Why Hannan is wrong about Singapore too


3:07 pm - August 14th 2009

by Unity    


      Share on Tumblr

So, in the last couple of days I think we’ve safely established that Daniel Hannan is a complete and utter twat.

That said, the full extent of Hannan’s outright twattery only becomes fully apparent when you examine the background to his assertion that the NHS should be replaced with a Singapore-style system of personal health accounts because…

The Singapore system produces better outcomes than ours for half the price.

Taken at face value on a comparison of key health indicators and taking into account the relative proportion of GDP spent on healthcare in the UK and Singapore that’s perfectly true but it rather ignores a very important and somewhat unusual feature of the Singaporean system, one that makes it very different from healthcare systems in both Britain and the US.

When it comes to providing healthcare to its citizens, both the supply and the price of healthcare in Singapore is actively regulation by the Singaporean government, in both the public and the private sector in order to control costs and avoid the kind of significant inflationary pressures that pretty much every other healthcare system in the world has had to deal with.

Now that’s a great trick if you can pull it off but not one that I’d suspect forms part of Hannan’s grand plan for doing away with the NHS given his fondness for anti-state rhetoric and free markets in just about everything else.

Indeed, for someone who is so vehemently opposed to state involvement in just about anything, Singapore is a rather curious exemplar to hit upon. 60% of the country’s GDP is, for example, generated by government-linked corporations in which the state is, at least, a major (50%+) shareholder.

The state, often indirectly, owns or controls the country’s airline, its public transport system, all seven television stations and all fourteen radio stations (it’s illegal to own a satellite receiver that picks up non-state owned, uncensored, transmissions), its newspaper and print media industry, its telecommunication industry (including the provision of internet services), its water and sanitation industry, its sole supplier of electricity gas and anything up to 90% of all the housing stock in the country, which it citizens can acquire on anything up to a 99 year lease but not purchase outright. 80% of its domestic secondary healthcare services are provide by its 10 state-owned hospitals, although state provision accounts for only 20% of all primary care services.

The Singaporean state is both a major investor in domestic industry and, through its state-owned investment arm, Temesek Holdings, in a wide range of foreign corporations. Its also a major player an number of other Asian economies into which its state-owned have aggressively expanded.

Singapore Power, which Temesek wholly owns, has major interests in the domestic supply of electricity and gas in Australia, via SPAusNet (51% owned) and Alinta and the commercial supply market in South Korea, where its subsidiary SPI Seosan is the sole supplier of electricity, steam and water treatment to Samsung Total Petrochemicals, one of the largest petrochemicals companies in the country. Other corporations controlled by Temesek include SingTel, by some distance the biggest mobile phone operator in the Asian market, and PSA international, which operates 28 ports in 16 countries, including one in the UK.

It’s actually difficult to describe Singapore in conventional political and economic terms.

The country has certainly embraced free-market global capitalism but has done so primarily via state-owned corporations that, at least notionally, operate free from direct political control but, in practice, have close ties to the Singaporean government and to its ruling party, the People’s Action Party, which has won every single parliamentary election in the country since self-government in 1959.

Politically, Singapore is notionally a parliamentary republic with a unicameral legislature modelled on Westminster and British-style legal system that mixes statute and common law. It has, however, also been a de facto one party state since self-government in 1959 and one that is best characterised in terms of its effective suppression of political opposition by means subtle authoritarianism and political corruption.

Freedom House rates the country as being only ‘Partly Free‘, while Reporters Without Borders places Singapore 144th of 173 countries on its 2008 Press Freedom Index, just below Russia, Ethiopia and Tunisia and only slightly above Egypt.

Healthcare

Even those who commend Singapore’s health care system as a model from which other governments could learn concede that it would be very difficult to replicate elsewhere in the world because its a system that has been developed concurrently with the development of the country over a significant period of years against a backdrop of political ‘stability’ which is derived, in the main, from a culture of enforced political and social conformity to a degree that would be unthinkable in a Western liberal democracy such as the UK.

For all that Hannan and his fans complain bitterly and incessantly about state encroachment in Britain into areas they consider to be either private matters for the individual or economic issues in which an unrestrained free market is, in their eyes, inherently superior to state provision and regulation, Singapore has even New Labour beaten hands down.

Here, you cannot be arrested for possessing chewing gum, littering (although you can be fined), jaywalking or for not flushing the toilet after use (seriously!). You can, however, be arrested, tried and convicted in Britain, if you rape your wife – but not in Singapore.

We have a free and independent press, one that is, arguably, subject to too little independent scrutiny and regulation due to the manifest shortcomings of the Press Complaints Commission. Unlike Singapore, our broadcast media is lightly regulated and not wholly owned by the government, nor is it illegal to own a satellite dish that can pick up uncensored transmissions from other countries.

We’d all like an efficient, responsive healthcare system but no matter where in the world you look such a system comes at a price.

America’s acute medical care is, as John Crippen points out, the best in the world – if you can afford it out of your own pocket or you’re insured up to your eyeballs. But if you’re poor or even moderately well-off but unfortunate enough to contract a long-term chronic condition then you either won’t get the care you need or you’ll likely be driven into bankruptcy in the process of trying to get it.

The price of an efficient healthcare system in Singapore is a corporatist state that would have fair warmed the cockles of Mussolini’s heart and level of political and social quietism that would have had the pre-Glasnost Kremlin swooning with envy.

An unabridged version of this article is over at the Ministry

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
'Unity' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He also blogs at Ministry of Truth.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,Economy ,Far East ,Health

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Excellent, always good to read a skewering of the festering boil that is Singapore.

Hilariously, many self-styled libertarians profess to be fans of Singapore, highlighting the fact that ‘libertarian’ means ‘doesn’t like paying tax’ rather than ‘is fond of freedom’.

As usual, Unity, despite by pro-market perspective, I agree with your concerns. My one quibble is to say I am not sure exactly what the significance of this is for the health savings accounts that Singapore employs. You have shown it can work in an authoritarian state, but there is no reason to believe it cannot work in a free state too. After all, some employers use them in the US.

Another point is that although following neo-liberal economic policies can never be considered sufficient to produce genuine civil liberties, liberal economic reforms can often have side-effects that accidentally produce greater liberty that the state reformers did not attend: http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/06/07/some-positive-steps/

I don’t see, to be honest, how you’ve shown Hannan to be wrong here. Unless he is on record as saying something like “we should strive to be like Singapore in absolutely all respects, both socially and economically” your attack seems to fail. Why can’t we recognise that healthcare in Singapore is better than the NHS, independently of whether the rest of their style of political economy is desirable? The whole of your post seems to be one long example of the all or nothing fallacy.

I don’t buy the argument that a more market based direction requires political repression, either. From the piece you linked to:

* Singapore has developed its system concurrently with the development of the country over a number of years under the backdrop of political stability enabling successive governments to introduce consistent measures relating to individual responsibility, compulsory savings and regulatory control of healthcare services and costs

* with a relatively small population of four million people within a concentrated land mass of 660 square kilometres, the planning of a healthcare infrastructure has been somewhat easier than would be the case for larger countries.

The first seems as though it could apply to the NHS just as easily as the Singaporean system. And the second may be true, but provides no comfort to friends of the NHS given that we already have massive planning of healthcare infrastructure.

Dan:

Not my original title – check the URL.

As proving Hannan wrong, that’s not really what this is about, as you’ll see if you head over to the unabridged version at the Ministry.

What it is about is really the problem of assuming that a system that works in one country under one very specific set of social, economic and political conditions, can be readily transplanted to another.

However, if you want to chew over a specific issue relating to Singaporean healthcare, if you look at the information provided on their system by their Ministry of Health what you’ll find is a considerable amount of detail on provision and costs of acute medical care but very little on dealing with chronic illness.

For example, typical costs quoted for treatment for lung cancer do not include surgery.

Chronic illness is the big ticket item in healthcare costs and from what I can tell the system over there works on the basis of a combination of state subsidy, drawing on a compulsory health savings account plus separate insurance for chronic illness, premiums for which increase with age, coupled with a systems co-payments and a kind of insurance excess system which ensures that people have to pay something for their care out of their own pocket.

Only, if someone exhausts all their possible resources, does the state step in to cover the full costs, which in not that contentious in a country like Singapore where the vast majority of the population (80-90%) live in state-owned housing.

In the UK, where a much greater proportion of the population own their own homes, such a system would create a major political headache over the question of at what point someone is deemed to exhausted their assets sufficiently to require the state to step in and meet the full costs of healthcare.

In short, if you own your own home and you run both your insurance and your saving account dry, are you then required to sell your home to finance continued care for chronic conditions, or does the state step in before that happens to pick up the tab.

Its the same problem we have in England with the provision of social care to the elderly, but which we don’t have when dealing with medical care because we provide that free of charge through the NHS.

Why can’t we recognise that healthcare in Singapore is better than the NHS, independently of whether the rest of their style of political economy is desirable?

Because the former is dependent on the latter – as the article clearly indicates.

I dunno, you seem to be chiding Singapore for failing to provide a complete solution to a problem that the NHS is currently brushing under the rug: http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-dares-blow-whistle-who-dares-loses.html

“as the article clearly indicate”

Not that well. How exactly are Health Savings Accounts more intrinsically authoritarian than simple taxation? What makes it so impossible to implement them outside of a fascist state?

8. the a&e charge nurse

The “Singapore question” dealt with once and for all – I will no doubt quote at length from this analysis.

you seem to be chiding Singapore for failing to provide a complete solution to a problem that the NHS is currently brushing under the rug

Not really.

The issue with social care in England is far from satisfactory but it remains the case that, but for a few big ticket items – e.g. the latest cancer drugs, cutting edge surgical procedures and elective procedures like IVF – no one in the UK is put in the position where they have no option but to sell their home to fund the costs of medical treatment.Granny might have to wait a while for her hip replacement operation – and some people do, sadly, die while on waiting lists, but whether she gets it or not is not contingent on her bank balance or on keeping up her insurance premiums.

The same may be true in Singapore, but the reasons are very different – the vast majority of people don’t have a home to sell and assuming that means testing in the Singaporean system takes housing costs into account, there is no real risk of them losing their home due to the costs of medical treatment.

The same would also be true in the UK for people who live in rented accommodation as long as they can keep paying their rent and they have the added safety net of housing benefit to fall back on, but the same cannot be said for people who own their own homes.

It does depends, of course, on how a savings and insurance-based system is set up to deal with paying for the treatment of chronic conditions at the point at which there is insufficient savings and insurance cover to meet the costs of treatment.

Its certainly possible to avoid the problem, to some extent, by not treating an individual’s home as an asset for the purposes of means testing but only if they’ve paid off their mortgage entirely. If they’re still paying off the balance of their mortgage or they other loans secured on their property then you have a very different but no less difficult set of problems to deal with.

(And I am assuming here that, in Singapore, its not possible to obtain a loan by using the lease on your state-owned home as collateral).

What makes it so impossible to implement them outside of a fascist state?

I didn’t say it was impossible, just very difficult.

The major problems that would arise in seeking the transplant the Singaporean model to the UK, or the US, for that matter are, to a significant extent, logistical rather than being purely a function of the authoritarian environment in which the system originated.

Put it this way, given what you can see of the opposition of Obama’s health care proposals, what do you think would happen if the US Federal government attempted to regulate the cost of private healthcare to extent that its regulated in Singapore?

There’s are big issue in terms of scalability, particular in terms of logistics and delivery costs when you try to upscale a system that serves a population and physical area both of which are about half the size of London to a population of 60 million in a country the size of the UK, never mind what taking the system up the scale of the US would add to the running costs.

You’re also asking for major cultural changes in taking the system outside Singapore, some of which will come easier than depending on where you try to take things, but all of which will prove highly contentious – and that where the authoritarian part comes into play.

The Singaporean government simply doesn’t have things like large scale public or political opposition to deal with and in fifty years, not once has the country has to deal with a situation in which a change in government has meant a change in government ideology and major changes in policy, not even to the limited extent that that happens in the US let alone to how thing used to be in the UK before the advent of Blatcherism.

So the Tory mask has slipped and they have revealed what we all knew , namely that most Tories hate the NHS, despite ‘call me Dave’s ’ special pleading. Would you buy a second hand bike off this man? thought not.

What of course is always hilarious is to observe the brown shirt trolls who infect this site, come swarming over hear like bees round a honey pot in the last 2 days to defend their moronic brownshirt scum who want to destroy the health care system. Hannan has got into bed with the real brown shirts of the American right, no surprise there then. But he joins the moronic Tim Montgomerie who is as clueless and air headed as usual.. He has no original ideas , he just spouts Neo Con bullshit. The Tory party can try to dismiss Hannan as a freak, which of course he is. But they can’t dismiss Montgomerie , as he runs Conservative Home which is a major Tory site.

Montgomerie and Hannan have dropped their knickers and revealed the truth about the modern Tory party. There has been no change in the nasty party, there is no new progressive Tory party. Just a pity that New Labour is so fucked they probably can’t make anything out of this. However, it is a warning to those poor deluded Liberals/independents who seem to think that Cameron is going to usher in a new wave of progressiveness .

Great forensic analysis, but I don’t think Hannan even really cares about whether the Singapore model is workable. His real agenda is just to demonise the opposition, peddle scare-stories, and polarise British politics – the actual policy details are just incidental. That’s why they love him on Fox: not because he has innovative ideas, but because he’s a culture warrior. I’ve been arguing for this view of Hannan all week on my own new blog, e.g. here:
http://sohopolitico.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-stoke-up-culture-wars.html.

Ok these are good points, although they seem to be more about how to get from here to there, than the problems with “there” exactly. The Netherlands managed to significantly reform their health system too without riots in the streets.

One key is scale, suggesting that in large states reforms ought to be local and not brought in from a central (or in the US, federal) government. So could an Obama plan simply try to get federal government out of the way of state governments, and tell them to introduce reforms as they see fit, and localise their current federal programs like medicare.

14. Shatterface

Smackdown!

I would urge readers to follow Unity’s link re the difficulties of insituting Singapore-style healthcare here and see if they feel he has characterised the article adequately. It’s not that long.

Fair point BH – I didn’t make most of the edits over here…

The last couple of paragraphs of the full article really make the other point I was driving at:

Many vulgar libertarians, particularly in America but also closer to home, i.e. those Tories who found their way to what they think is libertarianism by way of Thatcherism and Reaganomics, like to imagine that free market capitalism is somehow synonymous with liberal democracy, particularly American liberal democracy, and with personal liberty, self-sufficiency and the kind of rugged individualism and ‘frontier spirit’ that forms a large component of the American national myth. It isn’t. Corporate capitalism, particularly when harnessed to the state, is no less demanding of social, economic and political conformity and no less inimical to personal liberty than Soviet-style state socialism, it just applies the pressure to knuckle under by different means.

The opposite of communism isn’t democracy, its plutocracy, which is something that the likes of Daniel Hannan might eventually come to appreciate if their understanding of economic liberty ever comes to amount to anything more substantial than simply grubbing around in the political dirt for tax cuts.

In all the blogs on this I have read, I keep coming across comments like the one above from Sally “So the Tory mask has slipped and they have revealed what we all knew , namely that most Tories hate the NHS, despite ‘call me Dave’s ’ special pleading.”

Hanan is a backbench MEP. Not even an MP. How on earth do you transpose that into the quote above? Thats like saying Frank field, or Dennis Skinner, or any of the recent saddos who resigned from government appointments are speaking for the whole labour party when they come out with their own little bit of tripe.

Hanan does not speak for the Conservative Party. He speaks for Daniel Hanan.
Full stop. But if you really want to get to know his views, read his book ‘The Plan’ Amid some out of this world ideas I found about 75% common sense. And I am NOT a tory.

“So, in the last couple of days I think we’ve safely established that Daniel Hannan is a complete and utter twat.”

No, you’ve just established that you think he’s wrong. I think a lot of people are wrong (including Hannan). I just don’t think they’re twats. There’s something disturbingly emotional about the way people have reacted to this.

“What of course is always hilarious is to observe the brown shirt trolls who infect this site, come swarming over hear like bees round a honey pot in the last 2 days to defend their moronic brownshirt scum who want to destroy the health care system. ”

Actually the real Brown Shirt scum (the BNP) are committed to defending the NHS. Your trolling is rather too transparent, must learn to be subtle.

“Corporate capitalism, particularly when harnessed to the state, is no less demanding of social, economic and political conformity and no less inimical to personal liberty than Soviet-style state socialism”

Which is why those of us who are genuine libertarians have no time for state-backed “corporate capitalism” either. http://all-left.net/

Unity – you are quite right, but it isn’t really anything new to libertarians: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/econn/econn106.pdf

Many of the libertarians I know are not just vulgar, they can be outright rude! But they are still criticising corporate power. Which is why no one here has even come close to advocating the status quo, just doing exactly what would help alleviate the crisis, which is to remove the licenses and protections afforded to private insurers and corporate employers as they stand right now. Let people buy their own healthcare and top that up according to their extra needs.

Nick:

You are aware of the fact that in using the term ‘vulgar libertarians’, I’m actually referencing Kevin Carson…

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html

Unity,

I say this as someone who agrees with Kevin Carson on very close to every issue, but you do realize that you’re exactly the kind of person he’d call a vulgar or state socialist, precisely, that is, the kind of person who likes to think “that a bureaucratic apparatus controlled by themselves is the only way to counter the natural outgrowth of big business from the free market.”

If you want to take the mutualist criticism of the welfare state seriously, I’d be ecstatic. But I really hope you do take it seriously, rather than just picking and choosing the bits you like in an attempt to justify massive state intervention.

Whoa Dan, you’re rather jumping ahead there in assuming that my critique of Hannan amounts to a defence of bureaucracy as a necessary bulwark against big business.

One of the major problems with libertarianism as is stands today, and its a flaw that can be found in all radical political ideologies, is that’s there’s a widespread lack of appreciation the question we get from A – where we are now – to B – where libertarians would like us to be at whatever point in the future, if any, it become the prevailing political norm.

The assumption, too often, is that radical change will almost work ‘straight out of the box’ – well it doesn’t, and we have both the French and Russian revolutions to stand as examples of that.

If you’re looking for movement in a mutualist direction then you need to think in terms of, and set out, a process of incremental change so as not to destabilise the society, culture or economy you’re seeking to change, in part so as not to provoke a reactionary backlash but also, more importantly, because all political theories have inherent contradictions that, more often than not, come to light only when you try to apply them in the real world and often with pretty catastrophic effects.

In any process of change, the only thing you can absolutely guarantee is that the law of unintended consequences is going to hit you somewhere along the line and, invariably, the faster you try to move the harder it will hit because by that point you’re already overcommitted, making it difficult if not impossible to rebalance your situation.

So, no, I’m not blindly defending the existing status quo, merely pointing out that its what we have to start with and build from in order to make any real progress.

Dan, I think Unity actually does take it seriously a lot of the time and is quite a decentralist. He has just ended up on the other side of the party political divide. Which is not too weird considering how big fans Labour were of devolution for so long and how opposed to full-on EU integration they were.

But I am not sure exactly what point Kevin Carson is making that hasn’t been made by everyone from Smith, to Bastiat, to Friedman – that the last people you want making the rules of a market are the businesses that are currently competing in it.

Even accepting the criticism, the notional vulgar libertarian has a simple defence: that it is better to have a robust market order that at least allows for widespread freedom of action and innovation even if the rules are unfair and gives corporations more influence than we would like. We may not like the business practices of Tesco, Google, General Electric, British Gas, RBS and HSBC, but at least they don’t stand in the way of people just getting on with their lives as much as a socialist or fascist state does. Let there be a plutocracy, says the VL, so long as we also have a measure of the rule of law for all.

Whether the “vulgar defence” extends to Singapore is rather more controversial, but the forms of oppression that particular corporate order has established doesn’t bare much comparison with what Marxist inspired leaders got up to in South East Asia and at least its made the people there materially prosperous, even if there only legal hobby appears to be shopping.

Of course, we are all radicals here, and I sometimes hope we will be able to see a form of liberty without most of these corporate excesses within our lifetimes. Singapore is obviously a terrible model for that. But health savings accounts themselves, don’t look so bad and might not be a bad way of making health providers, whether state or corporate, more accountable to individuals.

Incidentally, I think why libertarians are radicalised right now, is not because the system we have at the moment is all that bad, but that it keeps threatening to get an awful lot worse comparatively quickly.

It’s actually difficult to describe Singapore in conventional political and economic terms.

Actually its quite easy. It’s a corporate state.

“both the supply and the price of healthcare in Singapore is actively regulation [sic] by the Singaporean government… Now that’s a great trick if you can pull it off”

A priori, there’s no reason why this “trick” can’t be pulled off by other countries. It’s absurd to argue that only an authoritarian government can create a system in which

“80% of its domestic secondary healthcare services are provide by its 10 state-owned hospitals”

since presumably you don’t assume the UK is an authoritarian state due to the existence of the NHS.

Also, your other arguments against Singapore are pretty lousy. Criticizing the government for owning the “public transport system” or “water and sanitation companies” is stupid, considering those are widely accepted roles of government. There are some companies that the Singapore government invests in that most other governments don’t, and that’s a legitimate area of criticism—but this is largely due to (i) Singapore’s unusually small size, which limits the size of private capital, and (ii) legacies from British colonial rule (many of the largest government-linked companies were set up during that time).

Here, you cannot be arrested for possessing chewing gum, littering (although you can be fined), jaywalking or for not flushing the toilet after use (seriously!).

Having lived in Singapore for some years, I’ve honestly never heard of anyone being arrested for any of those reasons.

You can, however, be arrested, tried and convicted in Britain, if you rape your wife – but not in Singapore.

Fair enough. The weakness of the marital rape provisions is a holdover of the British legal system (where marital rape was legal until 1991). They’re trying to change it in recent years.

“Having lived in Singapore for some years, I’ve honestly never heard of anyone being arrested for any of those reasons.”

Have you heard of anyone *doing* those things, though?

“Having lived in Singapore for some years, I’ve honestly never heard of anyone being arrested for any of those reasons.”

Have you heard of anyone *doing* those things, though?

Sure, it’s pretty common to bring gum in from outside the country, and jaywalking is likewise pretty common. I have, once in a while, seen people littering, though there are enough street cleaners that it’s generally not a problem (also, there are a *lot* of garbage cans along the streets—about one every ten meters in some places). As for not flushing public toilets, the prevalence of this practice is about the same as in, say, the US (i.e. not common, but unfortunately not unheard of).

I’m afraid you’re misinformed by crude stereotypes.

“I’m afraid you’re misinformed by crude stereotypes.”

Who, me? I was only asking.

One of the chief reasons why the system in Singapore is so cost-effective is because of demographics. If you compare the percentage of over 65s in Singapore (8.3%) to that say of England (15.89%), the ratio of which is 1:1.9. Similarly, the Healthcare as a percentage of GDP for Singapore is 3.5% (2005) to UK’s 8.9%, ratio of 1:2.5.

As can be seen, you can attribute a lot of the huge costs in the UK to the differing demographics. Elderly people are of course more costly to care for, requiring more long-term care and advanced treatments in general.

Although some of the difference can be explained by the Singapore system being more efficient, you also have to take into account the different cost of living (and labour) in the two countries.

Troll “Which is why those of us who are genuine libertarians have no time for state-backed corporate capitalism”

I have told you before there are no such things as ‘genuine libertarins.’ They don’t exist, and the poor deluded clowns who claim they are real , like yourself are fake.

Troll “No, you’ve just established that you think he’s wrong. I think a lot of people are wrong (including Hannan). I just don’t think they’re twats. There’s something disturbingly emotional about the way people have reacted to this.”

Of course we’ve established he is wrong , Jesus, even Call me Dave has denounced him as being wrong. Make your mind up troll, either he is wrong or he is not. Don’t sit on the fence. But that of course is the revealing point about all this. While many Torries want to attack Hannan for what he said, they also want to defend him, which is why no one with a brain should trust the Tory party on the NHS.

Yes it is ‘disturbingly emotional’ that the tory party has revealed itself to be full of tossers like Hannan and Redwood and Montgomerie who want to destroy the NHS. And what is worse for tory trolls like you is that you have to defend them, which is what you have all being trying to do (very badly) for the last 3 days.

“I have told you before there are no such things as ‘genuine libertarins.’”

These people are entirely fictional then are they? http://all-left.net/

Can’t you at least try and be less of a blatant wind up?

@15 and Shatterface:

Now that made me laugh very loud indeed. In a good way.

Cool.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    : I bet the trains run on time as well… http://bit.ly/l2AW9

  2. Liberal Conspiracy

    Why Daniel Hannan is wrong about Singapore too http://bit.ly/48IuE – do these libertarians ever do *any* research?

  3. sunny hundal

    Why Daniel Hannan is wrong about Singapore too http://bit.ly/48IuE – do these libertarians ever do *any* research?

  4. Jamie Potter

    #welovetheNHS RT @libcon Why Daniel Hannan is wrong about Singapore too http://bit.ly/48IuE – do these libertarians ever do *any* research?

  5. Mitchell Stirling

    RT @libcon Why Hannan is wrong about Singapore too http://bit.ly/33a60M

  6. majsaleh

    RT @libcon: Why Daniel Hannan is wrong about Singapore too http://bit.ly/48IuE – do these libertarians ever do *any* research?

  7. Paranormal Guru

    Liberal Conspiracy » Why Hannan is wrong about Singapore too: Liberal Conspiracy is the UK’s most popular left-o.. http://bit.ly/4aY0l3

  8. Nicolas Redfern

    RT @libcon Why Daniel Hannan is wrong about Singapore too http://bit.ly/48IuE – do these libertarians ever do *any* research?

  9. Liberal Conspiracy

    : I bet the trains run on time as well… http://bit.ly/l2AW9

  10. Liberal Conspiracy

    Why Daniel Hannan is wrong about Singapore too http://bit.ly/48IuE – do these libertarians ever do *any* research?

  11. sunny hundal

    Why Daniel Hannan is wrong about Singapore too http://bit.ly/48IuE – do these libertarians ever do *any* research?

  12. Jamie Potter

    #welovetheNHS RT @libcon Why Daniel Hannan is wrong about Singapore too http://bit.ly/48IuE – do these libertarians ever do *any* research?

  13. Twitted by libcon

    […] This post was Twitted by libcon […]

  14. Mitchell Stirling

    RT @libcon Why Hannan is wrong about Singapore too http://bit.ly/33a60M

  15. majsaleh

    RT @libcon: Why Daniel Hannan is wrong about Singapore too http://bit.ly/48IuE – do these libertarians ever do *any* research?

  16. Paranormal Guru

    Liberal Conspiracy » Why Hannan is wrong about Singapore too: Liberal Conspiracy is the UK’s most popular left-o.. http://bit.ly/4aY0l3

  17. Nicolas Redfern

    RT @libcon Why Daniel Hannan is wrong about Singapore too http://bit.ly/48IuE – do these libertarians ever do *any* research?

  18. karen.yeo

    Hmm… Singapore gets "dragged" into the NHS row, thanks to Conservative MEP Dan Hannan. http://bit.ly/48IuE

  19. Borrowed from Liberal Conspricy read the site great post « Swinton South Liberal Democrats

    […] Richard posted on Why Hannan is wrong about Singapore […]

  20. karen.yeo

    Hmm… Singapore gets "dragged" into the NHS row, thanks to Conservative MEP Dan Hannan. http://bit.ly/48IuE

  21. thabet

    Daniel Hannan is a twat: http://bit.ly/l2AW9

  22. Pickled Politics » Round up of stories

    […] on the authoritarian state of […]

  23. Round up of stories | Free Political Forum

    […] on the authoritarian state of […]

  24. Andrew McKie

    @sunnyhundal goes ACTUALLY mad. http://t.co/rj3nAg8U I used to live 5 minutes from the Queen. So we're bosom buddies., of course.





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.