 09 at 5:15 pm
This isn’t supposed to be a debate about the NHS, but a debate about free speech. Should Hannan be hauled over the coals for speaking his mind, etc.
However, I can’t let the comment by “Ian Said” pass without pointing out that the whole problem with the debate about US healthcare is that most of the UK has swallowed the lie that the poor do not get any medical help:
“i am stund [sic.] by our American friends atitude to the nhs it seems they only care about themselves not about all the people, pay if you can die if you can’t”
Actually, Ian and all those who believe this, there is free healthcare in the US available to those on low incomes or with limited means. It is called Medicaid. The reason the Americans are so disgusted by it is not that it does not exist, but that it is of such low quality, particularly because of the long waiting-lists. Months, sometimes!
It is, in fact, remarkably like the NHS.
Tom Papworth said...
16 Aug 09 at 5:15 pm
Just noticed that everybody’s comments say “x said…”
Ian is, therefore, just Ian.
David Chiverton said...
18 Aug 09 at 12:31 pm
I didn’t come back to this thread so excuse the ‘tumbleweed’ Davidncl. Being called a commie is a new experience! Hannan’s comment’s although containing a lot that was correct also contained a great number of distortions. I’ve never known anyone with prostate cancer being told to get in a queue have you? I’ve been unlucky enough to have had colon cancer and can assure you they do get you in quickly. As for Beck and Hannity and the rest of the shower on Fox,they’re below contempt. They spent 8 years towing the administration’s line and now they’ve become anti-government libertarians again. The standard of political debate in the US is woeful (on both sides).
The point I was making is that this ‘last night of the proms’ response from UK politicians is a way to stifle the genuine debate. I want to see the NHS hacked at, it’s too big, too inefficient, and too politicised. But what chance have we got at reform when we’re being shouted down?
Matthew Huntbach said...
20 Aug 09 at 10:32 am
Spending on the NHS has risen from 6% of GDP to 11% of GDP and nothing good has happened in terms of patient outcomes
But it has – people live longer, hence die slowly of old age requiring a lot of expensive care at the end, rather than quickly and cheaply earlier on.
This really is one of the big problems of modern society, it impacts on so much else. When the NHS was founded, it was argued it would pay for itself as people would be healthier hence more productive. The flaw in this argument is that we still all have to die at some time, later rather than sooner is more expensive. It’s also why pension funds are such a big issue, obviously.
Now Tom writes of the US “Medicaid” system
Actually, Ian and all those who believe this, there is free healthcare in the US available to those on low incomes or with limited means. It is called Medicaid. The reason the Americans are so disgusted by it is not that it does not exist, but that it is of such low quality, particularly because of the long waiting-lists. Months, sometimes!
It is, in fact, remarkably like the NHS.
Well, yes, so there you go. In both the US and UK if you’ve got money you can pay for quick healthcare, if you haven’t, you have to put up with being behind in the queue. The US seems to have some sort of gap with people who aren’t poor enough to qualify for this Medicaid, but quickly become poor due to an expensive health problem coming up – as they say, it’s the big cause of bankruptcies. This gap in the middle is always the problem with safety net systems.
I do not myself see any convincing argument for competition driving up quality in the US. As I’ve argued elsewhere, health care doesn’t work like that, on account of we don’t know what we want because we aren’t doctors, and under those circumstances we can easily be conned into buying things we don’t need and wouldn’t want if we knew better.
We in the UK could become more like the US if more of us moved to private health care, and used the NHS only as a backup. This is happening anyway – private medical schemes are big business here. I myself have one for my dentistry, as it happens, I’m no particular ideologue on these matters.
So, the real issue is the rich people don’t want to pay for the poor people, so want to offload health care costs from tax (which is based on who earns most pays most at least very roughly) to personal spending where you pay for what you get. This is called “freedom” by some. As Tom notes, it sure doesn’t feel like freedom to the poor, but what the heck, who cares about them? No doubt they were too stupid or poor to make it in the world, so deserve to have poor services and die young.
The lies being told in the US about the NHS seem to be on the basis that the NHS is ALL we have in the UK, so that if there is rationing in it (which there will be, and more so as we invent new and very expensive ways of keeping people alive) everyone has to put up with that. That’s rubbish, because we have private medicine in the UK, so anyone rationed out can buy it. If they have the money, that is.
If the Medicaid system in the US is the US’s NHS, then no doubt it has its death panels and the like to do the rationing and order the queues. It would be nice to see some honesty about these matters. US politicians don’t seem to be able to be honest about this, because they don’t like to admit that poverty has some effect on liberty – just like our “libertarians”. As I’ve said, maybe that’s because the US has a mindset where poverty
is just laziness because there’s a wild west frontier the poor can go across to pick up unlimited wealth. They are a bit desperate to find it, as it now seems to be located in Alaska, hence “drill, baby, drill”.
Techno-geeks think the frontier is now virtual (maybe that’s why “libertarianism” appeals to them so much). Problem is, our bodies aren’t virtual, and that’s what health care is about.
Tom Papworth said...
20 Aug 09 at 12:27 pm
“We in the UK could become more like the US if more of us moved to private health care”
Perish the thought!
Matthew is making a common mistake in inferring that those of us who are critical of the UK healthcare system would prefer the US model. Nobody want the American healthcare model; not even the Americans.
Matthew Huntbach said...
21 Aug 09 at 10:53 am
“Matthew is making a common mistake in inferring that those of us who are critical of the UK healthcare system would prefer the US model. Nobody want the American healthcare model; not even the Americans.”
My word said “We in the UK could become more like the US …”. This suggests a possibility, not a preference. Simply because I am saying it is possible development does not imply a belief that you or I or anyone else would prefer that development.
Tom Papworth said...
21 Aug 09 at 11:35 am
Matthew,
A fair point. However, the general tenor of this and all healthcare debates polarises around a UK or US model. Perhaps your statement didn’t fall into this category, in which case I apologise. Plenty of other people’s statements do.
My point was that there are a wealth of healthcare models throughout the world, many of which mix the role of the state as ensurer of access with the role of markets as the ensurer of quality and choice. I wish that defenders of the NHS would not characature all market-inclined critics as wanted to adopt the US healthcare model.
(As somebody who was made redundant earlier this year, I am glad that my healthcare was not linked to my job)
Tom said...
3 Nov 09 at 12:58 am
Charlotte Gore said…
13 Aug 09 at 11:14 pm
“I get worried when people on the left use nationalist rhetoric”
Is that because you’re a Unionist or because you’ve never heard of the SNP?
Charlotte Gore said...
3 Nov 09 at 1:07 am
Neither, Tom. I’m not a nationalist and I don’t like Scottish, Welsh, Irish, British or English Nationalism.
The Union doesn’t matter to me at all.
Tom said...
3 Nov 09 at 1:40 am
What are you worried about then, democracy?
Charlotte Gore said...
3 Nov 09 at 1:46 am
Not really. Protectionism, Fascism, that sort of thing. The collective good of the Nation being put ahead of the interests of individuals.
Like I said, I’m not a nationalist. The fate of Scotland, Wales, NI.. none of my business: I’m English.
Tom said...
3 Nov 09 at 1:59 am
You are right, it’s none of your business. To smear independence supporters with some notion of Fascism is ridiculous and shows you know nothing about Scotland.
If it wasn’t for nationalists, there would still be a Soviet Empire. I suppose you don’t have to think about that since you’re not Lithuanian.
Charlotte Gore said...
3 Nov 09 at 3:35 am
I don’t see what my knowledge of Scotland has to do with whether or not Nationalism, as a political ideology, is damaging and poisonous?
Second, you only possible way you could make what I’ve said add up to ‘smearing independence supporters’ is if you believe the only reason anyone ever wants independence is out of a commitment to ideologically pure nationalism. If that’s what you believe then fair fucks to you, but I certainly don’t believe that for a second.
For the record, I reserve my scorn, disdain and mockery for Nationalist politicians (and the True Believers) whom I consider to be the very worst, lowest form of populist, opportunistic political parasites.
You really should pick your battles a little more carefully. I have no opinion on Scotland’s future. I have no love for the Union, nor opposition to independence. I’m completely staying out of your way… so what’s your problem?
It’s not enough that I’m not actively trying to prevent independence for Scotland? You need me to believe that Scottish Nationalism is somehow special, that it’s immune from the ‘bad’ bits of Nationalism? Pull the other one!
Ian B said...
3 Nov 09 at 3:45 am
What do you mean by nationalism? Are you opposed to the existence of nation states, or do you approve of nation states but disapprove of people who support them, or what? If the nations were abolished, with what should they be replaced?
Bear in mind here that a global governance isn’t “no nation states”, it’s “one nation state”. In that latter case, rather than abolishing the nation, all you’ve actually abolished is the ability to escape abroad.
Tom said...
3 Nov 09 at 10:26 am
Charlotte, you seem to believe that the Lib Dem party is somehow special, ideologically pure and so on. I know their politicians to be cynical Unionist fence-sitters and I notice you dodged the issue of whether nationalism was a good thing when it came to breaking up the USSR.
Charlotte Gore said...
3 Nov 09 at 10:35 am
Tom,
The USSR did not collapse because of plucky nationalists. It collapsed because it was a economic failure and people quite rightly wanted to be free of it. I never said anything about Lib Dem politicians. I only represent myself.
Ian,
I don’t really disapprove of nations themselves. The idea of nations as divisions of the land based on ethnic purity makes me queasy as you can probably imagine. It’s Nationalism as a politicial ideology – policy based on what’s in the interest of the nation I object to.
Tom said...
3 Nov 09 at 10:46 am
You come across as somewhat parochial and not well-informed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1991/jan/14/eu.politics
” ‘Fascists, occupiers go home!’ they yelled. ‘ Lithuania , Lithuania , freedom for Lithuania !’ And still they stood firm as the armour kept on moving, trying to stop it with their bodies, even with their bare hands.
Some were crushed as the war machines ground forward, searchlights on the tanks lighting their way. Others fell dead or wounded as the troops turned their guns on the people blocking their path. ”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/iain-macwhirter/why-snp-believes-we-are-the-people-wherever-we-re-from-1.928428
“The modern SNP is a civic nationalist party, which enthusiastically accepts non-Scots as members and was the first Scottish party to have a Muslim MSP. Anyone who happens to live in Scotland can claim Scottish nationality under the SNP constitution, and it has an open-door policy on immigration. Really, you can’t get much less racist than that.
Nevertheless, some people still try to taint the SNP by association.”