Daniel Hannan – the new Tory saviour!


9:45 am - March 26th 2009

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

It’s amusing to watch right-wingers get into such a tizzy over Daniel Hannan MEP’s speech at the EU criticising Gordon Brown. Iain Dale is unhappy our media isn’t playing this repeatedly (I expect the BBC will soon, since they give in to rightwingers easily).

Newsflash: Tory MEP disagrees with Labour policies! Stop press! Even Mr Hannan himself breathlessly claims that: “I have been making similar speeches every week and posting them on YouTube for the past seven months.” — Oh. Well, surely it’s still news that the stalwarts of American rightwing-nuttery: the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh and Faux-News are hailing him as the new messiah? Well can we have a look at Mr Hannan’s record first?

Here is Mr Hannan writing about Iceland’s economy (via Sunder at Next Left):

Being outside the EU, Iceland has been able to cut taxes and regulation, and to open up its economy. For 70 years the Althing has been dominated by the splendidly named Independence party, which has pursued the kind of Thatcherite agenda that is off limits to EU members

Icelanders understand that there is a connection between living in an independent state and living independently from the state. They have no more desire to submit to international than to national regulation. That attitude has made them the happiest, freest and wealthiest people on earth.

Erm… yeah. Hannan added:

Look at the City of London, for heaven’s sake, which Brussels is doing its best to asphyxiate with its financial regulations.

Asphyxiate is a good word – one that should perhaps be applied more to bankers than financial regulation.

Even his speech in Strasbourg is full of strawmen.

1) Hannan claims Brown has nationalised the car industry. Erm, no it hasn’t.

2) He keeps complaining about nationalisation and the money spent to prop up the economy. So does this mean the new Conservative policy is that the government should let banks go under? Perhaps the Conservatives could let us know what their financial policy actually is? To let everyone go under?

3) He says:

In the last 12 months a 100,000 private sector jobs have been lost, and yet you’ve created 30,000 public sector jobs. Prime Minister, you cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit.

So not only is he directly blaming Gordon Brown for the private job losses (not financial companies, mind you) but also blaming him for creating “unproductive” teaching, nursing and other public sector jobs! I’m sure my cousin will be happy to hear the Tories regard her teaching job as unproductive. And damn them for creating jobs!

4) “You cannot spend your way out of recession…” And even though Darling has said he won’t do this, the point is – you can; America did so in the 1930s.

5) He also decries the fall of the Sterling. To read a proper demolition of why the Sterling’s fall IS A GOOD THING – read this on Duncan’s Economic blog.

If the BBC is going to report this, the least they could do is highlight some of the inconsistencies.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,Economy ,Realpolitik ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Yeah, what an idiot. Fancy his not predicting the collapse of Iceland’s economy a mere four years before it happened. Chuh.

Interestingly, you also criticise him for creating strawmen and then say the following:

*All public sector workers are teachers and nurses.

*America ‘spent its way out of recession’ in the 1930s

*The fall in the value of sterling is ‘a good thing’

The first of these is obviously untrue, the second is a brutal simplification of an episode in history that is still hotly debated and the third is the sort of simplistic nonsense that made Gideon Gono the admired figure in the banking world that he is today.

Even Mr Hannan himself breathlessly claims that: “I have been making similar speeches every week and posting them on YouTube for the past seven months.”

Indeed, and the same old rehash of half-baked criticisms have been trotted out by many a Conservative spokesman and regurgitated on many a blog for ages – I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve read or heard that “devalued PM” line – so why so many are getting so excited by yet another example I can’t quite fathom.

And of course, it is apparently another overwhelming case of BBC bias that they haven’t yet broadcast this hyperbolic drivel; er, even though ITV and Sky haven’t bothered either.

The sad thing about this is that I’d previously had a bit of a sneaking admiration for Hannan, but I suppose this nicely illustrates the peril of comparing Tories to other Tories rather than just other human beings. “The country as a whole is now in negative equity” (in fact, the entire speech, apart from the hit he makes on the topic of British Jobs for British Workers sloganeering) is content-free at best and mendaciously wrong at worst.

The BBC’s bias in refusing to cover this is further proven by the fact that those notorious bulwarks of communism, the Mail, Express, Telegraph and Times, haven’t picked up on it either.

What a load of rubbish, Sunny.

What evidence do you have that the new public sector jobs are teachers, doctors and nurses instead of pointless bureaucrats? Can we have a reference please?

I seem to remember that Hannan said the car industry had been subsidised, not nationalised.

If you are suggesting that 1930s economic policy was a roaring success then I think you need to re-read the history books. It was a prolonged period of economic misery.

Sterling’s fall is due at least in part to the evaporation of confidence in the British economy. I’m sure there are other factors at work, but the failed guilt action yesterday for the first time in history shows that the markets are walking away from this country because they think we’re screwed – but apparently you seem to think that you know better than the global financial system.

Sunny . The main hub of the argument is scale of government borrowing- the largest since WW2. . Germany saved during the good times, Labour greatly increased borrowing before the recession. Germany’s reserves were $286B before the recession started. Germany’s savings was 8% of it’s GDP , Britains borrowings are 10% of it’s GDP. As a consequence sterling has fallen by 30% . Vince Cable warned about the scale of private , corporate an national debt in 2003 and was ridiculed by Brown. Merkel and Sarkozy gives the impression of disagreeing with Brown over fiscal stimulus. Merkel does not believe the success of Germany’s economy should be squandered propping up those who have been profligate. I suggest you read some Hamish McRae of the Independent who explains some of the borrowings of the various countries.

Mervyn King has warned about furher borrowings and apparently the Queen has had an audience with him ; the first ever with the Governor of the B of E !

Brown in the early 90s said in reaction to the scale of the devaluation of the pound ” A strong currency is the sign of a strong economy”. When the pound was devalued under Wilson it as a reflection in the decline of the British economy. Labour has a problem balencing the books. I suggest you keep an on the gilts market- for the last auction not all were sold.

If you are saying Dr Cable was wrong about debt, why do you call yourself liberal- why not Left wing Conspiracy ?

You mean this guy is the new Joe the Plumber? I’ll pass, thanks.

“You cannot spend your way out of recession…” And even though Darling has said he won’t do this, the point is – you can; America did so in the 1930s.”

In that case why was the rate of unemployment by 1940 still ridiculously high? Even Paul Krugman accepts that Roosevelt messed up (although he accuses Roosevelt of not spending enough. Hmm). Britain on the other hand had a far more successful recovery without following a Keynesian path.

Regardless of the content of Hanna’s speech I suspect it went down well because of his oratory. We need more articulate politicians from both sides of the HoC.

@ LFAT: the gilt auction wasn’t a total success (although 93% was cleared) for dull technical reasons. UK public debt is still strongly in demand – see its market actual price.

Sterling’s fall came because the £ was artificially high due to capital inflows related to the City, and is now artificially low due to the unwinding of same.

@ Charlie: at the beginning of 2008 the UK had lower public sector debt than the US, France, Germany or Japan. But apart from that, spot on.

@ Richard, no, we need fewer politicians who rouse idiots’ passions with well-delivered, meaningless speeches, and more dullards like Mr Brown. At least that way people stand some small chance of listening to the *actual things they actually say*….

UK public debt is still strongly in demand – see its market actual price.

Wel lets hope it remains so given that E&Y have predicted that the Government will have to borrow £350bn over the next two years. To put that figure into some sort of perspective, that’s more than the total borrowed by British Governments between 1690 and 1997.

And the idea that anyone listens to the contents of Brown’s speeches is ridiculous. Both he and Darling operate on the principle of boring your adversaries into submission.

No matter what you thought of the content, the delivery was pretty good.

And directed straight at the grinning idiot who was forced to sit there and take it.

(It has been covered by the broadsheets and Sky by the way – even the Guardian!)

Your whole post Sunny is stolen from Sunder’s at LabourList!

Of course sterling’s fall is a “good thing” in the sense of being stimulative while also being a “bad thing” in the sense of clearly demonstrating that contrary to Brown’s lie, the UK is not “well placed” at all relative to other countries.

Though if you had your way we would be in the Euro by now and not have had this helpful escape valve, rather we would be trapped like Ireland, Spain, Italy and Greece.

If the BBC is going to report this…don’t hold your breath.

Though I also agree with john b – I don’t think we need worry yet about a gilts buyers strike.

13. Ken McKenzie

I don’t have time to do this to any great extent, but if you go here:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/release-calendar/index.html?newquery=*&uday=0&umonth=0&uyear=0&title=Labour+Force+Survey+Employment+status+by+occupation&pagetype=calendar-entry

(yep, it’s long)

then you can get employment figures by SOC (Standard Occupational Classification) for Q2 of successive years. Now, you need to understand SOC (which I do, but I appreciate that a lot of people don’t), and you have to appreciate that these detailed figures do not distinguish between public and private sector employment, you can get an interesting comparison to changes in the number of people in various occupations between June 2007 and June 2008.

Some highlights:

Public sector professions that gained more people: Senior Officials In National Government (ie senior civil servants); senior officials in local govt.; hospital and health service managers (a big rise in those); residential and daycare managers (some are private, some public); doctors (a big rise); FE teachers; primary and nursing teachers; social workers (only a small rise, bet that’s been reversed since then); probation officers; nurses (only a small rise); midwives (likewise); big rises in youth and community workers, and in housing and welfare officers; the Fire Service; Armed Forces NCOs; the prison service; careers advisers; trading standards and a big rise in health and safety officers.

Fallers include; civil service admin and clerical officers (a far larger fall than any individual rise in other public sector roles); HE teachers and lecturers; secondary teachers; ‘senior education administrators; healthcare practise managers; social services managers (surely not!).

Conclusion – public sector jobs have been created in a wide variety of areas. Even if you think that there are a plethora of ‘pointless beaurocrats’ in the public sector, many of the new jobs are not for them, and it looks like quite a lot of them have lost their jobs as well.

Conclusion 2 – it’s quite easy to find the data.

And more broadly the Hannan youtube “phenomenon” again plays into Sunny’s favourite topic – what role will t’internet paly in the next election?

This just in: Relief as new government debt sale succeeds: ‘Today’s sale of £1.1bn of gilts (government bonds) maturing in 2022 was almost three times oversubscribed, indicating a healthy level of interest from investors.’

17. Mike Killingworth

Probably the most interesting thing about this is that the Thatcherites have now found a keeper of the flame.

I would expect Hannan to be offered a seat in time for the next GE, and to challenge for the leadership say three years in to a Cameron government, when its popularity is a bit less than Brown’s is now.

Cjcjc – just because a whole load of drudge and rush limbaugh fanboys have seen the video doesn’t signal an earth-shattering break in the order. I’ll give you that it’s delivered well. But frankly, it’s the same old conservative economic talking points that indicate the Tories are way out ofkilter with publicopinion and reality itself

Tim J at the top said his article was 4 years old – but he’s also blaming the PM for the crisis – so why did he himself not see it coming??

Just saw Sunder’s piece on Labourlist now – which I hadn’t earlier. I’ve nicked (and tipped) the spectator article reference but the articles are different.

And really, anyone who still believes the fall in the pound represents a crisis does not deserve to me listened to on economic issues.

LFAT,

Yesterday’s ‘failed’ gilt auction was the fourth failure since the 1980′s. I wouldn’t even call it a failure, we sold £1.6bn of forty year debt with an interest rate of only 4.5%.

If international investors lost faith in the credability of the British economy, their first step would be to sell gilts. The yield on them (the govt’s cost of borrowing) would then rise. This hasn’t happened. In fact the exact opposite has happened.

Ken – thanks for the link

Charlie – I do mostly defer to Mr Cable – but he also advocated nationalising Northern Rock early. Will you accept that as necessary?

Mike – good point

This is a man writing books called ‘The Plan’ for Britian, based on his same advice to Iceland. No national regulation, no international regulation: Freedom. Utopia. Prosperity.

The right may have a political advantage – ‘not on our watch’ – but really does have nothing to offer. It is incredible that so many like Hannan have learnt nothing from the crisis.

And to be fair to Sunny, we had Hannan’s Iceland prophecies here on LC two months ago (and indeed on Next Left last Autumn). But persistence may pay off! The LabourList article is simply a crosspost
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/01/31/more-eurosceptic-advice-for-iceland/

I agree the fall in the pound is not a crisis – it is a welcome safety valve not available to weaker eurozone countries!!

But it is hardly an indicator of the UK’s relative @well-placed-ness@ is it?

As for the Tories out-of-touch-ness, well time will tell on that score.

NB – have you spotted that Obama’s policy of spraying Wall Street firms with cash is not exactly in touch with US public opinion?!

Sunny, if the Tories are so out of kilter with public opinion why are they so consistently leading in the polls? If their economic policy – that reckless additional borrowing to fund an increase in spending is unaffordable – is so ludicrous, why has it received the tacit backing of the Governor of the Bank of England.

Mike – I don’t think there are currently any plans for Dan to enter the Commons next time round. And he’s always been a conspicuously loyal Cameroon. As for his being a rabid Thatcherite bitter-ender, he was also one of the more prominent Obamacons, so perhaps his views are a touch more complex than you realise.

25. Mike Killingworth

[24] Tim, thanks. However, if he gets a swell of support from this, I would still expect a Constiuency Association to approach him. And people’s views change – Thatcher happily went along with Heath’s U-turn in 1973 and seized an opportunity two years later. I was (over)much influenced by the cheerleading for him on Smithson’s site (which is now apparently overwhelmingly Tory with the odd Lib Dem – including Smithson himself – not waving but drowning).

Sunny . I was against de-mutualisation in the first place. I was against the set up of the FSA in the first place -all regulation should have left with the Bof E . In particular controlling asset bubbles. I would have returned to the 1970s where the banks had to review their lending on a regular basis with the Bof E. I would have nationalised Northern Rock. Northern Rock was left to spiril out of control. The suspicion that as Northern Rock was in the labour heartlands of Newcastle , it was untouchable.

Brown only allowed the B of E to control inflation, not asset bubbles due to too much cheap credit. If regulation had been brought in for a maximum of 90% mortgages, maximum of 4 x a single persons salary including all other borrowings( credit cards, HP agreements) and self certified mortgages to be based on the average of 3 years salary proven by a certificate from an accountant and control of buy to let mortgages ( perhaps a maximum of 2 per person and needing 50% deposits) a house price bubble would have been prevented.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/jeremy-warner/jeremy-warner-gilt-auction-failure-highlights-challenge-of-the-public-finances-1654391.html

Overall , the The Indy has been realistically reporting the financial situation , not being over optimistic or scare mongering.

27. Mike Killingworth

Charlie, you mean that no one who starts a business should be allowed to get a mortgage for three years? Sounds a little harsh… at the very least, if the mortgage repayments are no greater than the rent they’re currently paying (and they can get a chit from their landlord to say they’ve paid in full and on time for six months or more) why shouldn’t they have a mortgage?

“The right may have a political advantage – ‘not on our watch’ – but really does have nothing to offer. It is incredible that so many like Hannan have learnt nothing from the crisis.”

Actually there were those on the Right who saw the crisis coming – http://mises.org/story/3128

The BoE held interest rates below their market rate, something Hannan pointed out in one of his interviews with Fox.

27. Mike Killingworth .As many businesses fail within the first 2 years , the banks need to be careful. Self certified mortgages have been a significant aspect in the house price bubble. Someone earns £25,30 and 35K over 3 years and apply’s for 6x income salary . The salary used is £35k. The mortgage given is £210K on 95% value of property. Credit card payments are £10K and £10K is owed on a car.Old fashioned mortgage 4x £30K= £120K. In the fourth year income falls to £25K and interest payments go up by 4%. No wonder there is massive increase in the price of houses causing a bubble followed by a collapse. In Germany only 60% own homes and in France, many mortgages need a 30% deposit.

Building societies were founded so prudent people saved money in order to buy a home not provide credit for reckless property speculation by spendthrifts. Northern Rock borrowed money on the international markets and did not rely on savers to provide the funds for mortgages.

30. Mike Killingworth

[29] I agree with the spirit in which you write, Charlie – I just think your case is stronger if you don’t try to do the nuts and bolts of the regulators’ job for them!

The basic problem is that because the supply of land is fixed property will always be seen as a better investment than equities. And that is before we get to the psychological side of things…

Now in addition to Krugman’s attack on Obama/Geithner, and Roubini’s attack, and Stiglitz’s attack, now we have Jeffrey Sachs’s attack:

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-how-tim-geithner-is-robbing-you-blind-2009-3

Couple of points.

Firstly, today’s gilt auction was triply oversubscribed.

Secondly, does this compare to a few politicians on the other side of the pond who have suddenly achieved a degree of prominence on the basis of one speech?

I cannot see what all the fuss is about. Dan Hannan took a potshot at a sitting duck. All the fun of the fair. I admit I enjoyed Gordon Brown’s embarrassment, but not because of what Dan Hannan was saying. Rather, because I would have liked to have had the opportunity to attack him for his government’s failure to act on the Prisoners Votes Case. I suspect that like many of the pop songs from the 1960s, Dan Hannan will be a one hit wonder.

Perhaps, the Liberal Left will now turn its attention to the rather more serious issue? The so-called independent think tank the Centre for Social Justice and its Report “Locked Up
Potential – A strategy for reforming prisons and rehabilitating prisoners” by the so-called reformed Jonathan Aitken.

The Report claims that it is forward looking. However, I am not as easily fooled as those Tories prepared to give Aitken a second chance. In effect, he proposes going forward by going back before the Prison Act 1832 and privatising the whole penal system.

Aitken recommends a new model prison be built. It just so happens that it’s so-called designer Stuart Mitson was a member of the task force. And, it just so happens that on 2/2/2009 he registered a company called Mitson Consultancy Ltd.

Mitson used to be employed by GSL (Group 4 Ltd) as Director of Rye Hill Prison. The Inspector of Prisons severely condemned his management. The “Mitson Academy Model” prison, uncannily resembles Carling Unit at Rye Hill.

Aitken’s Report criticises the fact that the same 4 companies win the contracts for building new prisons. He recommends that it should be opened up for tenders from outside these 4 companies. Given that there are £Billions and £Millions up for grab, and given Aitken’s link with Mitson Consultancy Ltd, I would not be surprised in the future if a bid to build and manage any new prisons came from Mitson Consultancy Ltd.

I call this Aitken’s revenge.

Secondly, does this compare to a few politicians on the other side of the pond who have suddenly achieved a degree of prominence on the basis of one speech?

The point might not be the comparison, but rather the capacity of the ‘right wing noise machine’ (cf Joe Conason) to generate a ‘story’. This might have worked during the heyday of Reagan, and kidded itself it was still working under GWB, but with Obama in the White House it looks more like they’re holding out for a hero. So in the US it was Bush, then McCain, then Palin, then Joe the Plumber, then some 14 year-old kid, and now Limbaugh/Hannan. In the UK, the Thatcherites had Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, and – perhaps – Hannan. I’m sure they’ll get it right eventually.

FDR did not spend America out of the depression in the 30′s. America was still in the depression when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and gave FDR the opportunity he needed to enter WWII. The loss of American lives and the strengthening of American industry allowed those returning from war to find jobs. Lose the number of lives equal to your unemployment rate and you will have 0 unemployment.

Public sector jobs only help if they are supported by private sector jobs. Teachers, police and other public sector jobs are necessary, but without the private sector to feed the public pig, the tit they drink from will run dry.

The conservative policy is that you identify what can be saved, what can’t or shouldn’t, and work to save what can and should be. Not to throw money down holes and hope something grows.

Thatcher was right, socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money.

Only a true Labour supporter could view the fall in the pound as a 100% good thing. Yes there are benefits to it when we start on the road to recovery. In the mean time though, we will enjoy a nice bout of inflation. Coupled with quantative easing, we could well be heading for runaway inflation if we aren’t careful.

When he refers to ‘productiive’ and ‘unproductive’ he is referring to wealth creation, and particularly tax. By that measure, nurses, doctors, teachers etc are unproductive. They consume state resources. Yes, their job may be worthwhile, but without a private sector to create wealth and pay taxes, there is no money with which to employ them.

If you read any of his blogs, you’d know that his view (which isn’t necessarily Conservative policy) is to leave the banks to themselves. To further his cause, he often tells the story of New Zealand when they cut their farming subsidies. Asset prices dropped, people faced negative equity. The banks came to the government demanding a bail-out, the government refused on the grounds that the problem was the banks’, not the taxpayers. The result, the banks realised it was their problems and they renegotiated terms and the recovery in asset prices came about far sooner than anyone expected.

Yes, their job may be worthwhile, but without a private sector to create wealth and pay taxes, there is no money with which to employ them.

Er, excuse me, but doesn’t this confuse the profit motive with ‘wealth creation’? In what way does, say, private healthcare ‘create wealth’, when it simply seeks to make a (taxable) profit out of a service – treating sick people? Does that make them more ‘productive’ than NHS staff who treat the ill for free?

“it’s the same old conservative economic talking points that indicate the Tories are way out ofkilter with publicopinion and reality itself”

Do you honestly believe that public opinion is on our Dear Leader’s side? Long sleaved, white canvass blazer for one please.

!If the BBC is going to report this, the least they could do is highlight some of the inconsistencies.”

They wouldn’t have the time or space to report your inconsistencies. What nonsense your article is.

For free you say redpesto? Remarkable, there I was thinking that we spent more on healthcare than any other part of our national budget.

Poor babies – Hannan’s youtube views up to 730,000 now.

Cry as much as you like.
Or shoot the messenger as Sunder does on the dreadful LabourList – where he gets a pasting in the comments for his pains.

Brown is toast. Toast toast toast toast toast.

Toast.

As Hannan said: he knows it; we know it; and he knows that we know it.

For free you say redpesto? Remarkable, there I was thinking that we spent more on healthcare than any other part of our national budget.

As in ‘free at the point of use’ – the same way parents don’t pay if their kids go to a state school rather than Eton or Rodean.

redpesto

Again that all depends how you define ‘productive’ and ‘unproductive’. In terms of contribution to the state, then yes the private healthcare is more productive because it generates tax revenue whereas public healthcare eats it up. Whether quality of service etc is better in public or private doesn’t matter in that sense, so while (hypothetically) you might get a better overall service from public healthcare, you have cost the taxpayer money that you wouldn’t have had you gone private.

As a final point, the NHS isn’t ‘free’. It is paid for by the taxpayer.

44. faithkills

“And even though Darling has said he won’t do this, the point is – you can; America did so in the 1930s.”

So true!

We spent our way into a full on depression.

Again that all depends how you define ‘productive’ and ‘unproductive’. In terms of contribution to the state, then yes the private healthcare is more productive because it generates tax revenue whereas public healthcare eats it up.

Or: in a ‘mixed economy’ the generation of tax revenue enables the provision of ‘public goods’ at a price (e.g. nothing) that benefits more people than charging them in the pursuit of making more profit. – making money out of sick people enables the financing of a healthcare system that doesn’t rely on ability to pay (and also, one presumes, won’t let people die because they haven’t got the cash or aren’t profitable enough). Or maybe I’m naive in thinking that not everything that ‘contributes to the state’ can be reduced to the cash nexus.

Again that all depends how you define ‘productive’ and ‘unproductive’. In terms of contribution to the state, then yes the private healthcare is more productive because it generates tax revenue whereas public healthcare eats it up.

In that context ‘productive’ and ‘unproductive’ sound like accountancy terms rather than economic terms.

Mark M – one further thought:

Defence industry (making things which kill people; private sector) – productive; armed forces (people employed to kill people; public sector) – unproductive. Have I got it right now?

Troll “Cry as much as you like.
Or shoot the messenger as Sunder does on the dreadful LabourList – where he gets a pasting in the comments for his pains.

Brown is toast. Toast toast toast toast toast.

Toast.

As Hannan said: he knows it; we know it; and he knows that we know it.”

Wow , look at the Brownshirt in full cry. Its like Nuremberg all over again.

What is hilarious about this current crises is watching the Right wing both in America and the UK try to pretend that it is nothing to do with them. They have no shame as they lie through their teeth. It is the Right wing policies of deregulation and ‘leave everything to the free market’ that has got us into this mess. Of course it easier for the English Tory party to get away with because they have been out of power for the last decade. But of course they ignore the fact that New Labour bought into all their idiocies of light touch regulation. Only 2 years ago Redwood was wanting more deregulation of the banks, so was Cameron and so was Osborne. Funny how the right wing media that screams left wing bias all the time is reluctant to repeat all those speeches calling for more deregulation.

Brown shirt ” Public sector jobs only help if they are supported by private sector jobs. Teachers, police and other public sector jobs are necessary, but without the private sector to feed the public pig, the tit they drink from will run dry. ”

How old are you…4? you sound like you come fron tory central office and they are about 4 yerars old.

Another troll “FDR did not spend America out of the depression in the 30’s. America was still in the depression when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and gave FDR the opportunity he needed to enter WWII. The loss of American lives and the strengthening of American industry allowed those returning from war to find jobs. Lose the number of lives equal to your unemployment rate and you will have 0 unemployment.”

The English Right wing as now copied the loony ran tings and rewriting of history to which the American frothing at the mouth Right wing has now adopted. Basically, when your sack of shit Rand theories of free markets go tits up just re write history.. How very fascist. According to the loons of Limbaugh and the other clowns of the right wing the great depression was caused by FDR. They will be telling us soon that Churchill started the second world war.

This morning I hitchhiked down to my local KKK headquarters (there’s one in every town of any size here in Virginia). I talked to Bubba and got the de-coded interpretation of what Hundal and many writers on this blog are saying:

“Hey, you knuckle-dragging, right-wing Neanderthals, shut up and give the all-knowing, never-erring government whatever it demands. No matter how much you are taxed. No matter how much your savings are wiped out by inflation. No matter to what level your standard of living plunges. No matter how many future generations are encumbered with outrageous debt. If you don’t agree, tough. Your purpose in life is to slave for the less fortunate, be they bankers or bums, Brits or Bosnians. And if you resist, then the government has the right to bring its full force to bear upon you, up to and including killing you. Kinda’ sorta’ like the Branch Davidians in Waco. It’s that simple! You thought you were free. Get over it. Cheney and Bushitler are history. It’s payback time. As President Obama said: ‘We won!’ The Gordon Brown’s are in charge now.”

KenKen

Don’t remember the Right wing having a problem with spending under GW Stupid. He just used to wander over to Capital Hill and demand another $100 billion every 6 months to bale out his war for oil in Iraq. You guys were spending money like drunken sailors, but then hey, it was all going into the pockets of their corporate cronies. Socialism for the rich, it is the Tory way!

Sally,

Suggest you read Ayn Rand to find out what the legimate purposes of a Government are. (There are three.)

Suggest you read Ayn Rand to find out what the legimate purposes of a Government are. (There are three.)

Well, of course that assumes that you view Rand as some one to take seriously. I, on the other hand view Rand with about the same respect as Ron Hubbard and the other bullshit snake oil salesman.

Sally

Love your screaming and profanity. Thank you – your responses validate my first post. Surely you’re a ringer, right? Over and out.

57. faithkills

“Don’t remember the Right wing having a problem with spending under GW Stupid.”

Depends what you mean by the right. If you include libs then you weren’t paying attention, but that’s hardly to be expected from the left or the right.

You never noticed because you probably thought we were in the same economically ignorant boat as you were, but we weren’t. We just didn’t like Bush.

We didn’t like the patriot act. Most of us didn’t like the Iraq war. Most of us didn’t want any of Bush’s spending, social or military. Sadly many of us voted for Obama because Bush was bad, but Obama is three times worse. And we’re waking up.

Note that in none of the spendulous legislation they rammed thru where they shoehorned in the seeds of nationalized healthcare and AIG bonuses was the Patriot act repealed.

I’m shocked, shocked I say.

Collectivists on the left and the right should understand _we_ are your enemy. You guys can’t cobble together a logical coherent argument because both of your positions boil down to ‘when we get power we will force you to do things our way’. But we’ve been doing it for centuries, we’ve argued amongst ourselves and with you. We’ve a logically coherent, ethically consistent and empirically demonstrable case that freedom is the most powerful force for human progress and happiness that can ever exist.

All of your arguments on the left and right boil down to this. Do it _our_ way or we will put you in jail or shoot you. All of the rest is just a self serving rationalization for that.

“We didn’t like the patriot act. Most of us didn’t like the Iraq war. Most of us didn’t want any of Bush’s spending, social or military. ”

I am not sure who “we” are but you are oviously very stupid people because you voted for Bush twice evn after all the things you claim you did not agree with

“Collectivists on the left and the right should understand _we_ are your enemy. You guys can’t cobble together a logical coherent argument ”

Well, I am still waiting for you to make a logical argument. According to the International Right wing, the financial crises is because we had, both , too much regulation, and at the same time, too little regulation. Make you minds up kids, and then try to stick to the same position.

This shows the true face of the corporate Right wing and the crap of Rand at the same time…

“AIG Financial Products chief Gerry Pasciucco told a meeting of his European based derivatives gurus that the money vortex CEO Ed Liddy’s request that they return their bonuses amounted to “blackmail.” That’s according to a London-based recipient of one of the bonuses — London, you’ll recall, is where the inimitable Joseph Cassano was employed — who furnished the news agency with emails showing that AIG compliance officer David Haig had actually asked the country’s Serious Organised Crime Agency to probe whether the (voluntary) requests could be legally considered extortion. Well what a fascinating use of government-bankrolled hours for the taxpayers of both countries!! But wait, don’t shoot yourself, hear the anonymous employee out…
“The vast majority of people in London have made the decision that the request is pretty offensive,” the employee said. “It effectively constitutes blackmail whether it is criminal or not. There is no moral reason to give it back”

It’s tempting to rant again about Ayn Rand and her bizarre concept of capitalist morality, but I have to admit that even she would probably be appalled at someone like this considering himself to be a heroic entrepreneur. After all, there is nothing more “parasitic” than those AIGFP playahs.

Tory Brownshirts getting all excited because one of their gang made a speech, in a place they don’t believe should exist, attacking the Labour Prime Minister.

Wow, who would have thought?

Better quality of troll please.

Common Sense from the U.S.

This article includes some distortions and outright lies.

The BBC giving into right wingers? Say what? The BBC is the most liberal biased news organization in the world and that is not even a debate in most circles. I guess Pravda was right wing as well.

Spending did not get the U.S. out of the Great Depression. The New Deal was a disaster- 18% unemployment eight years after it started even after it was artificially stimulated but never less than 12%. The war got us out of the Great Depression. Liberals love to rewrite history.

As far as “unproductive jobs”, for every teacher added there have been numerous bureaucratic positions. How many “liasons” and government service “middle managers” does a single country need.

As far as the benefit of intentionally devaluing your own currency……Duncan can write 10,000 words or a million so he can sound smart. For every left wing communist that says that devaluing your currency is a good idea, there are 10 that shrill at the idea that people’s savings/property values are reduced.

As far as conservatives not having a plan….their plan is not to bankrupt the country. Use common sense- encourage private sector jobs that create tax base instead of propping up inefficient and bureaucratic jobs that cost the treasury money. Fairly common sense if you don’t have Che Gavara’s hat on. When there is a national problem, spending like a drunken sailor has NEVER worked.

I could go on and on but I have to go work out- I’m sure by 4:42 PM you socialists are on your second joint, railing against the private sector for paying you money to do a mediocre job, complaining about your six weeks of vacation and your 6.5 hour work days.

By the way. Socialism is 0/100. Its never worked. It can’t work. We are in a disaster here in the U.S. but I would hate to be you guys. You are in 20th place in the G20. Congratulations comrade.

“without the private sector to feed the public pig, the tit they drink from will run dry.”

Translation: “Public sector workers not human.”

Well, maybe not. But seriously, I see that little cliche so often and it makes me shudder every time. Time for a new analogy guys, before people get, you know, the wrong idea.

“The BBC giving into right wingers? Say what? The BBC is the most liberal biased news organization in the world and that is not even a debate in most circles. I guess Pravda was right wing as well.”

If you think that is true then you are ovioulsy an idiot. Have you seen FOx news?

“As far as conservatives not having a plan….their plan is not to bankrupt the country.”

HA HA HA HA That is so funny it is not true. Bush ran up the biggest debts in American history. As did Raygun 20 years before.

“Use common sense- encourage private sector jobs that create tax base instead of propping up inefficient and bureaucratic jobs that cost the treasury money. ”

WhaT you mean like the military indusrial complex? Corporate welfare at its best. You wing nuts love spending tax payers money, just as long as it goes to the richest.

Perhaps I wouldn’t employ as many profanities as Sally here but she is spot on in her observations of a desperate and wholly discredited conservative movement.

If Hannan is the best they’ve got then happy days. Conservatism will be truly dead a lot sooner than I could possibly have hoped.

On FDR and the New Deal: rightwing desperados may try to rewrite history but the facts speak for themselves. Every fiscal year except 1938 saw economic growth and a steady year-on-year decline in unemployment.

That the Right even attempts to deny this is a measure of the mass delusion and hysteria inherent in the conservative movement

30 Mike Killingworth. Thank you for your comment. Power to the people. Knowledge is Power. War is too important to leave to the generals. Therefore, if we, the people are to assert our power, we can only hold the executive to account if we have enough knowledge to know when they have failed or have tried to deceive us.

One aspect we ignore with regard to the price of land in England has not been invaded for 966 years. Therefore we do not have the experience of having our homes destroyed in war due to an invading army. An Englishman’s home is our castle.

There are some parts of N England where there are large numbers of empty houses due to the collapse in well paid and secure jobs. Until we recreate large numbers of well paid and secure jobs in the former industrial parts of the UK; there will be movement of well educated and trained people into S England or certain parts of Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh etc causing massive increases in house prices.

When it comes to the Consevatives one aspect which is ignored is the change in the nature of it’s members. The Conservative Party has gone from estate owners to estate agents. From those brought up with a sense of noblesse oblige to a sense of get rich quick. The traditional Tory was brought up to pass on the estate in a better condition than that which they inherited . The agressive conservative city trader was the type of person MacMillan( someone who fought in the trenches in WW1 and was noted for hIs bravery) called “Bankster”.

Ben

“That the Right even attempts to deny this is a measure of the mass delusion and hysteria inherent in the conservative movement”

Too true, Conservatives are just glad they were not in charge when their deregulated shit hit the fan here in England, unlike their friends in the Repig party in the USA.

For most of Blair and Brown’s term they have demanded less regulation. Now they claim to want more.

69. Jeremy Pacht

According to Hundal and at least one of the main news channels this evening (Channel 4 or BBC 6 O’clock, I forget which), Hannan falsely claimed Brown nationalised the car industry. But Hannan made no such claim in his speech. What he actually said was that Brown has subsidised, where he has not nationalised, the car industry (among other things). If we are going to criticise Hannan for his inaccuracies, let’s make sure we get our own “facts” straight!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/hamish-mcrae/hamish-mcrae-we-could-return-to-growth-next-year-but-that-wont-cure-our-fiscal-hangover-1651057.html

Brown has come close to bankrupting Britain. The owner of Foxtons sold out in 2006 for £330M. The owner of Berkely Homes told Cable he was in acyclical business and sold out in 2005. One of the largest house builders sold out for £2.5B. Many wealthy people saw the writing on the wall and sold their asssets and moved into cash. We could spend the next 20-25 yrs paying off our debts- as we had to after WW2. Cash will be king. As a result social inequality will increase. Those with cash will be able to buy assets at knock down prices – Private Equity is once again looking at shares. In the 1940s , those with cash could buy land at incredibly low prices and the families which did now have a very comfortable life.

Those with the relevant skills who are able able to travel abroad may be in the position of obtaining well paid jobs. The unskilled and semi-skilled with children could have a very bleak future for the next 10 years. This is the painful reality of Brown’s many mistakes. Remember in the 1940s-80s there was the brain drain. A Chartered Engineer in specialising in high tech areas with B.Sc and M.Sc or higher degree from Imperial, UCL, Oxbridge/ or Manchester will be able to obtain jobs in the USA, Canada, Germany, Japan etc. Someone who is semi -literate and numerate will be competing with immigrants from eastern Europe who will be happy to work for £2/hr . Remember the Ukraine is bankrupt and the EU enables people to move freely.

You folks are hilarious. Bush was not a conservative. While thankfully strong on national security, in most other respects he was pretty much of a liberal. Closer to Roosevelt, Truman, or Kennedy than to Reagan.

And you seem to be saying: “Oh yeah! We may be spending gazillions. But you started it. You gave us this mess! You started the massive bailouts! So it’s okay if we drive the country into bankruptcy. Especially if we spend what we don’t have on green energy rather than on a war for oil Nyaaa, nyaaaa, nyaaaaa, ….”

You apparently think that massive deficit spending is about conservatives and liberals – rather than about right and wrong. Mr. Daniel Hannan knows the difference.

By the way, in case you haven’t noticed, Bush is no longer president.

And it looks like sally has a bad case of potty mouth. I wonder why it is that most vulgar bloggers are liberal. Hmmmm …

72. '....and Dick Cheney was a Commie'

You folks are hilarious. Bush was not a conservative. While thankfully strong on national security, in most other respects he was pretty much of a liberal. Closer to Roosevelt, Truman, or Kennedy than to Reagan.

Oh, you disown him now…no wonder the US right is scouting round for someone, anyone, to make them feel that they weren’t in charge for the last 8 years, and to embody ‘real conservatism’ (until they screw up, at which point they’ll be accused of being a ‘liberal’).

Dear ‘….and Dick Cheney was a Commie’

Please re-read my comment. I’ll help you if you need help learning to read.

Where did I say that I disown him? I said he was more of a liberal than a conservative. But a man with more class than Barry will ever have.

For Christ’s sake, if you’re going to complain about someone’s accuracy, then at least try to be accurate yourself!

“He keeps complaining about nationalisation and the money spent to prop up the economy. So does this mean the new Conservative policy is that the government should let banks go under? Perhaps the Conservatives could let us know what their financial policy actually is? To let everyone go under?”

There are other ways. You have created a false choice by ignoring any other possibility, which is a dishonest way of making an argument. Have you ever read John Redwood’s blog? He might be a bit of an arse, but he is a very intelligent arse, more intelligent than I am, let alone you.

“3) He says:
In the last 12 months a 100,000 private sector jobs have been lost, and yet you’ve created 30,000 public sector jobs. Prime Minister, you cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit.

So not only is he directly blaming Gordon Brown for the private job losses (not financial companies, mind you) but also blaming him for creating “unproductive” teaching, nursing and other public sector jobs!”

Do you seriously think that those jobs are in nursing or teaching? If so you are sadly deluded. the public sector is far too large. You are dishonest to use techniques of propaganda to insist otherwise.

On the other point who else is responsible for a large increase in the already huge number of people without jobs? Gordon Brown has set economic policy for nearly 12 years, and royally screwed it up; the government of which he has been a member has increased regulation to an unprecidented level to discourage job creation. Why should Hannan not point that out?

“4) “You cannot spend your way out of recession…” And even though Darling has said he won’t do this, the point is – you can; America did so in the 1930s.”

What is the relevance of what Darling says? This government lies as a matter of course and of policy. What he does is relevant, and that is currently to try to spend his way out of recession. Despite your unwarranted assertion it didn’t work in 1930s America (I am not sure how you can recommend the policies that deepened US problems into the worst depression ever) and it won’t work now, whatever you say.

“5) He also decries the fall of the Sterling. To read a proper demolition of why the Sterling’s fall IS A GOOD THING – read this on Duncan’s Economic blog”

Did you actually listen to the speech? He never sad whether the fall of sterling was itself good or bad (although it is certainly a bad thing in the long term for British residents). What he said was that it was an indictment of Brown’s policies by the market. If you didn’t understand even that rather simple aspect of the speech, do you really feel qualified to comment?

“You folks are hilarious. Bush was not a conservative. While thankfully strong on national security, in most other respects he was pretty much of a liberal. Closer to Roosevelt, Truman, or Kennedy than to Reagan. ”

HA HA HA Brownshirts at their very worst.

re writing history is a Conservative speciality. Now Bush has fucked up everything he ever touched, and driven the American economy and over the cliff the Right has to disown him. So just say the magic words, and Kapow he becomes is a liberal.

Classic Conservative bullshit.

Another idiot troll “Gordon Brown has set economic policy for nearly 12 years, and royally screwed it up; the government of which he has been a member has increased regulation to an unprecidented level to discourage job creation. Why should Hannan not point that out?”

So Brown was running AIG in America was he? and Bear Stearns and all the other American banks that have gone tits up? He was running the Iceland banks too was he? How about the Irish banks?

I wish you guys could make up youir minds, one minute you claim too much regulation and then your front bench clowns now claim to want more regulation. come on, get your story straight before talking shit.

77. '....and Dick Cheney was a Commie'

DaddyD – I was merely amused by your claim that ‘Bush was not a conservative’. Even allowing for the fact that he campaigned in 2000 as a ‘compassionate conservative’, one has to wonder at what kind of political scale places Bush as ‘liberal’ (especially with Cheney as VP – you’d think he’d notice or something…). Maybe, after Reagan, every US President looks like a liberal – even the Republican ones. You wouldn’t be the first to make this argument about GWB: it started surfacing right about the time he started tanking in the polls and the American people stopped buying into his version of the war in Iraq. So, by all means keep claiming that ‘Bush was not a conservative’ – maybe everyone else in the reality-based community just got it wrong for eight years.

So not only is he directly blaming Gordon Brown for the private job losses (not financial companies, mind you) but also blaming him for creating “unproductive” teaching, nursing and other public sector jobs! I’m sure my cousin will be happy to hear the Tories regard her teaching job as unproductive. And damn them for creating jobs!

Nice rhetorical flourish (it’s always the poor doctors, teachers, and nurses, isn’t it) but this is quite far from the truth if you actually delve into the figures. Some of the numbers here (http://markwadsworth.blogspot.com/2008/03/public-sector-employment-2.html) are quite startling.

“the point is – you can; America did so in the 1930s.”

Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, May 1939 in his Diary: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot.”

80. faithkills

“I am not sure who “we” are but you are oviously (sic) very stupid people because you voted for Bush twice evn after all the things you claim you did not agree with”

If you’re looking for stupidity it would be the person who would think a lib whose handle is ‘faithkills’ would vote for Bush, lol:) Unlike you I’m not a robot.

81. Mike Killingworth

[81] Fascinating to see all this revisionism about America in the 1930s. Perhaps someone can explain to me why the New Deal didn’t create jobs but spending money to fight WW2 did.

82. Cassandrina

The only thing that brought the USA out of the recession was in gearing industry to fight WW11 and supply Britain and the Commonwealth with armaments.

Poor Sunny gets bogged down with political party nitpicking as a paid up member of NuLabor.

What Britain needs is more objective balanced reporting that the bbc do not give. Hence the need for non-partisan bloggers of which Sunny and his like are not, as with Guido Fawkes etc.

People in the USA and Britain are crying out for this servie from bloggers. Even Ariana Huffington a few days ago advocated the removal of Geitner, since he is tainted.

Anyone with half a brain knows that Brown is going down as the worst PM in living memory, that Britain is on its knees through debt and mismanagement, and that our children have been placed in danger by this reckless litany of actions from incompetent ministers who are allowed to re-appear after being kicked out for basically criminal actions.

This is not political – it is reason or common sense, which reading some of the messages on this blog, is not common at all.

And also answer the counterfactual – how much greater (or lesser if that is their contention) would the depression have been without the spending.

What Britain needs is more objective balanced reporting that the bbc do not give. Hence the need for non-partisan bloggers of which Sunny and his like are not, as with Guido Fawkes etc.

That’s almost as good as DaddyD’s claim that Bush was a liberal. Guido Fawkes – like Fox News he’s ‘fair and balanced’.

Yeah, right.

Truly sad to see you lefties trying desparately to defend Gordon Brown. The UK is a wreck thanks to you people. Where do you think the money to pay for schools and hospitals comes from? Sorry, I meant came from. It used to come from the private sector, now it doesn’t and the borrowing can only last so long. What will happen to teachers and nurses when China gets fed up of lending us their wages? Are you going to raise money selling bean bags to the French?

86. Roy Grainger

1) “Hannan claims Brown has nationalised the car industry”

He didn’t claim this.

Bob – you may be over-looking the difference between ‘the left’ (however loosely defined) and ‘New Labour’. Many amongst the former have no love for Brown or the way he tried to run the economy on a model built by Thatcher and Reagan. On one level, I think Cameron gets the distinction in a way that a lot on the right don’t – his difficulty is coming up with something more than waiting for buggin’s turn as a way of winning the next election.

“Truly sad to see you lefties trying desparately to defend Gordon Brown. The UK is a wreck thanks to you people. ”

No the Uk is in trouble because New Labour decided to copy the Right wing policies . Every mess up this govt has made has come from following the right wing.

light touch regulation. Leave Masters of the universe to regulate themselves. Tory obsession for the last 20 years.

Wars for oil. Supported by the Tory party, with the exception of Ken Clark who most Tories don’t like.

Funding the party by getting a handful of rich people to support it, and then giving them honours. That has been standard Tory policy for 200 years.

Giving more power to the police, and turning a blind eye to their failures. Straight out of Michael Howard’s play book that one.

89. Cassandrina

87. comment by redpesto

Must be something wrong with your understanding.

Guido Fawkes was given as an example of a right wing perception – not an unbiased one.

NUFF SED,

>I expect the BBC will soon, since they give in to rightwingers easily

Well the BBC is a tax funded institution isn’t it? Are you criticizing it for not standing up for it’s left wing viewpoints that it shouldn’t have in the first place? I’m an American so I don’t know exactly how your system works, but shouldn’t a tax funded media outlet be as neutral as possible?

>America ’spent its way out of recession’ in the 1930s

And the Great Depression lasted 15 years. Now, FDR might have been the only man who could hold the country together and keep Americans’ trust during the time, not to mention the fact that some parts of the country needed to be modernized at that time (My grandfather growing up in Georgia usually did not have shoes as a child), but FDR’s economic policies more than likely prolonged the Great Depression.

America being the root of this whole problem, I can say that the company that needed more regulation to prevent this crisis were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, GOVERNMENT corporations.

As was said in a former comment, “What a load of rubbish, Sunny!” I don’t even need to point out the flaws in your argument, since that too has been done already.

This debate is a good indication of the modern political choices. Those that pronounce an allegiance to the Left are offering very little, bar vitriolic abuse, a return to failed policies and manipulation of facts and history. They are obsessed with opposing and undermining anyone that offers contrary views to the latest Left-wing rhetoric.

Politics is full of untruths and exaggerations, but it the Left are particularly good at misrepresenting any opposing view. The idea is to distort other views so as to appear unpalatable to reasonable people. Look at any thread on this site and you’ll see evidence of this. In fact, the name of this site is a misrepresentation. The likes of Sunny want to hide behind a ‘liberal’ front and attract people who consider themselves liberal, when this site pushes a very leftist agenda and is intolerant of any alternative opinions

People like Sally, may appear amusing nutters, but they are a lot of naïve people out there who fall for such nonsense. Personally, I believe in confronting such people and I will definitely be wearing a suit to work next week. Nothing will give more pleasure than having to defend myself against some dirty middle-class trustafarian student holding a socialist worker placard, when they are the privileged State parasite and I’m the hard-working peasant.

PS. I agree with Charlie’s astute analysis of the UK’s problems and especially the housing market bubble.

95 . Thank you chavscum.

I doubt I’d agree with Dan Hannan on the price of bread, but I enjoyed his speech. Excellent orator (though it’s a shame that it had to be bloviated toads like Limbaugh who picked up on it; c’est la vie).

“Politics is full of untruths and exaggerations, but it the Left are particularly good at misrepresenting any opposing view…

…Nothing will give more pleasure than having to defend myself against some dirty middle-class trustafarian student holding a socialist worker placard, when they are the privileged State parasite and I’m the hard-working peasant.

Self awareness fail.

“Personally, I believe in confronting such people and I will definitely be wearing a suit to work next week. ”

What , instead of your usual string vest, wellies, and a knotted hanker chief over your head.

Cassandrina @ me

Guido Fawkes was given as an example of a right wing perception – not an unbiased one.

You know I thought that, but I wasn’t sure that’s what you meant – fair enough…there are partisans on both sides – except the ones I agree with (joke)

It’s funny that Sunny feels the need to smack down Dan Hannan, yet at no point will anyone be able to vote for anything other than more of the same, with a few tweaks here and there. What are you so afraid of that it seemed necessary to rebut this speech?

A sad waste of effort by everyone involved. The reason this video’s caught on is because he’s saying stuff that Westminster politicians don’t, or can’t, or won’t.

It’s no big deal, Cameron can’t tolerate someone like Dan spoiling the dream of Blue Labour. Why trash something that, at the end of the day, will achieve absolutely nothing?

Charlotte:

The reason this video’s caught on is because he’s saying stuff that Westminster politicians don’t, or can’t, or won’t.

What? This kind of lame dialogue takes place in our Parliament every day. And here I was under the mistaken impression you wanted more intelligent politics.

After all, it was Cameron who first declared the end of ‘Punch and Judy politics’ and then soon admitted he couldn’t stick to that promise. And you’re saying with a straight face that none of what Hannan has said has not been said already? The guy himself admits it was a run-of-the-mill speech!
It’s caught on thanks to the nutjob Americans, who are desperate someone mainstream will say that over there. It’s just too bad Obama comes across as much more credible than the Republicans who helped Bush run up such massive deficits eh?

But then I don’t really want to spend all my time highlighting right-wing hypocrisy, it would take up too much effort.

What are you so afraid of that it seemed necessary to rebut this speech?

I’m not afraid of anything – just wanted to rebut its terrible economic arguments.

Honestly? I want Dan Hannan to lead the Tories and run with that economic project and sell it to the country. I would absolutely love it because he’d get absolutely hammered in the polls. That would leave Brown to turn even more leftwing.

But you know, rightwingers like to live in fantasyland about their economic ideas. We’ve gotten used to it. This is part of playing out that fantasy. Too bad Cameron isn’t stupid enough to run with these lame talking points.

I’m responding to entrances past my original- #63 and poor Sally, I feel sorry for you.

This website looks to be actually your daily hobby, probably writing all this while you should be working. I went on this website just to see the opposition’s view “on the other side of the pond” to a sharp young man’s speech.

I see that there is more work to do and I’m bored so here it goes.

If Sally has been right about anything it is that Fox News is indeed the most right leaning news organization in the world- because it is the only one that leans right, the rest lean left. Most far far left. Somehow Sally, you think because you can recite the only right leaning news organization of significance, therefore the BBC is not a far left wing indoctrination instrument. Does not make any sense.

For the record, Fox News has many times excoriated Bush for his spending practices and his bumblings. You assume that I prefer George Bush’s policies because I disagree with socialism, but this is THE WAY socialists try to disarm informed people from explaining their views. You can say “George Bush” and you think you automatically win like a terrorist can shoot you, be the only one standing and think- I just won the debate.

For the record….the legislature approves the allotment of money in the U.S. Reagan worked under a House and Senate with Democratic control… also Reagan returned confidence to our country after our bumbling fools Carter, Ford and Nixon…and helped win the Cold War over policies that failed miserably but are somehow supported by the left now.

For the record, George Bush campaigned on being conservative but he did not govern so. He is hated by the right currently because he opened the door for a socialist from the most corrupt political machine in our country to be elected president in a country that reviles socialism. We all want “Hope” and “Change”, just not what he is selling.

Sally indicated I am an idiot because I think that the BBC is far left wing…..Say what? Actually Sally I’m self employed, pay much more in taxes than I squeeze from benefits.

As far as corporate welfare…I and MOST conservatives disagree with it. This has been costly to the right. But, remember if someone takes your money with a gun or takes it in taxes- it was YOUR money. Lefties like to think because they took it leagally and spent it in subsidizing failed enterprises that somehow it was the government’s all along.

#67 Ben….you are just plain wrong…every year EXCEPT.(how convenient)….then it was great again, oh really….the war Ben. Lent, Lease and The War took us out of the great depression, FDR did not. But I welcome that argument.

#71 Jeremy…Hannan stated Brown had nationalized OR subsidized many including the auto industry and in fact Brown has subsidized your auto industry. FACT.

For all of you that say- conservatives would rather the entire banking system to go- No- just those banks that fail. And it would be painful. Some banks acted properly and thus can grow, taking the place of the failed banks.

When things were going quite well, companies were running out of your country..Gosh, figure it out that what Brown is doing didn’t work before the recession and sure isn’t now.

For those of you who came to my support of the New Deal prolonging the Great Depression thank you. I was sure it was taught as a fact that his policies were the greatest, especially in the UK. Thanks Cassandrina #85.

Charle, thanks for the British history information. Facts like that are hard to refute.

“The reason this video’s caught on is because he’s saying stuff that Westminster politicians don’t, or can’t, or won’t.”

No, the reason this speech took off was because it was picked up by 2 times divorced, drug using moral hypocrite and pigmy Rush Limbaugh. And then spun through the giant Wurlitzer of the Right wing media machine.

This is what the Right wing really believes in, and if Cameron had an ounce of courage he would come clean with the British people and admit it. Instead we get the usual smirks and nudges and winks to the base.

“If Sally has been right about anything it is that Fox News is indeed the most right leaning news organization in the world- because it is the only one that leans right, the rest lean left.”

So that is why since the last election the news media in the US have had 2 Republicans on for every 1 Dem is it? It is why people like Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, and all the other right wing clowns are on all the time. 8 years of the media as attack dogs against Clinton, then 8 years of the media being lap dogs for Bush, now they are back to attack dogs again. You have no idea what you are talking about and you live in America. You need to get out more pal, you don’t know your own country.

You guys can keep screaming ‘liberal media a milion times it does not make it true. You Righties don’t want an independent media, that is why you got rid of the fair docrine.

This video should be aired on national television so everyone can see what a spent flush Brown is. You see him smirking for a few seconds near the end, pretending to write something, probably a ‘hangman’ of Hannan. The fact that the BBC, SKY etc did not even mention it shows the true nature of ‘political balance’ at those organisations doesn’t it? There was also another clinical strike by Nigel Farrage of UKIP, again no mention anywhere.

More comment on our national debt from the Indy. Basically The Indy is saying we will have a largest debt since WW2 which will lead to decades of low growth.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britains-public-borrowing-soars-as-recession-bites-hard-1649531.html

Sunny could you explain why our massive debt is not a major cause of concern entering a recession? H McRae is saying we could lose out Triple A rating. Brown’s lack of control over spending started in 2002! Cable , in 2003, has pointed out that our personal and corporate adds to the seriousness of the national situation. As McRae governments receipts from taxes will be much lower in 2009 and 2110. Even A Rawnsley of the Observer is talking of the cuts in government employment. D Healey has stated that half the civil service should be cut.
Hannan’s basic point is our massive national debt and has made a very similar comment to Cable, only 6 years later. The cost of PFI is also part of debt problems, though Brown tried to deny this in an Enron type approach to accountancy.

see April Prospect Magazinep15. British banks kept 10% of their liabilities in their reserves . However , the treasury depts of the banks invested their funds in assets which proved to be unsafe, illiquid or worthless. A lot of the reserves were lost and domestic and foreign holders of capital withdrew their deposits. This type of supervisory function used to be undertaken by the Bof E but was stripped from them by Brown. Brown has greatly reduced the ability of the B of E supervise and regulate the economy .

Hannan has forcefully pointed out Brown’s failures more effectively than any other Tory. The problem with the Labour Party was no MP had the brains and backbone to stand up to Brown on the economy, apart from Frank Field. Blair deferred to Brown on the economy. Only Cherie Blair who has a very good academic intelligence realised Brown was not as intelligent as he and others, believed him to be.

It is not the number of regulations or the number of regulators which are important: it is the wisdom, foresight and ability of the regulators using wise rules, to intervene before a major problem occurs, which is vital to running successfully,financial markets. Brown’s lack of wisdom means he devises overly complicated, and convuluted procedures which fail- KISS Keep it simple, stupid. Truly great intellects bring clarity and order to complexity and confusion, Brown does the opposite. Hence Cable’s quip of Brown going from Stalin to Mr Bean.

Fox News is indeed the most right leaning news organization in the world- because it is the only one that leans right, the rest lean left.

Don’t agree with you there, RB. Firstly, Fox is just one part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp conglomerate, and most of their holdings are ideologically similar – economically conservative; supportive of aggressive national security; conducive to propaganda regarding the latter. That’s just for starters.

[Bush] is hated by the right currently because he opened the door for a socialist from the most corrupt political machine in our country to be elected president in a country that reviles socialism.

Have many figures from the “right” expressed these views, or is it just grassroots opinion?

Sally indicated I am an idiot because I think that the BBC is far left wing…..

It’s for you to substantiate, not her to refute.

Ben

Sally, Sally

Saying that conservatism is wrong because Rush Limbaugh was twice divorced (actually divorced more than twice) and a former drug addict, is like saying that socialism is wrong because Che Guevara was a murdererl and liberalism is wrong because Ted Kennedy (the only one of his brothers who was a liberal) is responsible for drowning his pregnant staff mate after an after hours party.

Stick to the argument.

Sally you have typical left wing argument….attack Rush Limbaugh, attack George Bush but do not attack the argument that these welfare states are jeopardizing our wealth and freedom. You have no argument for that.

When Bush took over as governor of Texas he inherited a $4billion surplus, by the time he left office he had run up an $8 billion deficit. This was just his warm up for being President and what a mess he has left.

You guys always want to talk about REAL Conservatives , but they don’t exist. Look at Cheney, the hero of the so called Real Conservatives. Yet he and his wife are the biggest welfare junkies in America. sucking on the state teat for nearly 50 years. You guys controlled Congress from 1994 till 2006 and you spent money like it was going out of fashion. Bush just wandered over there and demanded another $100 billion and then another and then another.

You Conservatives claim to support the Constitution but you all voted for the Patriot act which was the biggest stealing of power from the American people in history.

Reagan was another fraud, the so called real Conservative and yet he ran up the biggest deficit in American history. (until Bush came along) Reagan was a Keynesian with all the money he spent into the military industrial complex.

The Republican, Conservative movement is not a real political party anymore. It is a Cult of freaks lead by a fat moron who sits at a microphone every day telling his cult followers what to think.

Again, you bring up the acts of a person who did not govern as a conservative as a reason why conservatism does not work. Bush’s governorship also coincided with a massive increase in illegal aliens in Texas. He handled this poorly…spending too much and not enforcing laws.

For the record, our military was at a disadvantage vs the Soviets under Carter, and yes Reagan spent quite a large amount on hardware…and it worked. Again, conservatism won the Cold War. The funny thing is that the 1/6 people who disagree say that the Soviet Union would have failed on its own if left to its own devices. Why…..because communism/socialism DOES NOT WORK- there is too much spending and no personal responsibility and no reason to work hard . So why are people trying to revive it?

You are correct that the republicans have no real leadership. By conservative nature our attention is generally more directed to private sector activities. We create jobs, play sports and make money- they depend on merit. Politics are dirty to us. We normally only get into it out of desperation or boredom.

The conservatives do have one hero…he’s one of your guys…Daniel Hannan. If a conservative talked like that to Obama in our country, there would be six news outlets trying to find every skeleton in his closet going back to when he was 6. Little attention would be given to the actual argument….which is at least consistent with socialists.

BenSix,

Thanks for responding. Needed an adult to talk to.

I have written volumes and you have nitpicked three technicalities, so I assume you agree with the rest of what I said.

If Murdoch has more news organizations that are MAJOR like- BBC, CNN, Fox, CBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, Al-Jazera, etc. I am unaware. I was in UK twice and could not get away from the BBC News. I’m guessing the BBC is of much more consequence to Britain that Sky but it is still important. OK, two MAJOR right LEANING networks.

GWB was hidden at the Republican Convention- had a weekday afternoon speech that was not even televised live by the major networks. Republicans try as best they can to distance themselves from him. I live here. He is reviled.

You are right about the BBC so I guess I am an idiot according to Sally. It is the SECOND most far far left media network. The CBC in Canada is even worse left wing. I apologize. Again, from the “About Us” on your website and your description, I’m sure you disagree and I’ve had arguments with adults who insisted that the vast majority of media was not in the tank for Obama, not even CBS or NBC.

STOP PRESS

Sunny was right, the BBC just caved and had Daniel Hannan on Newsnight. They always cave to the right.

My own take is he wants to get a job at Westminster, and the whole thing is just a giant PR wheeze.

112. Sally. What are your views on the level of declared national ( including PFI) , personal and corporate debt of this country and what effect will it have over the next 10 years?

Randy Bullock,

Apologies if this sounds horrifyingly stolid. My perceptions are a bit stagnant this morning.

“I have written volumes and you have nitpicked three technicalities, so I assume you agree with the rest of what I said.”

I’m afraid not. I was only commenting on your post at 102, and seeing as it was a collection of points, challenging some of them could hardly be considered to be nitpicking.

It would be tricky, though, to engage with your post @63, because so much of it is just assertion. For example, you claim that the BBC is among the most “liberal biased news organization in the world“. Firstly, what does this mean? Who are they biased towards? Secondly, you don’t substantiate the point with evidence; merely claiming that “[it's] not even a debate in most circles“. This isn’t just a bare assertion, it’s also a bit of an argumentum ad populum.

Similarly, you don’t source your claims that “for every teacher added there have been numerous bureaucratic positions” and “for every left wing communist that says that devaluing your currency is a good idea, there are 10 that shrill at the idea that people’s savings/property values are reduced“. The latter is, again, argumentum ad populum.

“Republicans try as best they can to distance themselves from him. I live here. He is reviled. “

Well, yeah, you obviously have a wider view of grassroots opinion than me. I saw a few criticisms of the ex-President – God, it still feels good to write that – after the bailout, and they’re rather neatly chronicled here.

Still, if Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bush they must be narked with The Weekly Standard‘s sycophancy, Jonah Goldberg’s snivelly apologetics and, er, Limbaugh sharing a cake with him.

“I was in UK twice and could not get away from the BBC News. I’m guessing the BBC is of much more consequence to Britain that Sky but it is still important.”

The BBC is, indeed, of more consequence. However, News International, a subsidiary of News Corp, also owns the broadsheet The Times and the tabloids The Sun and News Of The World.

There’s really no dearth of right-leaning news broadcasters – TF1 in France, Rete 4 in Italy. Even Venezuala has Globovision.

Ben

Thanks for your Venezuelan media outlet trivia. I’m sure it has a large voice vs. Chavez. I wonder how much longer it will be there. MAJOR worldwide outlets was what I was looking for, not tabloids- My little experience with TF1 did not lead me believe that it was right wing.

I live here. GWB is just not popular with the right wing. Don’t know how else to tell you.

As far as the BBC being liberal…it took them days to “Cave in” and actually report the NEWS as it is supposed to be a NEWS organization. A worldwide recognized common sense beat down of your PM is NEWS, even if some people don’t want it to be. Somehow lefties think this as BBC caving….its telling the NEWS….but when it basically HAD to, even when it wasn’t consistent with what they wanted to report.

The BBCs Continuing negative reporting of the wars, concentrating on miniscule number of atrocities (Abu Grabh, over and over and over) over the overall incredible behavior and performance of our and your armed forces. Again, I have seen your “About Us” and your credentials. I will never be able to convince you that the BBC is far, far ,far, far left.

Numerous economists have railed against devaluing or reducing the rate of real wages and value of wealth. My 10/1 statement was taken literally, I certainly could not find exactly 10 who do not like it and exactly one who does not.

they guy hit the nail on the head. DEAL WITH IT.

114. faithkills

“Reagan was a Keynesian with all the money he spent into the military industrial complex.”

So that must have been good right Sally?

All Reagan and Bush proved was:

You can win a war if you can spend enough and have enough credit to enable it.

If you cut taxes when a previous regime raised them past the optimal limit you can increase tax revenue by cutting taxes.

Unfortunately both also proved China will buy way more of our debt than is prudent because they knew free markets are safer than non free. What they moronically didn’t see from their cutural perspective it that our markets are anything but free. All we have is oligarchy painted up as capitalism.

Just as socialism always devolves to oligarchy.

Had the pleasure of debating Mr Hannan last night on the radio for BBC Kent. I congratulated him on the impact that it had made – as an articulate, well delivered rant, and that it had particularly cheered up the American right-wing who had not had much fun since Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin.

1/ Partly it is a disagreement about facts. The central claim in his speech is that Britian goes into the recession worst placed than anybody else in the g20, specifically on the issue of debt. I said this didn’t fit with the fact that America, France, Germany and Japan all had higher levels of debt than Britain. He didn’t come back on that one.

2/ He disagreed that he was anti-everything. He has solutions in his book called ‘The Plan’. But I wanted to know why we should listen to somebody who said that Iceland was an economic miracle to emulate, and was still advocating the same thing. Hannan said he couldn’t see why Iceland had anything to do with it, and this was an attempt to change the subject while I felt that advocating as little national and international regulation was quite relevant to the causes of the crisis. I wanted to know if he had changed his mind at all about these issues since Iceland’s collapse. He seemed to say that it was a mistake to think the financial crisis arises from a failure of regulation, and seemed to suggest the problem had indeed been too much regulation.

3/ Obviously, we disagreed on spending and borrowing in a recession. He said that the danger was the government making things worse (mentioning the terror legislation being invoked as Iceland was collapsing, which is very second order). He is against quantitative easing (unlike his frontbench and the professional consensus) describing it as Zimbabwe-like. So it is populist. I don’t think it is credible.


On the debt issue, there are eight rich countries in the G20, with gdp per capita over $35,000 per annum (between $37k and $50k). (The others are middle income or developing, ie Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Russia, Mexico and Turkey are the next five with GDP per head a third to half of the advanced developed economies, from $11k to $22k, and the others under $10k) Of the comparable group of advanced developed economies, Britain has the seventh lowest level of public debt as a proportion of GDP of the eight countries. Is this compatible with Hannan’s claim, which was that others have the scope to take action while the UK does not? I don’t think so.

Public debt as % of GDP
Australia 15.4%
UK 47.2%
USA 60.8%
Canada 62.3%
Germany 62.6%
France 67%
Italy 103.7%
Japan 170.4%

The government is now running a larger budget deficit because it has a policy of fiscal stimulus. That is necessary and sensible, but Hannan opposes it.

I notice Randy is taking the easy argument for the US right: Dubya betrayed conservative principles. Of course, he was not a small government conservative. So the ideas didn’t fail, they were betrayed.

But there is so often a refusal to look at the facts and examine cherished myths once it gets harder than that. Reagan didn’t reduce government spending either, and nor did Thatcher in the UK. This is because it is not nearly as popular as the US right or the taxpayers alliance think. There is no doubt they wanted to

Some facts and links here: If cutting spending was so popular, why didn’t Thatcher or Reagan achieve it
http://www.nextleft.org/2008/11/if-cutting-spending-was-so-popular-why.html

Here is government spending before, during and after Reagan. (Reagan grew the federal workforce, though Bill Clinton reduced it!)
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_10/bradford-reagan.html

There was a rather good George Packer New Yorker essay talking to various conservative voices to get their perspectives on this issue of conservatism post-Bush which also took in the scope and limits of the Reagan revolution.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer?currentPage=all
Packer wrote: “[Reagan] had failed to limit the size of government, which, besides anti-Communism, was the abiding passion of Reagan’s political career and of the conservative movement. He didn’t come close to achieving it and didn’t try very hard, recognizing early that the public would be happy to have its taxes cut as long as its programs weren’t touched. And Reagan was a poor steward of the unglamorous but necessary operations of the state”.

117. Mike Killingworth

[117]

our markets are anything but free. All we have is oligarchy painted up as capitalism. Just as socialism always devolves to oligarchy

So your position is that (i) oligarchy is inevitable and (ii) you don’t like it. Me, I don’t much like cold wet weather, but it happens. There you go.

118. Cassandrina

#103 Sally
“No, the reason this speech took off was because it was picked up by 2 times divorced, drug using moral hypocrite and pigmy Rush Limbaugh. And then spun through the giant Wurlitzer of the Right wing media machine”.

Limbaugh was rather late in the day on this video so your argument in basically invalid.
Yes, without Limbaugh it would not be in the million bracket, but he is in the firing line against the Messiah, so is seeking succour against the new McCathyism in America, where no person was allowed to disagree with Obama, without getting serious flak and harrasment.

This is now breaking up, and I am happy that some sense is now prevailing and the old excuse of Obama’s lack of experience is coming through.
Like all left leaning activists they forget that the left dominated media in the USA refused to fully investigate Obama during the elections, and concentrated on trying to destroy McCain and especially Palin. Thus many problems with him, including his activities in Kenya and Chicago were not fully investigated.

As for Brown the reason the viral message was so successful is that it represents the words that millions of UK citizens would like to give to this imposter of a world leader.
I believe the country will give a huge sigh of relief when he is deposed, though like Livingstone and other apparatchiks he will needlessly appear ad nauseum on bbc.

#118 Sunny.

Maybe Japan’s huge public debt is a direct result of their policy of spending their way out of recession in the early 90′s? A policy that failed. And a policy you are advocating we copy.

Sunder do you include PFI in the UKs national borrowings? One mistake Hannan made was not to mention the reduction in the powers of the Bof E to effectively regulate the financial markets.
The other aspect of debt is the market’s view of whether it is affordable by the country.

Japan’ s debt is in part due to the collapse of property values in the late 80s causing an asset bubble to collapse. The value of land , particularly around the royal palace in Tokyo was grossly inflated . Property companies borrowed based on the share prices which was based on the value of land which collapsed, which damaged the banks – bit like the UK.

France and Italy have large debts in part to large civil service spendings and the need to fund pensions of retired civil servants Sunder are you suggesting we copy the Italian state with regard to bureaucracy? Italy has massive problems and even larger ones in the future. Brown kept a control on spending until 2002. Part of the problem is that Brown has not obtained value for the money that has been spent.

During unification , Kohl agreed to exchange 1 Deutschmark for 1 Ostmark( E. German) whe in fact the exchange rate should have been much less generous perhaps1 to 5 or. In addition , Kohl did not realise that the East Germans had such large savings . The problem was that the East Germans had nothing to buy with their savings . This was not understood by Kohl. I cannot remember the figures for reunification but it would have bankrupted any economy less robust and smaller than Germany’s.

Other countries have made mistakes. Brown could have increased spending wisely after 2001 and obtained value for momey-he did not. He could have given the B of E all the powers it required to regulate the financial markets and not jus control inflation. The old fashioned control of mortgages would have prevented many of our problems .

Northern Rock and HBOS are basically building societies based in labour heartlands which have been allowed to lend recklessly. The RBS and HBOS appear to have allowed to run wild because they are in Scotland and Brown was in battle with the SNP. HBOS has dragged down LLoyds. HBOS losses has gone from £1B to £10B when Lloyds used a far more conservative way of assessing debt. Brown broke competition rules so that Lloyds could take over HBOS. Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC and Standard Chartered has not been so reckless in lending. Standard Charterd which is heavily exposed to Asia and all those prudent Asian savers has reported a profit. Lloyds , I think only offered 90% mortgages whereas Northern Rock offered 125% mortgages and were heavily exposed to self certified and buy to let mortgages.

During a conservative government, Wilson, in a speech, said Britain was bankrupt:we were not but the situation was serious. There was a run on the pound. The Governor of the Bof E stopped the run on the pound by contacting all the other central bankers and promising on his word of honour, that Britain was not bankrupt. In those days the World trusted the word of honour of the Governor of the Bank of England.

Cherie Blair is right: Brown is as clever as he thinks he is, but not so nearly as wise as he thinks he is. Brown’s cleverness is only matched by his hubris.

Sunder – other countries’ worse debt position is not, in itself, an argument as to why we should emulate them.

Why has sterling collapsed in your view?

#118 Mr Katwala,

Where can I hear your debate in the states? I can’t find it on Google or Youtube.

Thanks

Even his speech in Strasbourg is full of strawmen.

Well, he was talking about the Prime Mentalist and his useless cronies.

124. WhatNext?!

SALLY: You guys always want to talk about REAL Conservatives , but they don’t exist.

Sally,
It has to be said that left-wing governments haven’t been a total success either economically or morally. The Soviet Union, China, Mr Mugabe ….. you do appear biased towards a simple and single viewpoint (left-wing lovely, right-wing nutty). Things aren’t that simple are they?

Also, you may wish to tone down your brownshirt comments. Ex-members of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party might be offended.

RB! Sorry I’ve been so late replying – flitting between elation and stagnancy; neither of which are conducive to commenting. Hello, anyway…

“Thanks for your Venezuelan media outlet trivia. I’m sure it has a large voice vs. Chavez. I wonder how much longer it will be there.”

Well, it helped prop up a coup – that’s fairly powerful.

There have, indeed, been threatening overtures made against the channel, and they are, of course, reprehensible.

“MAJOR worldwide outlets was what I was looking for, not tabloids-”

I regret to inform you that The Sun and News Of The World are major outlets. They have circulations of 7,900,000 p/d and 3,445,459 p/w respectively, and are among the largest newspapers in the world.

“My little experience with TF1 did not lead me believe that it was right wing. “

The channel is famously biased towards Sarkozy…

Journalists and the left-wing opposition are wary of any change to allow the giants of today’s media industry – construction groups Bouygues and Lagardere, or the arms manufacturer Dassault – from increasing their influence.

Two of those groups are currently headed by close personal friends of the French president, Arnaud Lagardere and Martin Bouygues, who controls France’s biggest private television channel TF1.

Critics accuse the president of favouring his friends with an overhaul of French broadcasting that will end advertising on public channels, which sparked a wave of strikes in public television.”

M. Sarkozy is said, however, to have lobbied his billionaire friend, Martin Bouygues, owner of TF1, for Ferrari’s promotion. There are no doubts about the journalist’s ability, but her promotion was interpreted by French newspapers yesterday as part of a “Sarko-friendly” revolution at TF1.”

“I live here. GWB is just not popular with the right wing. Don’t know how else to tell you.”

That’s fair enough; I was merely pointing out that significant Conservative figures and outlets don’t share that view.

“As far as the BBC being liberal…it took them days to “Cave in” and actually report the NEWS as it is supposed to be a NEWS organization. A worldwide recognized common sense beat down of your PM is NEWS, even if some people don’t want it to be…its telling the NEWS….but when it basically HAD to, even when it wasn’t consistent with what they wanted to report.”

I don’t think that’s being “liberal“; yeah, the BBC often shows bias towards the ruling establishment, but that certainly isn’t a liberal one. Moreover, I doubt that they had to report on Hannan’s speech. After all, they’ve now covered it in great detail on Newsnight, the Daily Politics and the BBC website.

“Somehow lefties think this as BBC caving…”

No, that was the opinion of one commenter – Sally.

“The BBCs Continuing negative reporting of the wars…”

I suspect that resoundingly bad news from Iraq is a reflection on the events rather than the reportage. After all, their coverage of the first days was nothing less than celebratory…

“Blair “has become, again, Teflon Tony”, declared the BBC’s Natasha Kaplinsky, beaming. Beside her, Mark Mardell agreed: “It has been a vindication for him.” Over on ITN, John Irvine said: “A war of three weeks has brought an end to decades of Iraqi misery” – words that turned sour the moment they left Irvine’s mouth.

In a jaw-dropping display, the BBC’s political editor, Andrew Marr, described how Blair’s critics “aren’t going to thank him – because they’re only human – for being right when they’ve been wrong”. He continued: “It would be entirely ungracious, even for his critics, not to acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger Prime Minister as a result.”

Now that the “surge” has been so conclusively overrated, their coverage is generally upbeat: more positive public opinion, apparent cultural renewal etc. I don’t remember any reports on, say, the ethnic cleasing that underpinned the US strategy, or Maliki’s struggles against the Awakenings councils.

“…concentrating on miniscule number of atrocities (Abu Grabh, over and over and over)…”

I disagree. Their coverage of Fallujah, for example, was utterly abysmal, they failed to pursue the Azizabad massacre and I can find no coverage of the latest executions.

“My 10/1 statement was taken literally, I certainly could not find exactly 10 who do not like it and exactly one who does not.”

Well, I wasn’t expecting an exact figure, but you suggested that there was a dominant opposition view. I can’t accept that without substantiation.

Ben

This is what passes for a rebuttal? The author should have saved time and just said, “whatever.” That would have been just as convincing. Besides, the old theory that the US spent it’s way out of the Great Depression is nonsense. Despite unprecedented growth in government spending and government jobs in the 1930′s, the unemployment rate was still at 17% in 1939. If you look at historical data, it is clear that the economy and unemployment did not rebound until the war effort began. A quote from Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury in 1939 says it all – “We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get jobs. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot.”

127. Mike Killingworth

[129] That was posted earlier [81]. Perhaps you’d care to have a go at answering my question at [84], Jamie – since no one else seems able to?

128. Sam Vaughn

You’re missing the point Sunny. There is no escaping the fact that on both sides of the Atlantic our governments are spending us into oblivion which our children and children’s children will pay for. When 50% of the population can vote to have the government steal from the other 50% we’re lost. They play off this. All I ask for is the freedom to succeed or fail on my own. I’ll accept the responsibility for either,,, without government intereference, or help.

Mr. Hannan is merely a mirror to the thoughts ten of millions of people on both sides of the Atlantic who feel they are getting screwed by their own politicians while the elite liberal politicians lie to our faces while they live their own lives to a different set of rules. Welcome to the USSK and USSA.

Reagan ran up the biggest debt in history, until George W Moron came along and the ran up an even bigger one.

It’s worth remembering the mantra of the Right while they were doing this. To quote Dick Cheney “deficits don’t matter.” So pardon me if I view with a large pinch of salt this river of crocodile tears from the international Rightwing about deficits, now The Democrats are in charge.

The Right created this mess by its constant deregulation that stripped away all the safety guards that were put in place after 1929 when another bunch of Right wing deregulator clowns brought the whole thing crashing down again.

130. WhatNext?!

Sally,
Daniel Hannan was commenting on Gordon Brown, who is the UK prime minister. The Labour party have been in power for 12 years nearly.
Certainly the “international left wing” have more to answer for: look at the poverty and brutaliy caused by communism.

New Labour have just followed the idiocy of the Right wing crap of light regulation. The idea that you can leave it all up to greedy businessmen has proved to be the sack of shit it was in the 1920’s with the same result.

I know that British Tories think the Brown is to blame for everything, but he was not running the American economy, or The American banks, or the American credit agencies, or The Icelandic banks or The Irish banks. He was not running RBS or Northern Rock.

All those great British building societies that have served the British public for over 100 years pissed away by the greedy, spiv like Tory policy of Demutualisation in the 1990’s just so a few carpet baggers could make a few quid. But that is the Tory way, short term gain and sod the consequences

132. WhatNext?!

The Building Societies haven’t been “pissed away” by demutualisation, but by horrendous business decisions, too easy money and other factors.

You can’t just blame everything on nasty, stupid right-wing people. After all, nearly everyone is right-wing (in that nearly everyone believes in private ownership rather than state ownership).

“The Building Societies haven’t been “pissed away” by demutualisation, but by horrendous business decisions, too easy money and other factors. ”

And they could only make those ‘horredous business decisions’ once they had been set free by demutualsation.

You are Arguing against your self now.

134. WhatNext?!

No, I’m not arguing against myself. The Dunfermline Building Society, the most recent casualty, is (or was) still mutual. Their mistake was to make a number of really stupid lending decisions.

The point of demutualisation was to aid wealth creation (and most who benefited from the cash created by demutualisation were “ordinary” people). I suspect you take a dim view of wealth creation, but it does pay for nice things like the NHS, welfare, etc etc. In short, the sort of things that true left-wing governments have conspicuously failed to provide throughout history.

101. But then I don’t really want to spend all my time highlighting right-wing hypocrisy, it would take up too much effort.

Sunny, left wingers are never hypocritical and always right. Labour combine’s the wisdom of Solomon, the honesty of George Washington and the humility of St Francis of Assisi . Why bother with party politics and democracy- just elect Labour to power every 4-5 years?

Pinpoint parody, Charlie, except that if you were to “elect” “Labour” that suggests, well, party politics, and at least a veneer of democracy.

137. Randy Bullock

Sunder Katwala

Sorry for the delays in responding. Had to replace my computer. I can’t believe I went on this site just a few days ago to see what people in your country were saying about Daniel Hannan and now I have two professional socialist activists debating with me.

I am writing you to refute your thesis that Reagan failed to reduce the size of government and thus was a failure as a true conservative. This is the message you sent me on email but I don’t see it on the post.

Reagan sure changed the tide of the Cold War. We were loosing under Carter. Also to note the U.S. president is part of the executive branch. While he files a budget (frequently authored by others ) and sets the foreign policy agenda, he does not CONTROL the spending. That is the job of the legislature. For example, our latest $1+trillion “stimulus” (mostly a fraud- liberal pork and lobbyist projects, extensions of the welfare state, etc plus infastructure public works construction/maintenance projects which would have had much more Republican support). These came originally from our house of representatives, dominated by liberal Nancy Pelosi who is sort of a Marie Antoinette. Republicans reportedly had little to no voice in this “Stimulus”.

The models of Clinton and Reagan are actually quite fascinating.

Reagan had a democrat majority legislature during his administration. He got massive support from middle and southeastern American moderate democrats who were concerned about Soviet expansion. They agreed with the Reagan on taxation (you don’t raise taxes during a recession, when there is double digit each unemployment, inflation, and interest rates) and the need for improved military hardware.

However, many of these democrats also had voted on the “Great Society” programs which many thought of as an extension of civil rights so the redistributionist welfare programs were never fully reformed. Shockingly (kidding of course) for government predictions, even with tax revenue increased with the LOWER tax rate, never kept up with the spending. The inflation did drop from 11-4% in four years and has been steady ever since. We will see what Obama does with that.

Bill Clinton will go down as one of our most shrewd politicians in out history. He came into an exceptional situation- the recession was smaller than advertised. There was the end of the Red Menace, low inflation, low interest rates, the first president since Hoover not to have an obvious threat to our freedom. Since the cold war was won, there was no need for additional major military spending. He had solid democrat majorities in the house and senate. His party reduced the size of the military (great idea at the time). His party immediately raised taxes, he tried to stuff through “Hilliary Care”, a massive socialization of the health care system. Even moderate democrats said no.

We have mid-term elections every two years and a general election (for president) every four. The democrats got routed in the mid-term elections due to some bumblings, scandals, and Hilliary Care. Bill Clinton’s “America, you have spoken, and you have spoken volumes” is his memorable speech on how he responded, not blaming Americans for well…not wanting a welfare state when a meritocracy had greatly enriched this nation over two centuries. From that time on he governed as a moderate.

Brash young and idealistic conservatives stormed into the house and senate. They worked with Bill Clinton- they needed each other- common sense legal reforms, welfare reform (considered by many on each side of the aisle as the best legislation since the Civil Rights Act), fiscal responsibility, and crime/law enforcement improvements resulted.

These were in no way AUTHORED by Bill Clinton. These were authored mostly by Newt Gingrich in the house and then altered by democratic committee members with consideration of Bill Clinton because he had to sign it for it to be law. One of his advisers (admittedly, they are no longer friends, said he did it “kicking and screaming” and as result of POLLS (the American people had enough with generations sitting on their tails during rapid economic growth everywhere else), but he took credit and well he signed it and the reform has been quite a success. People whose families experienced generations of welfare are now proudly part of the workforce; and there was not compensated for having additional out of wedlock children. Spending oversight resulted in reductions in spending and the discovery of fraud.

The first Bush presidency was really just a footnote. He was not an idealogue. Very Moderate with no political difference than what used to be our southern democrats. Probably the most qualified person to ever win the presidency…fighter pilot, successful private businessman, CIA director, ambassador, politician, etc. He had some of the same issues as Reagan, military spending plus democratic majorities in the house and senate.

Fast forward to the disaster of the GWB with a republican majority in legislature and a republican president who used up all his political capital in two wars and voila- spending like drunken sailors with no one to reign in the cash. The president never vetoed a bill in his first four (possibly seven) years. Everyone got their pet projects so they could be reelected back home (or so they thought) and Bush got his wars. He never even included the war funding in his budgets. Liberals are also guilty of overspending under Bush as they were the majority in the legislature his last four years. The sins stuck to Bush….liberals are supposed to spend like drunken sailors so when they do its no big deal.

Democrat committee leaders were at the top of the donor lists of banking and mortgage and it is discovered almost daily that there was even more hidden compensation in the “bailouts”. Hopefully, Chris Dodd will pay for this with his job.

I honestly am uneducated concerning the reasons for the deficits under Thatcher. Would love some help from the gallery on this one but fear this message is too long winded for someone to read it all the way to the bottom. Her quote “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” is quite appropriate, and I believe at least one sentence of Hannan’s speech is taken from that- “You have run out of our money”.

138. Randy Bullock

Sunder Katwala

Found it. For some reason I could not find it earlier.

139. Cassandrina

I borrowed this from an America website and it is so apt today with NuLiebor.

A quote from Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury in 1939 says it all –

“We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get jobs. We have never made good on our promises.
I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot.”

I rest this case.

140. Mike Killingworth

We’ve had that quote three times now!

Sally!

I think I’m in love :) But you’re wasting your time arguing with Right Wingers as you are spot on with your assessment about them rewriting history.

According to some in this thread, amazingly Bush is a Liberal. Hmmmmmm. Find that so hard to stomach after his crimes against humanity.

anyway, I wont rehash their silly arguments, you only have to look at the amount of ‘impeach Obama’ video’s on youtube. There are people taking to the streets in their er, tens and twenties waving placards inexplicably stating ‘No more War Obama!’ and ‘Bring our Troops home!’

um . . . Just who started these wars where America’s poor die in embarrassingly high numbers??? I’m sure it was Bush but, ah I must be reading the wrong history book and my own memory is slightly corrupt.

Just like the econonmic crisis, it’s all Obama’s fault for buying a dog . . or something equally insane, nothing whatosever to do with the fat cat lobbyists, cronies and nepotistic management of Bush and Co stuffing their own pockets whilst encouraging deregulation on an unprecedented scale. Nah, that’s got nowt to do with this! It’ sthe price of dog food at the Whitehouse thats bleeding America dry.

This post just leaves me open to abuse, I will now be either an ‘angry’ lefty’ or a ‘bleeding heart liberal’ but you know what? I’d rather be both of those than a callous, greedy, ignorant and, in some cases, inhumane bastard – which pretty much sums up most Republican/Conservatives I know across both sides of the pond.

As I say, Sally, you’re my hero for persisting with these deluded folk but take a step back and remember, for the past eight years, Liberals have been ‘gagged at the back of the bus’ thanks to Bush’s ‘you’re either with us or against us’ mantra that so stoked up the red neck gun club. Now, it’s their turn to make loud noises at the back, because at least for four more years (hopefully eight) no one cares what the loony Fascists think.

Oh and to get back on topic, Hannan is nothing but a Thatcherite posing as a realist whose words have hit the magic button with rednecks, that’s all. It’s not even that impressive a speech (honestly, listen to it again!)

:)

142. Randy Bullock

Wow this is fun. If I told my friends I was contributing to a British socialist website… I just can’t stop coming to this site.

Just a few short notes as I still have not had the time to respond to Ben and Katwala at the same time since they both have responded to my previous posts. I have to be more careful with them.

#84 Mike- Thankfully, Lend, Lease (aka your money) strengthened our industry and sadly, our war dead took the place of unemployment. I would imagine that the war also resulted in national pride and politicians actually acting for the betterment of the country rather than to just get themselves reelected.

Mike also note that recessions are inevetible. During times of great prosperity, prices, compensation, etc rise but at some point the economic system can’t support auto workers sleeping on the job and getting overtime to finish the job they did not working 9-5, bankers having prime rib, Cuban cigars, and brandy at lunch, ordinary workers flying business class, $400,000 home mortgages for carpenter’s assistants, etc. Recessions normally get rid the waste and unnecessary spending. NORMALLY. This one is a little different but you get the idea.

Getting out of recessions is also inevitable. In the states, home sales were way up last month, we had a ~16% increase in the Dow the last few weeks after the news that Citi, a private banking company made money the first few months of the year. Even with the stimulus” (fraud) not even hitting the streets yet. Job losses are below predictions…which is not perfect as job losses are still job losses, but the market wishes for some level of predictability and it looks like we getting a handle on this in the states, just months after it started.

The New Deal was enacted in 1933. It ended in the states during the war. That’s an awful long time.

Carl and Sally – I see a marriage made in heaven!

Cassandrina – I am not a fan of the “stimulus”, but what of the counterfactual?
Exactly how much better, or worse, would unemployment have been without the spending?

Ok your arguments are all flawed

1: “Hannan claims Brown has nationalised the car industry. Erm, no it hasn’t.” no he pointed out that the car industry is now being heavily subsidised. Not nationalised.

2: “So not only is he directly blaming Gordon Brown for the private job losses (not financial companies, mind you) but also blaming him for creating “unproductive” teaching, nursing and other public sector jobs! I’m sure my cousin will be happy to hear the Tories regard her teaching job as unproductive. And damn them for creating jobs!” – for a start you are now letting your cousins job make your argument sound patheticly emotive. Then there is the fact that he does not blame Gordon Brown directly in his speech, i dont remember him saying “thanks to you sacking 100,000 private sector workers in the past 12 months…” And finaly the public sector is unproductive as it uses, not makes, money which is what you realy want in a reccesion. Besides with the £20,000 of debt for every child born, enough to EDUCATE them for life, i dont see how you can justify the minimal improvement in education now (considering it takes a couple of years to go on a teacher training course, police training and even longer to become a nurse, the of people qualified for these jobs in the 30000 lucky souls who were given new public sector jobs in these areas is going to be exceptionaly small, the others will be shipped off to work in quango’s and other wasteful areas) for the complete disruption of the education of future generations when there is the ineviatable restructuring of the massive debt brown has accumilated. Probably under the “nasty torries.”

3: “He also decries the fall of the Sterling. To read a proper demolition of why the Sterling’s fall IS A GOOD THING” well no it isnt really. It may make our exports a bit more competative and that is a good thing to be sure, but the strong pound allowed the cheaper inport of materials which allowed the most efficent (and therefor the most worthy) industries to survive. If the weak pound really was helping that much any way why has so much industry been receiving subsidies? The weak pound is also a sign of a lack of confidence in the UK economey and this is disasterous. Investment is drying up because the UK has so much debt and people do not trust countries with this much debt not to defualt on it. If we got reduced to a lower credit rating than our current AAA we would end up paying even more interest on this debt and if the IMF had to bail us out it would come with very strict conditions attatched to bring debt under controll and reduce the states spending so you can wave those 30,000 new jobs good bye any way.

145. Mike Killingworth

[145] Glad you’re enjoying yourself, RB. Seemingly by your own account capitalism requires extortion and state-sponsored murder in order to function. This may give you a clue as to why socialism attracts some people…

And no, I have never argued that recessions are not inevitable. No one worries that growth in some years is faster than others (most recent recessions have been no more than that, a slowing of the growth rate) – as you say, this one is different. Ultimately, of course, if growth continues for long enough – and even if we turn to solar power for everything we can’t lift by human hand – there will more people on the planet than it can feed.

What we really need to get a handle on is the problem of greed and the idea that buying things can make us feel better. To prove that this need not always be so, you have only to consider the guy who’s newly retired. His income has perhaps halved (or more) yet the reason people find retirement sometimes hard to cope with is not the loss of income but the loss of meaning that their work gave them. It’s certainly true that neither free-marketeers (of any stripe) nor socialists (with a few honourable yet marginalised exceptions) have got to grips with this. The only people who have are MacIntyrean conservatives who think the Enlightenment was a disaster for humanity. However, their only idea is to wring their hands in despair/horror – which doesn’t take us very far.

144 Carl

Thank you for your kind words.

147. Randy Bullock

Mike K,

Can’t believe the guy who wrote the first paragraph wrote the rest of the post. Extortion, murder? I just spoke to some of our older US WWII vets at the gym- water aerobics for them, yoga for me- they say “your welcome.” I really don’t have to argue the merits of the US before, during or after WWII in Europe with you do I? You thoroughly and unsuccessfully twisted the fact that it took almost ten years after the New Deal was implemented, to actually see real (non-artificial) sustained economic growth and low unemployment. That’s a lot of time.

Conversely, your classic argument on why socialism finds its wind in these type of times makes total sense. Pure idialogical capitalism without common sense controls and pure socialist where there is no private property are clearly not the answer and its something in which we can agree.

For the record- retirees or those close to retirement have responsibility to change their stock portfolio- reducing variable % for fixed due to the lack of risk tolerance. It is their responsibility. I feel for these people and know many of them, including a 71 year old man who has been retired for over a decade that has taken a job as a consultant. Now they face inflation with the misguided acts of our new president, further reducing their retirement value.

As far as feeding the Earth I must disagree with you. As our baby boomers get older, they will either have too work until they are 80 or we need more PRODUCTIVE WORKING citizens to prop up our failing state sponsored retirement funds. I’m all for non-productive people not adding to our welfare rolls. Birth control and female education in developing countries is a must. I doubt you would agree but your population argument would lead me to believe that the AIDS disaster in Africa actually benefits the world.

Food for the world-

A quick look at two African countries- Zimbabwe- A country rich in agriculture- the farms were stolen by the left wing government and given to people who did not know how to produce (Mugabe cronies). Needless to say, they went from a net exporter of food with most of the indigenous people having jobs to a country starving with massive seven+ digit inflation. The opposition even won the election but had to negotiate a governing settlement. Foreign media outlets are not allowed inside. Bad place.

Conversely, Zambia gave land to the expelled farmers, who extended their knowledge to local tribesman, who also were given credit to purchase land- personal responsibility is very important to them, they paid back the loans and Zambia is now a net exporter of produce.

The Ukraine used to have some of Europe’s most fertile country. Ask them what collectivism did for them. The Soviets stole their food numerous times causing millions to starve.- Left wingers think that somehow that because there is no private property that the public owns everything- Nope- the government does. The government decides what it wants to do with your food and there is no freedom. Chernobyl, a public owned utility that was not subject to any scrutiny- made formerly fertile land worthless.

Silly government officials encouraging private companies to produce energy out of rice and corn (very low BTU values as compared to sugar, coal, or petroleum) artificially inflating the price so that the poor can not afford them, creating another problem of which they can heroically cite socialism as their saving grace.

I could go on and on.

148. Randy Bullock

Ben,

Sorry for my delay as well. Honestly, was more comfortable discussing the economic impact of our Bushes and Clinton that media matters with a someone who is very comfortable with the subject. Had to replace my computer and well, do some real work.

Ben, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what is a MAJOR media outlet….tabloids?, A few million combined? Largest newspaper? (Ben, people are not reading newspapers anymore…they are going out of business) Venezuelan coup?

The reduction of the right wing Venezuelan media due to Chavez is just an example of what happens when the left wing is in charge…Cuba, USSR, China, Cambodia, etc.

Our left is considering “The Fairness Doctrine” which is designed to force our talk radio, which is dominated by the right, to offer equal shows left=right. “Air America” is just horrible programming with boring and sort of out of touch (even more than Limbaugh) with reality, has stolen public funds from a youth group so it has been a failure. Liberals already have almost all of the TV stations, and education. They want to silence the right on radio as well.

As far as Sarkozy. He may be right wing to you, the indicted Chirac, and Royal. Royal was so far left that she did not get any play with even the US liberals. Sarkozy is pro affirmative action, pro protectionism, and still appears to want a centralized EU authority (which confuses me with the protectionism). Hardy what I, admitted conservative, and US centrists would call “right wing”. Right of the socialist party for sure.

As far as his relationship with the press, well, it is a concern. His advertisement scandal. Need more info on that for sure. I’ve unaware of it here in the states. In the states we used to call CNN the Clinton News Network. His cronies are all over TV now pretending to be impartial.

You should be more concerned with the actual content of the news. For years, liberals fired that NBC was biased right because they were owned by General Electric, who is, among other things, is a military hardware manufacturer. They reasoned that therefore, they would not rail against the party in power that paid for the hardware. WRONG.

Brian Williams, NBC today show with Matt Lauer and Katy Couric, sorry, the coverage just did not support the argument. Matter of fact, the CEO of GE is on Obama’s Economic Recovery Board. GE stock has lost 80% of its value since he became CEO, and one of his divisions has done business with the Iranian military. He is one of the reasons the country needs an Economic Recovery Board.

Back to the BBC…it took them days to report the Hannan speech. The views of them caving and actually reporting the NEWS since it is a NEWS organization was shared by more than one member of your blog. I checked the first three articles you posted as evidence of the Iraq reporting. The Arab Times, Salon and Amnesty Int’l. Sorry, the outlets don’t inspire truthful confidence in me although I am glad Amnesty Int’l exists. As far as it being biased for the ruling establishment…no they are biased against the right.

Bush has been criticized for his spending by Sean Hannady (FOX), Bill O’Reilly (FOX), Lou Dobbs (CNN), Rush Limbaugh (Radio), former republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanon (MSNBC)…I don’t know how else to convince you.

149. Mike Killingworth

[150] RB, you were the one who suggested that the reason the US war effort to reuce unemployment where the New Deal had not was because of (i) lend-lease (which I called extortion) and (ii) the reduction of the labour force by wartime deaths (which I call State-sponsored murder). I was of course being ironic – in economic terms the former was the equivalent of capital destruction and the latter can’t have had any signficiance, or else there would have been massive labour shortages in Europe after World War I. If your fellow vets like to think that the US entered either World War for altruistic reasons that’s their privilege. I know of no historian who agrees with them.

The over-population problem is real, though. The evidence is that before a population will voluntarily limit its reproduction to replacement level it has to reach the living standard of, say, Russia. The planet doesn’t have enough resources to do sustain the projected mid-century population at that level, even if as much of it remains habitable as there is to-day – which is unlikely, to say the least. This is an altogether bigger problem than the actions of particular governments, deplorable as the examples you cite are. FWIW the Romans managed to turn the North African littoral from a breadbasket to a dustbowl without even having heard of socialism, let alone practising it!

“I just spoke to some of our older US WWII vets at the gym- water aerobics for them, yoga for me- they say “your welcome.” I really don’t have to argue the merits of the US before, during or after WWII in Europe with you do I?”

Well it is not as simple as you make it sound. First and foremost Republicans strongly supported Hitler in the 1930s. Bush’s Grandfather was making a fortune trading with the Nazis. Go and read the Right wing papers of the time. Second, it was the Democrats who wanted to come and help Europe, but Republicans did not. FDR could not get them on board because they were mostly isolationists. You only came into the war in 1941 when you got attacked at Pear Harbour.

Still ,better late than never.

151. Randy Bullock

Ben,

Never, ever mistake me saying that a war is a justifiable reason to reduce unemployment. It was an unintended result of the war, not a economic theory. I gave you too much credit.

152. Randy Bullock

Your welcome Sally.

Your Churchill trusted Stalin over FDR. The crazy far far far far lefty over the liberal. Sally, I was enjoying speaking with adults….”your welcome”

153. Randy Bullock

In 2003, the Anti-Defamation League responded, saying:

“ Rumors about the alleged Nazi ‘ties’ of the late Prescott Bush … have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated. Despite some early financial dealings between Prescott Bush and a Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war), Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer.[6][12]

“Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer.”

Shit ,there were people in the SS who weren’t in the Nazi party.

“John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush. Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.

“You can’t blame Bush for what his grandfather did – bought Nazi stocks – but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?” he said.

“This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich’s defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted,” said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

“The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen,” said Loftus. “At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn’t until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it’s absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were.”
“There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it,” said Loftus. “As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany.”

Bush does not have a very good record for telling the truth

155. Randy Bullock

The response I had was not from Bush, it was from the anti-Defamation League. Quick and to the point.

156. WhatNext?!

Randy,
You’re missing the point here (Sally will correct me where I go wrong):

Right-wing people are very bad.
Any bad act commited by a right-winger reflects badly on all right-wingers.
Left-wing people are very good.
Any bad act commited by a left-winger is a result of them being right-wing.
Any bad act commited by a right-winger reflects on all right-wingers.
Therefore crimes commited by, for example, Stalin, Mao, Mugabe, etc, are crimes commited by the right-wingers.

“Left-wing” and “Good” are interchangeable terms. By definition, it is not possible to be left-wing and bad.

The BBC is liberal and left wing – I know quite a few people who work for them.

Congratulations Dan – great speech in content and presentation. This is the most incompetent government we have ever had. For years Brown gloated in parliament ‘No more boom and bust’.

158. Reading Comprehension

“1) Hannan claims Brown has nationalised the car industry.”

Erm, no he didn’t: “and that you have subsidised – where you have not nationalised outright – swathes of our economy, including the car industry and many of the banks.”

Wow, this has took a turn for the surreal.

As for American Nazi sympathisers. . . .

To be honest, it’s not unreasonable to expect that before the war, many people believed in the fascist ideal and many notable Americans perhaps foolishly made their thoughts public (Charles Linburgh, Charlie Chaplin . . . ).

America itself had, and probably still has but to a much lesser extent, a huge fear of Communism that led to the Cold War years – and whats at the other end of the curve from Communism? Fascism.

Neville Chamberlain famously tried to appease Hitler and whilst his overtures may have been to avoid taking our country to war again, he can be seen as in some ways ‘sympathetic’ to Hitlers arguments about heavy, crippling workd war one reparations placed on Germany and French military control of German soil etc etc.

However, whether or not Bush’s family (or Kennedy’s family for that matter, as Joseph Kennedy made odd statements about supporting Hitler) had true fascist leaning tendencies, I’m pretty sure they changed rapidly after the events of World War Two properly unfolded, particularly with the holocaust.

There’s a huge amount of documented evidence that shows how Wall Street enabled the Wehrmacht to be rebuilt, that effectively funded Hitlers industry for War – but that’s an age old story of business before er, despotic dipleasure.

Most of the guns still fired at American troops maybe Russian made, but most of the misslies aint. America is well known for supplying and training their enemy (see Osama Bin Laden) then act all surprised when the heavily armed menace turns on them . . . . .

Politics is an easily bought game, only those of us who aren’t Politicians can afford to actually have beliefs, morals and values that we standby.

The Official Unofficial draft Daniel Hannan for US Congress website!

http://www.danielhannanforcongress.com

errrrr, he did not claim that the car industry per se has been nationalised. he said “subsidised WHERE YOU HAVE NOT nationalised outright, swathes of our economy including the car industry and many of the banks”! Please get it right because pathetic errors don’t do your credibilty any good!

If you make a claim about America spending its way out of recession perhaps you should try do a little research into the words of FDR’s own treasury secretary Henry Morganthau who wrote:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”

162. Elysiumboy

To let anyone go under who failed horribly in business, just like the rest of you useless lot. If you weren’t too busy knocking everything that walks, you might have realised that everyone just wants to give you political left idiots a right lambasting because none of you, them and pretty much half this stinking country want to do anything about the most ludicrous destruction of public funds.

If you want to change the rules of business try doing it before you cock the whole system up! This isn’t about America or Daniel Hannan; it’s about idiots like you that back them no matter what!

Oh and by the way, a vast majority of the upper crust bods in this country loved Hitlers ways. The 1930s were notorious for it; ask any Jew!

163. Elysiumboy

Well said Rob Dee: If they had any clue they would know about HR1207. America’s answer to bail out the morons year. That definately means the British government will be bailed out then!! And when is blair up on charges for creating this falsehood?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    New post: Daniel Hannan – the new Tory saviour! http://tinyurl.com/dze38u

  2. Alex Watson

    for everyone impressed with some no-name Tory MEP doing 3 minutes of waaa-ambulance: http://tinyurl.com/dze38u

  3. Ciaran Norris

    http://tinyurl.com/dze38u & http://tinyurl.com/ccnqlo

  4. Liberal Conspiracy

    New post: Daniel Hannan – the new Tory saviour! http://tinyurl.com/dze38u

  5. Alex Watson

    for everyone impressed with some no-name Tory MEP doing 3 minutes of waaa-ambulance: http://tinyurl.com/dze38u

  6. ippimail.com » Blog Archive » Tory MEP becomes YouTube giant

    [...] think it’s a great speech (and some of the arguments are relatively easy to dismantle, as Sunny Hundal and Sunder Katwala have demonstrated). But it’s much clearer and more concise than the [...]

  7. Daniel Hannan Has A Short Memory | Politics: Just Another Social Profile Really

    [...] that Blair & Brown refused to reject enough Thatcherite theology, he’s full of shit. As Sunny Hundal points out: 1) Hannan claims Brown has nationalised the car industry. Erm, no it [...]

  8. Dan Hannan - Tory Maverick or Obama-lite? « There is nothing that can’t be done

    [...] but they are still flawed at heart. As has been demonstrated elsewhere on the blogosphere (Liberal Conspiracy, Next Left, Dan Hannan didn’t exactly have foresight on these troubling economic times in [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.