Evening Quickie: Hashtag wars, health hysteria and socialist nationalism.
As Angela has already pointed out slagging off the NHS is a national pastime… except when a British politician does it on American TV!!
Charlotte Gore has made an excellent point. Do we really want all our politicians to be mindless hacks desperate only pander to populist lines? Is it any wonder that politics in Great Britain is in such a state when those individuals thrive? Whereas the truly courageous among them have to hold their tongues or stifle their opinions?
In terms of delivery Hannan has been at all times eloquent, well mannered and assertive. We are lucky to have such an individual as a public servant. Free speech is an ugly thing. When it is allowed people are always going to say things that make you uncomfortable. This episode hasn’t proven ourselves as “Liberals” very comfortable with free speech…
The NHS might actually be one of the worst ways funding healthcare in this country but what happened on twitter was emoting without thinking. Emoting without thinking doesn’t ever lead to good policy – well, it doesn’t lead to liberal policy…
What is more worrying, however, is that an appendage of the state is now a matter of national pride. Daniel Hannan has been called a “traitor”. Are we so insecure as a nation that we can’t handle debate? There should be no matter on which a politician should not be allowed to speak or be so much as hesitant or afraid to do so.
In my mind I have struggled to understand why I’ve seen hospitals in third world countries cleaner and better equipped and staffed than those in the UK. This is the conclusion I have come too. If you agree then join us and don’t let hysterical bullies get you down. If you don’t agree then it’s freespeach ‘innit?!
August 14th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
This episode hasn’t proven ourselves as “Liberals” very comfortable with free speech…
Why? Unless Andy Burnham’s changed parties without anyone noticing, I don’t recall any one in this party opposing Hannan’s right to say whatever idiotic things he wants.
And to criticise ‘emoting without thinking’ and then call someone a Nazi in the next paragraph strikes me as being just a little bit hypocritical.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
First of all: http://www.irfanahmed.org/2009/08/remove-whip-from-mr-hannan.html
And generally what I’ve seen on Twitter and on facebook has simply amounted to hang him, flog him Dan Hannan wants to kill my babies.
Now I never used the word “Nazi” did I? And I never called a specific “someone” a “Nazi” at all. You can distinguish national socialism from the specific national socialist regime of Nazi Germany and that’s what I was trying to do.
We’ve merged an appendage of the state created according to the doctrines of socialism and have defended it as a matter of “national pride”. I’ve found the conflation of the ideologies of nationalism and socialism deeply worrying and unhelpful to debate.
So it shouldn’t strike you as being hypocritical because I haven’t been hypocritical. I’ve thought about this a great deal.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
First, if the only Liberal Democrat example you can find is Irfan Ahmed, you’re on shaky ground, and when he’s just said that the Tory whip should be withdrawn from Dan Hannan, it doesn’t really do much for your argument. Free speech does not mean consequence-free speech.
And if you’ve really ‘thought about this a great deal’, you might have considered that using the term ‘national socialism’ is going to make people think you’re referring to Nazis – and no, the phrase ‘This, ladies and gentlemen, is what national socialism looks like’ does not ‘distinguish national socialism from the specific national socialist regime of Nazi Germany’ – given that the vast majority of references to national socialism are about Nazism. If you think you’ve had some great insight into a distinct new flavour of socialism that can only be referred to as ‘national socialism’ while being thoroughly distinct from Nazism, then fine, write a paper on it and wow the world of political theorists, but use ‘national socialism’ in a ranty blog post, and most people are just going to assume Godwin’s Law has been applied quicker than usual.
August 14th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
So, the call by Liberal Vision last year for our MPs to adopt a whole bunch of policies likely to be unpopular within the Party or lose their seats was not a call to mindlessly adopt populist policies contrary to their principles.
Are you sure that you’re in the right organisation, Sara?
August 14th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Nick, darling, I have been dealing with a multitude of twitter and facebook abuse all day. Irfan Ahmed was the only one I could find quickly. Would you like me to find them all? It’s 11pm, can it wait until tomorrow?
Yes, in retrospect I should have called it socialist nationalism. I merely wished to comment upon the conflation of the two (equally invalid) ideologies. I guess I’m just better at distinguishing between ideologies and specific regimes than “most people” – sorry for the BA PIR hackery. As you have so politely pointed out I did, indeed, grossly over estimate “most peoples” similar ability. For that I do apologise.
Must try harder F -.
August 14th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Yes, Mark for once in my life I’m in an organisation that I am incredibly proud and feel blessed to be a part of.
August 14th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
And Edwin Loo did threaten to assault me again today so I guess I’m truly part of the team!
http://twitter.com/EdwinLoo/status/3305023666
^_^
August 14th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Here’s an idea for the future – if you’re going to make claims in a blog post, make sure you’ve got the evidence to back them up first. And don’t try and insult my intelligence by claiming you weren’t making Nazi comparisons – it just makes you and your organisation look even sillier.
August 14th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Sara,
Then I’m pleased for you. And threats of physical violence have no place in modern society…
August 15th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Nick, here’s another facebook group – started by a former Chair of Liberal Youth: http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=Daniel+Hannan&init=quick#/group.php?gid=116027866044&ref=ss and is filled with Liberal Democrats – which calls Daniel Hannan a traitor and says he should “stop going on US TV to shit on Britain.”
I genuinely wasn’t making Nazi comparisons. I genuinely regard socialist nationalism as a worrying conflation of two equally invalid ideologies. Thank you for completely missing the point. But we’re going to fight our corner over here.
I also had no idea so many people were involved in a long term romantic relationship with the NHS. Who knew?
August 15th, 2009 at 11:04 am
[...] law strikes again: What is more worrying, however, is that an appendage of the state is now a matter of national [...]
August 15th, 2009 at 11:05 am
[...] telling that they can grasp a political reality that escapes Sara Scarlett who oddly [...]
August 15th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Ok – I’ve taken out the offending references, however, the conflation of national pride and a socialist appendage of the state still disgusts me and otherwise I stand by what I’ve written.
August 15th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
[...] law strikes again: What is more worrying, however, is that an appendage of the state is now a matter of national [...]
August 15th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
[...] Last night I was going to write about my two cents in the latest spat between Charlotte Gore and James Graham but managed to get distracted from doing that when I noticed a rather inflammatory-titled post on Liberal Vision. [...]
August 16th, 2009 at 9:44 am
“Here’s an idea for the future – if you’re going to make claims in a blog post, make sure you’ve got the evidence to back them up first.”
Well Nick, perhaps you could apply this logic to yourself, were you incapable of reading sara’s comment that “It’s 11pm, can it wait until tomorrow?”
August 17th, 2009 at 10:15 am
@ Mark V. “So, the call by Liberal Vision last year for our MPs to adopt a whole bunch of policies likely to be unpopular within the Party or lose their seats was not a call to mindlessly adopt populist policies contrary to their principles.”
I’ve read this several times and still don’t understand it. What are you referring to? And do you understand the meaning of the term “populist”?