The devalued Dan Hannan

To the administrator:

I've just tried editing my last comment after it was posted, and it has lost all the original paragraph spacing (at least that's what it looks like on my browser). I can't seem to put any paragraph spacing in. What's the problem?

I've just had the misfortune to hear Dan Hannan's views on the NHS: http://www.labourhome.org/story/2009/4/3/19942/51071


I guess I'll probably not vote for the Conservatives now, unless DC reins him in publicly.


If I were a Labour party activist I would seriously want to take David Cameron to task about some of the things Dan Hannan is saying. It might prove quite useful to my cause. As a moderate conservative floating voter who loathes the extreme right, I am of the opinion that once the flowery rhetoric has been forgotten Dan Hannan may prove to be a Tory own goal, despite what all his blogging admirers might say. He has certainly put me off voting Tory, that's for sure.

By and large I agree with Daniel Hannan's speech. I didn't think it was particularly insulting to Gordon Brown (apart from maybe the Brezhnev reference) and I fail to see why people are expressing relief that Gordon Brown was "at last" being publicly criticised, as some of the exchanges in PMQs are often more vituperative, in my opinion. Also, I can't understand why people here in the UK are raving about the glowing endorsement of the speech by the neo-cons in the USA - not a great endorsement, IMHO!!

I am a floating voter in a marginal constituency with an excellent Labour MP for whom I voted at the last two elections, and for whom I would ideally like to vote at the next election. However, I am not impressed by the government (and increasingly worried about the expansion of the surveillance society), and so I am probably going to vote for the Conservatives at the next election; but as a "centrist" (slightly right of centre) I am troubled that the old instincts of the right will emerge yet again as we get nearer to an election (as happened in the 2001 and 2005 election campaigns - constant digs at asylum seekers and gypsies put me off voting Tory on both occasions).

Labour have failed to rebut Hannan's arguments, as the comments on this blog show. But one thing he did say, which hasn't really been picked up on, troubles me. This was the comment (misquoted on "anorak.co.uk") which actually garnered the most applause from certain other MEPs:

"Last year, in the last twelve months, 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."

Now what I object to is the idea that the public sector is regarded as "unproductive". Can anyone really believe that a financial speculator, for example, does a "productive" job, whereas a doctor, nurse or teacher does an "unproductive" job?! If Hannan is merely making a technical point about tax revenue, fair enough. But if, in the run-up to the election, it becomes clear that such language betrays an ambivalence in the Tory party to the role of the public sector, then they will have lost my vote.

I define the centre ground of politics as the position of commitment to both the public and private sectors. The relationship between the two sectors defines the "centre left" and "centre right" (which sector is the servant of the other?). Personally, I would rather be on the "centre left" than "non-centrist right wing", even though I prefer "the centre right". So Hannan's speech has made me feel a bit wary of where the Tory party really stand.

If Labour want to win the vote of people like me, they will have to do a far better job than this at refuting the arguments of the right.

If you are trying to discredit Hannan's opinion of Brown by citing his views on Iceland then your argument is at best immature and at worst unintelligent.

Let us not forget that Brown has been wrong on lots of things. Should we use that as proof that he will be wrong on everything else?

Surely you can do better than this. The country deserves intelligent politicians.

The best thing for an aspiring, well meaning person as you is to recognise that the days of spin are truly over and that the electorate deserve something true and special.

`this appeals to those who like gloves off angry angry politics'. Well haven't we got a right to be angry? I lost my final salary pension fund last week. For your mate Sir (thanks Gordie) Fred Goodwin, that might just mean a few less Mercs to stable in his garage in his old age. For me it might mean having the gas or electric cut off. And who was it that decided to raid pension funds in spite of being warned it would be a disaster - oh that'll be Gordon won't it? Please don't tell us not to be angry - we're losing our pensions, our work, our houses, and we can see the same being visited on our children. The only time I see a Labour councillor, MP or MEP round my house is when there's an election. Until then I'm memorising the speech I'll give them, unfortunately not as good as Daniel Hannan's.

Your just polishing a turd.

First of all, Derek didn't claim that HE was going to publish a point-by-point rebuttal. He just said "go to LabourList and see why it (Hannan's speech) is wrong. Essentially he promised that LABOURLIST would publish a line by line rebuttal. Upon arrival to LabourList's site, we see one article attempting to rebut Hannan's statement. It's clear to all, that your article was what Derek was referring to. Your opening statement in this reply is an attempt at old fashioned Labour spin. It's not going to work. LabourList failed to live up to that promise.

I don't need to go into the whole Hannan said the car industry was nationalised rubbish. Joe Fraud pointed out your error there.

You say "Most significantly, the whole point of the speech is Hannan's assertion that Britain is in the worst economic position of the G20, specifically on the issue of public debt." Again you've not listened to the speech properly. Below are two quotes from the speech.

"Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this house if your actions matched your words. Perhaps you would have more legitimacy in the councils of the world if the United Kingdom were not going into this recession in the worst condition of any G20 country."

"Everyone knows that Britain is the worst placed to go into these hard times. The IMF has said so. The European Commission has said so. The markets have said so"

At no point does he say that our dire economic position is based specifically on the issue of public debt. But he is entirely right when he asserts that Britain is worst placed. Even The Guardian confirms Hannan's statement this with two articles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/18/uk-recession-imf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/28/ilo-global-unemployment-to-soar


I'd like to draw your attention to the following government website. It clearly states that public debt as % of GDP for the UK was 49% at the end of February. Not 47.2% as you claim.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206

Bear in mind, that was at the end of February. We are now at the end of March. It will undoubtedly be higher now. Add to this that the UK's GDP is expected to shrink by 2.8% over the next year, and you'll realise that the figure of 49% WILL increase.


I agree with Joe Fraud when he says any sane person would of saved during the good times. Yesterday, Brown was publicly humiliated by the Chilean president who boasted that her country did exactly that... saved during the good times. Brown had the opportunity to do the same for the UK, but failed to. Here's a link to the BBC News article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7969234.stm

If you read that BBC news article you notice the following...

"Mr Brown responded by insisting that the International Monetary Fund believed the UK was better prepared than most countries for the economic crisis." This isn't the first time that Brown has made this comment, yet it contradicts every statement reported in MSM regarding the IMF's beliefs. Brown is clearly lying.

You imply that Hannan is claiming "others have the scope to take action while the UK does not", and you disagree with that claim. The truth is, it's not Hannan's claim. It's the clear opinion of the IMF. An organisation that is far more qualified than you or I to make that kind of pronouncement.

Daniel Hannan's speech has been viewed by over 1.4 million people so far, with print media finally relaying details of his speech to the wider public. The truth is, even after your initial article and two subsequent responses, Mr Hannan is far from "devalued". I think it's time you change the title of your article to "The Vindicated Dan Hannan".

Oh joy. In other words we are going to have 600,000 new wheelie bin snoopers, local council bureaucrats, loft insulation installers and various other pathetic excuses to keep people out the unemployment stats and voting for the hand that feeds them.

I suppose there is no point trying to explain that these non-jobs will, one day, have to be paid for by the ever-dwindling number of taxpayers working in that thing you hate - a productive enterprise.

You may as well pay 300,000 of them to dig holes, and the other 300,000 to fill them. It would cut down on admin.

Bangs head on table.

He did not say the car industry has been nationalised.

"that you have subsidised - where you have not nationalised outright - swathes of our economy, including the car industry and many of the banks"

http://www.anorak.co.uk/politicians/205086.html Text of speech

I would imagine hes referring to the 27 million handed over to Landrover and the further 2.3 billion available to the car industry.

Your figures are 2007 and don't include projected and the government borrowing for 2008/9.

"This financial year, the government is on course to borrow £95bn with just one month of data still to be published. The latest City forecasts and those from the IMF suggest borrowing of between £140bn and £170bn in the two following years.

Together the total increase in national debt over the three years between 2008-09 and 2010-11 is set to be far higher than the £356.4bn inherited by Labour in the spring of 1997.

Robert Chote, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: “Britain’s government borrowing in 2010 is projected to be by far the highest in the Group of 20 in spite of the fact that, alongside South Africa, we are the only two countries planning to withdraw fiscal stimulus – it does not give the Treasury a great deal of room for manoeuvre.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bc7978f4-1729-11de-9a72-0000779fd2ac.html

What many many included me wonder just why we have to borrow so much, any sane person would of saved during the good times ie: the past 10 odd years. Not Gorden hes thrown money around liked a drunken Sailor on his first night after a month at sea.

Yes Mervyn King backed the first, hes not backing a second though is he.


This is your second attempt at rebuttal and again its not worked. At least your trying unlike Dolly though.

Now, unlike Derek, I didn't claim to have published a point-by-point rebuttal. Even in such a short polemic, Hannah seems to get in plenty of nonsense on the facts. He appears to say that the car industry has been nationalised.

Most significantly, the whole point of the speech is Hannan's assertion that Britain is in the worst economic position of the G20, specifically on the issue of public debt.

Is he right? There are eight rich countries in the G20, with incomes per head over ,000 per annum. (The others are middle income or developing, ie Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Russia are the next three) Of the comparable developed group of economies, Britain has the seventh lowest level of public debt as a proportion of GDP of the eight countries.

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%

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.

The government is now running a larger deficit because it has a policy of fiscal stimulus. That is necessary and sensible, but Hannan opposes it. That is because he has the economics of Herbert Hoover. Hannan also opposes quantitative easing (which his own frontbench agrees is necessary).

The Conservatives are now getting excited at the question of a second fiscal stimulus. This is incoherent. Mervyn King backed the first stimulus; Germany has had a fiscal stimulus larger that the UK's in the first round. Yet the Tories opposed that, on the basis of their 'handbag economics' prejudices, which seems to believe that government can only make things worse in a recession. This position will not hold. Very specifically, it will not hold when 600,000 young people leave education this June, and another 600,000 the following June. For a good deal more than half of them to get jobs, it will require government action in expanding job and training opportunities, to be funded through debt. We can not afford not to do that, in my view.

Yes indeed. They could start by giving us the promised referendum, or was that just another lie among hundreds?

"The economics of Herbert Hoover."
It's now becoming more obvious that Daniel Hannan speaks the truth, and you are a liar.
These fairy tales about Hoover's policies being free market economics are refuted by anyone who cares to look into it, see e.g. http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/03/brad-delongs-distortion-of-hoover.html
Hannan said that he likes the fiscal policy of Ron Paul, see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510781,00.html
BTW, Ron Paul explained a little in an interview yesterday why the regulations laws under free market economics (100% reserves) are much tougher, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCBrsOpJCmw

The yanks seem to love him.

Worth a watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCcPhdfoNyw

So it looks like its only Sunder and Dolly that think Hannan's crap. Sounds about right.

Why can't you point it out by yourself Mike? Why is it always 'WE have got to do this, WE must do that' with you lot?

Don't you mean, 'YOU have got to do this, YOU must do that' perhaps?

And you'd better sit down after managing to admit 'that this was at least partially the government's fault'. Bra-vo. Well done for acknowledging that after 12 years in power, the Labour Party just might be a teensy-weensy bit culpable for our troubles.

And before you whine about an ad-hominem attack, I see you have really tackled the issues at CH. Braaa-vo again. Really.

What we should be pointing out is that Hannan's alternative would be more of the same deregulationist, free market nonsense which got us into this mess in the first place.

The problem is that this was at least partially the government's fault.

I think one only has to look at Conservative Home to see that the swivel-eyed loons are still very much present in the Tory party, and that the hard right are certainly still very influential.

Did anyone see Derek Draper on C4 news last night?
(Scruffy and rude - what impression does he thinks he actually makes?)
"A demented speech from a demented politician" - is that really the best criticism he could come up with?
Pathetic.

I resigned my LP membership one month ago. Why? Well the point is that Daniel Hannan articulated precisely why, and to the face of the grinning, clueless Brown. Derek Draper might not like to hear it but ordinary, working people are really suffering badly at the moment. The final straw for me, was the realisation that that suffering is going to be inflicted on my children and probably my children's children. When I look at precisely why I and my family are hurting I see Gordon Brown's disastrous policy decisions as being crucial in inflicting that pain. Why do we cheer at Hannan's speech? Because Brown, whilst delighting in his Grand Tour, with his underpants outside his trousers, `saving the world', has failed to get down and dirty with the the people of this country. He doesn't want to hear us, he doesn't want to see us. He doesn't seek our opinion. So when Daniel Hannan gets the chance to say to the moron's face, exactly what we're all dying to say, it feels good.

We all know that Brown is obsessed with his `legacy'. We all know that Brown is desperate for the validation of being properly elected as PM. It's not going to happen. Have you any idea how much people HATE him? I've voted Labour for 30 years. The next time that will happen will be when I'm 180.

Sunder

The lack of clarity in your analysis and response is astoundingly weak.

But yes lets have a real discussion, on a point by point basis shall we.

1. DH accepts that the storm is a global one, his sea fairing analogy points out that we were in a shaky financial state before the storm hit and now our leaking vessel is taking a real pounding. He blames the captain for not fixing the vessel during the longest period of calm we have ever known. All true…. No?

2. DH points out the error in Browns continued insistence that the UK is best placed to weather the storm. He points out independent organisations that disagree with Brown. He points out that the markets agree. In fact they all seem to agree that Ukplc is worst positioned to weather the storm. All true.… NO?

3. DH, I seriously doubt, but don’t know for sure, was never an advocate for racking up debt during the boom…. No?

4. DH points out that Brown is compounding the problem of debt with more debt, trying to borrow his way out of a crisis that is essentially caused by debt. He says we cant afford it..…No?

The reason Hannon has had 1,106,498 hits on YouTube is because he has articulated what many millions have wanted to say to Brown for years.

He has stuck it to a PM, used to getting his own way, right in the middle of his world grandstanding tour. He brought him down in the finest of tradition and did it in front of the EU. He took the wind out of his sails. When given the chance to respond Brown had no argument on any of the points that DH made, he just spouted a load of “EU should pull together and lead the way” rhetorical waffle.

The people are not fooled, a lot of people feel that DH spoke the truth with conviction.

So reply to the points DH made not the man or his politics or past mistakes, that, after all is not really a fight you can win, given your mans record.

Is this the promised response? The issues raised by Mr Hannan are still not answered.

By the way, there is a world of difference between objecting to over-regulation and being against effective regulation. The daft system introduced by Mr Brown (that's right - it was his system, not the Tories') for banks etc. did not involve over-regulation (that was constantly threatened by Europe) but was bad, ineffective regulation (as the Tories warned in 1997).

"Most of you don't like the article. But I don't personally find the responses convincing either. So let's see if we can get into a discussion."
Translation: You have comprehensively failed to refute this speech, so let's talk about something else. Be honest Sunder, who do you think you are fooling?

"He can make a speech and memorise it too (very Cameron)"
Translation: ooo he memorised the speech, he's clever because he went to a posh school, it's so unfair!

"And its appeal is also its rudeness. No elected politician (however much a Dem disliked Bush, or a Republican Clinton) would make a speech quite like that. It would backfire."
Translation: He insulted the Great Leader! Shame!

"His argument is simple and simplistic. I don't buy the 'playing the man' argument."
Translation: His argument is simply true, Sunder can't answer it honestly here. If the argument is so simple to refute, refute it.

"The Tories are lucky - they can oppose and shout and say not on our watch. But it is their philosophy which has been discredited."
Translation: Discredited where? The economy was in good shape in 97, and didn't require a huge credit boom to get there. Just because a bunch of sixth form debaters say it, don't make it so.

"Hannan's rant engages with none of the serious issues. What is he offering?"
Translation: He offers what people are desperate for, the truth. And there is no answer to it here.

"But it is quite a performance. Let us give him that"
Translation: Why can't something I say get 800,000 hits? It's not fair.

Looked every where, no rebuttal at this time. I guess Dolly and co are to interested in Guido to actually address real issues.

The financial mess that has emerged during the last few months has happened during a Labour administration, you say its due to following a discredited tory philosophy that were in this mess, you can blame the philosophy, however its the administration thats at fault for following philosophy the and thats Labour.

Yes the Labour government got it spectacularly wrong and we are all going to pay for many a year to come. The point of being in Government is to govern, the Labour government failed, you can not blame City, the CBI, the media or any one else. This government failed to regulate the city, its that simple.

The PM reveled in the good times. 21 June 2006, Mansion House, London

"Mr Lord Mayor, tonight we have more companies represented here from more countries of the world than ever before - and I welcome you all - and we can report that even in the most challenging of times - high and volatile oil prices, rising commodity prices and global political tension - London has enjoyed one of its most successful years ever, for which I congratulate all of you here on your leadership skills and entrepreneurship.

Financial services are now 7 per cent of our economy. Financial and business services as much as 10 per cent. A larger share of our economy than they are in any other major economy, contributing £19 billion of net exports to our balance of payments, a success all the more remarkable because while New York and Tokyo rely for business on their large domestic base, London's international ranking is founded on a large and expanding global market.

London now the home and natural location for 20 per cent of all cross border lending: 30 per cent of world foreign exchange turnover, 40 per cent of over-the-counter derivatives trades, 70 per cent of the global secondary bond market"

However the PM did not plan for the bad times, thats why the UK is in just about the worst position of any western country.

Come the next general election two simple questions

Will the country be more financially better off than 1997, and will we have more or less unemployment than 1997?

As for Mr Hannan hes just said what everyone wishes they could say, hence its popularity, that those in Labour don't understand that is telling.

Did he say something to upset you?

Thats right Charles. He did.

Why would the Editor of this website lie like that on national tv in the name of my party.

Derek Draper promised a line by line rebuttal of Daniel Hannan's speech on this site. As it turns out. It was a false promise (something we should be used to with Labour). Not one fact was refuted. The reason? Daniel Hannan's speech hit the nail on the head. The IMF has indeed declared that Britain is the worst placed western economy to weather this recession. Sterling has indeed devalued by 30% against all other major currencies (if other G20 economies were in such a dire straits as the UK, then their currencies would have devalued by roughly the same percentage). There is a clear reason for this. That reason is Gordon Brown.

You theorise that the truly impressive youtube numbers (over 800,000 so far) are due to Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and the US right-wing blogs. That's where it started, yes. But it has grown to such significant number more so due to people directing their friends and relatives to the video. The UK media all ignored the speech, so dissemination could only start from overseas. I received an email from an American friend, and in turn passed on the link to all my friends and family. And the reason so many people have passed on the link to this video, is because unlike you and Derek, most of the UK population are not die-hard Labour activists, and are intelligent enough to realise that Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years, and he bears direct responsibility for squandering the healthy economy he inherited from the Tories. It's not that people want "gloves off, angry, angry politics". They blame Gordon for raiding their pensions, introducing stealth taxes and raising others, and seeing Gordon get a pasting from Mr Hannan has cheered people. Many people would say the the same to our current Prime Minister if the got the chance.

Derek Draper came across as a petulant child on the BBC's Daily Politics show. Dismissing Daniel Hannan as "whatever his name is" was a pathetic attempt to paint the MEP as a 'nobody' that should be ignored. However, it will take more that mere petulance to divert people's attention. Coming through on the promise of a line by line rebuttal would have helped. Nothing in this article (or your response in the comments section) even came close to doing that.

You add in the comments that "The Tories are lucky - they can oppose and shout and say not on our watch. But it is their philosophy which has been discredited" To a certain extent, that's true. Lack of regulation in the financial industry has caused this recession. But what you ignore two important facts.

1. Whilst Tories may support deregulation, Labour has governed with a sizeable majority in Parliament for over a decade. And during their tenure, they failed to put in place any regulations or safeguards. Saying the Tories would have done the same, or blaming the media doesn't absolve Labour from blame.

2. It is undisputed fact that the Tories had left the economy in surplus when Labour took over. But whilst Labour have driven the UK into debt, the Tories wouldn't have. And instead of now having to borrow heavily, the Tories would have been able to spend their savings (instead of lumbering future tax payers with unprecedented debt). It is Gordon Brown's unprecedented borrowing that has given the UK the distinction of being the worst placed G20 nation to weather this global recession, and devalued Sterling to such an extent. Daniel Hannan highlighted this fact with his ship analogy, and this is why his speech is so popular. Readers know the truth, and are relieved that there is someone in public office that is able to voice their feelings so eloquently. That you are unable to refute even one line only adds to the power of his speech.

The reason you don't find any of the responses convincing, is that you have your head stuck in the sand.

Labour are a spent force, and will undoubtedly suffer heavy losses at the next General Election. The only downside is that we'll have to wait for a year to place our votes. And God only knows how much more damage Gordon Brown will inflict.

What a delightful addendum to let us know that "Sunder has responded to your comments at length". It's the pinnacle on the top of the already gloriously misguided claims made about this article.

Hmmm. So now we get onto a bit of substance from Sunder.

Your basic point appears to be that Hannan didn't like regulation, but in fact we need far more regulation. The problem with this sort of thinking is that it assumes all regulation is broadly the same and the choice is simply about having more or less of it. In fact the real debate always ought to be about the effectiveness of regulation.

The City was not unregulated - in fact the costs of regulation in the City have apparently gone up 50% in the last 10 years. The problem was that the regulation wasn't very effective. The previous system had been governed by the principle of 'buyer-beware' (banks were responsible for checking the individual risks they were taking) and the 'Governor's Eyebrow' (the Gov of the Bank of England kept an eye on what the banks were up to and how the system was working - if he raised his eyebrow they altered their practices). The current system is one of FSA supervision and regulatory badging. This is much more onerous, but the FSA was uninterested in the system or business models and only concerned with checking banks had appropriate staff and were ticking the right boxes. Replacing buyer beware with regulatory badging meant that banks no longer had to use their own judgement - the ratings agencies would give you their judgement: if they said this asset was AAA, who were you to argue with them? The problem, is that their modelling was all wrong. A potentially much bigger problem if you listen to people like Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Benoit Mandelbrot is that the modelling never had a chance of getting the risk estimate right - it's essentially beyond current mathematics.

So where are we left? Moving to a more regulated system didn't help us, it made the problems in finance worse. So, if you want 'more' regulation, you need to start spelling out what sort of regulation you're talking about (and perhaps why simply more effective regulation isn't enough...).

I visited to see what the response to Hannan's speech was as. I like to hear both sides of an argument. I realise after reading this that there isn't a response. You just hope to discredit Hannan through past associations. You've obviously gone searching for anything you can pick him up on to attack his character, and found nothing of note. Very weak.

As for the points on regulation Mr Katwala, the banks spent millions complying with regulations (e.g. Basle 1 and 2). Where did it get them or us? Regulation should be light-touch, independently conceived and competently administered (i.e. the very antithesis of that delivered by Brown's FSA). More regulation does not necessarily mean better regulation, nor does less regulation necessarily mean poorer regulation, and it is a fallacy to suggest otherwise.

I watched the tele this lunchtime and was told that if I come to this site I will find out 'line by line why' Daniel Hannan was wrong in his recent speech to Gordon Brown. Could someone please post a link to the page I have yet to find the rebuke.

Absolutely pathetic. Not a single telling blow in the entire smear attempt puff piece yet several instances of readily recognised fallacious argument. Ad hominem, argument by association, etc etc.

Fair enough, maybe it is a bit rich of him to lecture Brown on lack of regulation, but he doesn't actually do that for much of his speech, and it's worth mentioning that everyone in the good times encouraged deregulation, hopefully that won't happen next time.

But the vast majority of his argument was robust. Brown has created many of them problems we face today through pension fund robberies, reckless government spending, and lots of little mistakes like the gold reserves.

He didn't speak too much on financial regulation, but more on government spending and overdoing fiscal stimulus, which was a very valid point. You say he has no plan himself, but it is enough of a plan now to stop doing these two things. It is an anti-Brown rant, and reflects the mood of the country perfectly.

Thanks for your comments and joining in. Most of you don't like the article. But I don't personally find the responses convincing either. So let's see if we can get into a discussion.

Let me acknowledge some of Dan Hannan's qualities: he is articulate and bright.
He can make a speech and memorise it too (very Cameron). He used to write newspaper
editorials and can make a simple, direct argument well. I am sure he makes the speech
quite often - in the European Parliament, and to the bathroom mirror. There is an
additional element of political theatre, because the Prime Minister is there.

But the phenomenon is, in part, driven strongly by the US wing-nuts, who rather miss
Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. And its appeal is also its rudeness. No elected
politician (however much a Dem disliked Bush, or a Republican Clinton) would make a
speech quite like that. It would backfire. So it is intriguing to see a Brit do it.
This appeals to those who want gloves off, angry, angry politics. A minor backbencher
can do that. Hannan is well-known in insider politico circles - as engaging, having a taste for stunts and self-publicity, and as being the most Eurosceptic member of a very sceptic
party (which is why the leadership prefer him out of sight most of the time).

His argument is simple and simplistic. I don't buy the 'playing the man' argument.
Here, many people see him for the first time ever. It is surely relevant to note that
Hannan blames the PM for the crisis, yet was himself championing for years policies
which would have made it worse (and has learnt nothing). The Tories are lucky - they
can oppose and shout and say not on our watch. But it is their philosophy which has
been discredited. In his more thoughtful moments, David Cameron comes close to
admitting this.

The government got things wrong. There should have been tighter regulation of the
financial system. But the City, the CBI, the media, the political debate was constantly
saying there was too much regulation. That can be true - and should be acknowledged by
Ministers - while also noting the obvious point that this is a global event, and the
collapse of Lehman has had enormous repercussions everywhere (look at central and east
europe).

Hannan's rant engages with none of the serious issues. What is he offering? The economics of Herbert Hoover. There is almost nothing in his speech to engage seriously with, because
it is an anti-everything rant.

But it is quite a performance. Let us give him that.

This is just so funny. Draper promised that he had fisked Hannan when he appeared on the telly, and all we get is this limp pathetic personal attack that is a viscious as being licked by a guinea pig. There is not even an attempt to take on the substance of Hannan's speech, just three "interesting" things about Hannan, none of which is revelatory in any way, nor even midly amusing. Just dull. And none of the comments is supportive. This is only the second time I have visited this sad little site. No doubt the next time I try to return it will have closed. Bye bye.

Yes, this 3 minute speech by Mr Hannan was very interesting. It is amazing that many Labour faithful appeer to conveniently forget that Mr Brown was Chancellor of The Exchequor for 10 years under Blair. In effect he (Brown) was incharge of the economic policies of this Labour government. It also seems to be forgotten that Gordon Brown still appears to have his fingers all over the 'Levers of Power' as far as economic policy are concerned.

As much as Labour activist appear not to like any criticism of any sort, and are are quite happy to slag off the Tory, Lib-Dems and others. It rich of them to accuse Mr Hannan of what he said.

Mr Brown appears to becoming more and more like an old fashioned Eastern Bloc 'apparatchik' incapable of delegating responsibility to others. Mr Darling just appears to be a 'Mouthpiece' for Chancellor Brown who is combining the roles as 'Finance Minister' and PM (Dear Leader).

As much as Mr Brown would like to see the whole World doing as it is told as regards 'Spending Its Way Out of Recession', he at least is begining to take good advice (hopefully) after what Mervyn King said - the 'Cupboard is Bare'... there ain't no more Cash!!

(More sounds of breaking Cell Phones from Number 10?)

Mr Brown and Friends are looking more and more like 'Yesterdays Men' as Labour goes through its death throws just like the Callaghan Labour Government did in the late 1970s.

Whats the betting Brown will instruct Alistari Darling to make clandestine overtures to the IMF and World Bank for bail-out loans just like Dennis Healey had to do.

Anyone for an early Election - or will those be posponed on some spurious grounds of 'National Emergency?' (Civil Contingencies Act 2004' maybe!)

Frankly, this is pathetic. My original thought was that this 'article' was a classic display of character assassination and, as others I see have also noticed, a case of playing the man and not the ball.

You know, the more you write for labourlist.org Sunder, the more painfully obvious it is that you really only like hearing the sound of your own voice and navel-gazing about your own self importance.

Try actually detailing your argument against Hannan for a start, and if you can't - don't write about it!

derek..said on the daily politics that the hannan article was reputed line line by line onlabour list..where I cant see this..just aload of polemic messenger bashing.Please Derek in future show a bit more objectivity and understanding of logic.

I'm a Labour party member of 13+ years.

This article is such a transparent ad hominem attack, it's actually quite pathetic.

Is this the best we as a Labour party can do? We are doomed, I fear.

Near the start you say:

I note three interesting things about this:

You then go on to write something void of any interest at all.

Dan has around 700,000 view (and counting) you have a little over a dozen comments.

Do you really think you are the man to tell Dan how it is done?

OK, so Hannan's a cad and an extreme right wing Tory toff and worse.

So, why hasn't anything new Labour has done, ever, ever gone viral in 24 hours, then?

Even we classical liberal Hayekian saddos and train-spotters (that is, "right wing" to you lot of yesterday's men) on

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/daniel-hannan-rips-the-pants-off-gordon-brown/
did a thing on it.

Didn't your mate Derek just say 'go to Labourlist to see a line by line deconstruction of the Hannan speech' so err, where is it? Is Derek lying? Not again? Surely not so soon?!

Oh dear, this article hasn't gone the way you expected, has it? Perhaps you could post a follow-up, highlighting all the points in Hannan's speech you disagree with and are able to correct...

...then again, perhaps you can't.

You haven't got the wit to attempt to deal with this in a remotely positive fashion, have you? No, dismiss it as the work of the right wing blogosphere because after all everyone who has watched that footage is a right wing nutter.

Afterwards we'll sit down and wonder why this online engagement thing isn't working very well.

10 comments and not one of them agreeing with the party line.

Face it, Hannan is right, and everyone knows it. http://tinyurl.com/caxldu - 660k views.

If you want Labour to remain as a credible political force, then you're going to need to face up to some harsh (for you) realities - the British people are not Fabians, they don't want to be told what to do, and they are fed up to the back teeth of people spending their money and planning their lives for them.

Of course, you won't listen, and thereby you'll damn yourselves to the political wilderness. Good.

One of the reasons why Iceland has suffered so much is because Gordon Brown destroyed one of their banks through using anti-terrorist legislation. Worth bearing in mind before you criticise Hannan for his support of Iceland.

Poor Gordon. It must be awful to have a new arse ripped for him.

Sunder, it was great to see Dan stabbing Brooon to death in such an effective way. I could watch it all day...

The point of your article, I take it, is "it takes one to know one".

I have to agree with the "play the ball not the man" sentiment.

I don't particularly care what he has said previously because I'm pleased to see somebody saying to Gordon Brown what so many of us are thinking.

I noticed Gordon's response to the speech was to ignore it. It's a shame Mr Brown doesn't care to listen to criticism, whether it comes from Mr Hannan, Alistair Darling, Vince Cable or Mervyn King.

Play the ball not the man. You attach Daniel for his praise of Iceland. Er who knighted Fred Goodwin for his "services to banking" and has designed an entire govenment department around regulatory reform...
I see no comment on the excellent content of Daniel's speech. Can you point to any statements he made that are incorrect?
The game is up and Brown is shredded. After the intervention of King, Brown's political strategy is in ruins. If you think that an election campaign as outlined by Hattie yesterday based on smears and class war will win, think again.

Thanks for drawing this excellent speech to my attention.

I seem to recall that the target of the speech (seen grinning inanely towards the end) spent many years proposing "light touch" regulation and trying to stop Brussels over-regulating the City of London. He then (ab)used anti-terrorism laws to kick Iceland when it was down.

I notice that you do not suggest that Mr Hannan's critique of our Prime Minister was wrong in any respect. That is not surprising, because there is no answer to the points he makes with devastating effect.

Why do you assume that Labour supporters also must support the EU? I don't.
The sooner we are out of that bureaucratic fraudulent nightmare of an organisation the better for a social democratic independent UK.
The Labour Party should get more in touch with the British people on the EU.

So basically this article was an attack on Hannan and the Tories? Hate to say it Sunder but all Hannan did is echo what I and I suspect a lot of other people - not just Tory Trotts - think at the moment.

What amazed me is the way Brown sat there smiling throughout, scribbling away as if none of what he was saying mattered. To people like you Sunder and others that tow the party line it may not have mattered - to me it showed the contempt that Gordon Brown appears to hold everyone else.

As little as I agree with Hannan, he has a lot going for him, he's clear, articulate, has a bit of personality and the balls to do this. He makes anyone Labour has to offer look old and tired and stupid. And, strictly speaking, to those of us in the rality based community, he's not actually wrong. The fact he's accidentally got the internet 'right' and Labour can't however hard they try cheers me up too.

Dear Sunder,

Your article is what is known as "shooting the messenger".

There is NOT ONE WORD in your article which challenges the message; just the messenger.

It's empty, lazy, opportunistic spin. I bet Derek loves it.

Regards,

CS

Ha! You lot can only dream of one of your number making a speech this scathingly accurate and popular. Then again, the 'accurate' bit doesn't bother you too much, does it? As long as you would get your mits on another couple of levers of power to jiggle about at random - unlike those do-nothing tories - who cares?

Hannan rails against the ludicrous bail outs of banks and favoured companies which will make us last, if ever, out of recession.

The leadership in Iceland had the grace to step down. We can only dream of the current cabal and their apparatchiks having such humility.

You lot are desperate messenger shooters.