Tag Archives: Daniel hannan
You cans ee what Daniel Hannan thinks here. Please wread hole thing.
We can discuss all this further at the 2009 Confernece of the Libertarian Alliance with the Libertarian International, on Saturday 24th and Sunday 25th October.
Please book now if you plan to, for places are going fast. To discourage you all from attending, I will be moderating a session on the Sunday pm, 25th October:-
2.15pm – 3.00pm Session 9 Tories and the Liberal Democrats: Prospects for a Classical Liberal Agenda
• Speakers: Shane Frith (Director, Progressive Vision)
Jock Coats (Geo-Mutualist); Mark Littlewood (Campaign Director, Progressive Vision; Blogger, Liberal Vision)
• Moderator: David Davis (LA Blogmaster, Libertarian Alliance)
Labour list seems to think it’s not, and Dan Hannan and the Americans are all “extreme right wing” for wanting to backtrack a bit.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is what the Karly-bastard said.
The NHS row: my final word
I’m in France, with patchy internet and mobile coverage, but I sense that a row has been generated in my absence. Journalists keep calling me to ask for comments. The ones from print newspapers are polite, and offer juicy fees. The broadcasters tend to begin, without preamble, “Do you stand by your statement that…?”
As far as I can tell, three separate charges ae being laid against me. First, that I have insulted NHS workers. Second, that I want to impose a US-style healthcare system on Britain. Third, that I have made criticisms overseas that I wouldn’t make in Britain.
Let’s take these in order.
Start with how I insulted the 1.4 million NHS workers. Here’s what I said: “I don’t want to imply that, because we have a bad system, it doesn’t contain good people. A lot of very generous, very patriotic people become doctors, even though they’re working in a system that doesn’t maximise their utility, because they have a calling to help other people.”
Pretty rude, eh? I suppose I should have learned manners from the NHS’s founding spirit, Nye Bevan, who described Conservatives as “lower than vermin”. Nor do I believe – as Peter Mandelson seems fatuously to be claiming – that Britain should adopt a US-style insurance-based system. While in the States last week, I repeatedly emphasised that I thought their set-up could be improved, that costs were too high, that litigation drove up premiums and that powers could be shifted from big insurance companies to individuals.
There is a difference between saying that the US shouldn’t adopt the British model and saying that Britain should adopt the American model. Think about it for a few seconds and you’ll see that it’s quite an obvious difference. If you want to go in for shorthand categorisation by country, the model I’ve been pushing for is one of personal healthcare accounts, a system most closely approximated in Singapore, whose people enjoy a higher level of healthcare than Britons do while paying considerably less for it. Nor can it be repeated often enough that Singapore – like every developed country – pays for the healthcare of those citizens who can’t afford it.
No one I know wants a system where the poor go untended. Nor will you find such a system outside the Third World: it really isn’t a British peculiarity. After ten years in the European Parliament, I have found that the only foreign admirers of the NHS are those on the serious Left. Mainstream social democrats on the Continent do not, as a rule, argue for a heathcare system funded wholly out of general taxation.
The third charge – that I should, as Labour’s Tom Watson puts it, “say it in Britain” – is the most asinine of all. I have been saying it in Britain for years. I’ve written a book all about how to shift power from bureaucracies to consumers. It’s called The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain, it’s been in Amazon’s top 30 best sellers for nine months, it has become the best selling political tract in Britan and you can buy it here. In it is a lengthy chapter on healthcare which sets out how Britain compares with other countries in terms of survival rates, waiting times and so on, and proposes to replace the NHS with transferable savings acounts (which, to repeat, since some of my critics seem deliberately mulish on this point, would be met by the state for those who lacked the wherewithal).
Now, you can agree or disagree with my views. But to ignore them for ten months, pick them up when they are attacked by John Prescott, and then – then – to complain that I haven’t expressed them in Britain, strikes me as a bit much.
Of course, that isn’t how these rows work. Almost no one who has phoned me seems to have watched what I said in full. If they had, they would have seen that I conceded that there is majority suport for the NHS in Britain (although I believe this is partly based on the false premise that free treatment for the poor is a unique property of the British model), and that my views did not reflect those of my party leadership. Still, I do wonder at the tone and nature of the criticism. It seems to be based on playing the man rather than the ball.
My detractors say that I’m out on a limb, that I’m in the pay of the insurance companies, that I’m insulting those who have had successful treatment from the NHS. (What? How?) If supporters of the status quo were truly confident of their case, surely they would extend their logic.
I mean, why shouldn’t the state allocate cars on the basis of need, with rationing by queue? Or housing? Or food? I am reminded of the debate over asylum ten years ago, or Europe ten years before that. Remember the way even the most moderate and tempered proposals for stricter border controls were decried as “playing the race card”? Or, earlier, the way any suggestion that the EU wasn’t democratic was dismissed as “xenophobia”? Remember how keen supporters of the existing set-up were to shut down any argument?
There are good and honourable people who support the NHS; and there are good and honourable people who don’t. Is that really such an extreme thing to say? Anyway, if you’re a journalist, I’m afraid you’ll have to make do with this as my last word on the subject until I get back. If you want a dispassionate discussion of healthcare – rather than a “Tory row” story – please get in touch after 25 August. The rest is silence.
- The NHS row: my final word
August 14th, 2009 23:46
- Interrupting my holiday with some thoughts on the NHS
August 12th, 2009 21:01
- Could the American Revolution have been avoided?
August 8th, 2009 13:53
- Vexing the ghost of Thomas Jefferson
August 7th, 2009 13:44
- Newsweek says Britain is finished
August 5th, 2009 13:02
Sixty-five years ago today, by the evening, everyone knew it was just a matter of time: especially the principal staff officers of OKW and OKH. That is why some of them decided to try and assassinate their leader, that the possibility of terms being offered, and minimising further destruction, could be considered (yes, some also just wanted to save their own skins later.) The parallels with Westminster today are obvious.
I wonder what goes through the minds of the surviving “veterans” (I prefer to call them “old chaps” – “veterans” is a word now lynched by other stalinists like Mugabe) when they survey the wreckage of their country, and that of The West to some extent – wrought by some of the same kind of droids as Gordon Brown and all his friends from their various Universities.
I may add thoughts to this later. Here’s Daniel Hannan’s two-penn’orth, on the ZanuLieBorg meltdown, from “sources closer to the bunker” than I am.
UPDATE1:- NB!!! This does __not__ mean that we don’t still look kindly upon the LPUK.
It’s just that your lot ought to take lessons in resolution and moral fibre, and knowing how and when to Do The Right Thing, before you go onto the ice properly, from The Lady. That she was a Conservative was actually a tragedy: it was a waste.
Poor sad defeated and miserable Gordon Brown ought to have taken lessons, when he invited The Lady for tea. I found this while idly trawling:-
Daniel Hannan has got seven+ times more views in a twentieth of the time, but that does not alter the clear skill of The Lady’s perfromance on this video.
Thatcher is an Oxford chemist. This tells you something about what clever and upwardly-mobile girls from poor and/or FabiaNazically-despised backgrounds ought to be encouraged to do.
She will go down in history, which will be kinder to her than Tony Hollick is now going to be, as one of the three greatest and most important women who have ever been (so far of course.) Sorry, Tony, but you probably have some dirt about the woman!
(The leftiNazis is 1971 called her “Maggie Thatcher, milk-snatcher”. So she must have been right then….mostly we tipped the stuff down the plug-hole, while the teacher wasn’t looking – in 1950s-winters it was frozen solid anyway by the time you got it, so you wozz on a n’-hiding-to-nothing”…) (Here’s an interesting take on 1950s free milk given out by governemtns.)
Interestingly, if you wiki “milk snatcher“, you get Margaret Thatcher herself. What a surprise.
This is what wiki says:-
Education Secretary (1970–1974)
When the Conservative party under Edward Heath won the 1970 general election, Thatcher became Secretary of State for Education and Science. In her first months in office, Thatcher came to public attention as a result of the administration of Edward Heath’s decision to cut spending. She gave priority to academic needs in schools, and imposed public expenditure cuts on the state education system, resulting in, against her private protests, the abolition of free milk for school-children aged seven to eleven. She believed that few children would suffer if schools were charged for milk, however she agreed to give younger children a third of a pint, daily, for nutritional purposes. This provoked a storm of protest from the Labour party and the press, and led to the unflattering moniker “Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher”. Of the experience, Thatcher later wrote in her autobiography, “I learned a valuable lesson. I had incurred the maximum of political odium for the minimum of political benefit.”
She successfully resisted the introduction of library book charges. She did not volunteer spending cuts in her department, contrary to her later beliefs. Her term was marked by support for several proposals for more local education authorities to close grammar schools and to adopt comprehensive secondary education. Thatcher was determined to preserve grammar schools, which prepared more students for admission to universities. She abolished Labour’s commitment to comprehensive schooling, and instead left the matter to local education authorities.
I would like to start this article with a word of thanks. Thank you New Labour!.
Now you are most likely wondering why i thanked New Labour, well, i was having a read of Labourlist.org (I needed a laugh) and i found a new video of that lovely man, Daniel Hannan. Now, i would have never found this video without labourlist, so again, thank you.
One other thing, ajoining the video of Daniel was a another video, this time John Prescott replying to Daniel’s vid. To briefly summerise John’s rant, the video consisted entirely of John saying “Daniel’s wrong, ‘cos, er,er,he’s wrong.”
Ok, here’s the vids:
The comment that John said about America wanting something like our health care system, genuinly shocked me, as i thought that the Americans were against compulsory euthenasia