my enemy's embarrassing associate is my friend

If it was me spinning the Daniel Hannan/NHS thing for Labour, I’d come up with something like this:

While there is no doubt that Mr Cameron, along with many Tories, are perfectly sincere in their appreciation of the NHS there are others within the Party like Mr Hannan who put their narrow ideological beliefs above the health of the people of Britain. Perhaps Mr Hannan’s views reflect those of a minority of Tories. We don’t know how many people within the Conservative Party believe that the National Health service is a “mistake” “imposed” on the people of Britain for sixty years. But however many there are, a Conservative victory in the next election would give them the opportunity to influence health policy.

At this point I’d add something to the effect that it would have been better for Mr Hannan to have shared his no doubt sincere beliefs with his electorate directly, rather than through the medium of an American chat show. But what do New Labour give us? This:

Health Secretary Andy Burnham has accused a Tory MEP who attacked the NHS on American TV of being "unpatriotic".

…"I would almost feel... it is unpatriotic because he is talking in foreign media and not representing, in my view, the views of the vast majority of British people and actually, I think giving an unfair impression of the National Health Service himself, a British representative on foreign media."

So Hannan should shut up because it’s “unpatriotic” to have a minority opinion. I can just see the look of idiot cunning that came over Burnham’s face when he thought up that zinger. Aside from anything else, trying to stifle Hannan at this point is stupid. He’s the government’s only hope. He’s also up to his neck in the Tories’ farcical Euro shenanigans. Labour should be encouraging him to talk all the time about as many things as possible with Cameron constantly being asked who this fellow is and what he has to do with you.

Comments

[Chris Williams]

Yabbut, if your default response to any given crisis is to wrap yourself in the flag, then wrapping yourself in the flag is what you _do_.

The other big headache for Cameron is whether or not he really wants British Tories to piss off the US President at this stage. This isn't something that Labour can use, of course, because it's only going to be a problem if the Tories win next time: and the majority of the human beings who do not feel able to predict this outcome are in the Cabinet.

[Chris Williams]

Erratum to above: After 'human beings' insert '(and Mandelson)'

[jamie]

I think a Cameron government will see the special relationship nonsense finally die of absurdity. It's pretty obvious that Obama isn't interested in it, whoever's in power in Britain and Cameron wants to split the UK from the major ruling powers in Europe, then the Yanks will say: OK we'll go with the continent.

[Richard J]

It's interesting that in my working life, which has a strong bias to small c conservatism (by both specialism and organisation), I don't think I've met a single person yet who's even vaguely excited at the prospect of the Tory victory. There's a lot of fatalistic nodding and practical discussions about what to expect, but no real enthusiasm. It's nothing at all like how everybody seemed to feel back in 96/early 97. (Admittedly, I was 18 back then...)

[Tom]

If all we've got to look forward to is the libertarian entryists trying to force Cameron to slaughter every socialist sacred cow in sight and a special relationship with the Latvian SS, it might be time to seek asylum in Scotland.

[jamie]

"There's a lot of fatalistic nodding and practical discussions about what to expect, but no real enthusiasm."

Blair effect, I think. A hell of a lot of people are embarrassed by the weay they felt in 97 and feel they'd been made mugs of. That would be all to the good if a fifth of the '97 voters hadn't responded by stopping voting altogether by 2001. They've not come back, either.

[Cian O'Connor]

I don't think its that. Voting for Labour in 97 felt like a positive step to a lot of people. Sure they were fed up with the Tories, but they were looking forward to Labour, there was a vision thing. Sure much of it turned out to be a mirage, but it didn't seem that way at the time.

Whereas the Tories? I mean who the fuck knows what to expect from the Tories. They probably don't know, except for vague hopes of making England safe for Etonians. And it will be a very English government, that's for fucking sure.

[Dave Weeden]

Cian, what you see as a drawback, I see as a plus. (I've tilted toward voting Tory, as it's the only tactical move to unseat the spineless jobsworth who currently represents me. I've decided for the moment that I can't: still too much to dislike.) I don't want grand visions.

Hannan has managed a strike back of sorts in his Telegraph blog. As Jamie says, the attempts to call him unpatriotic are going to help rather than harm him. The best way to hurt him is to show the Jon Stewart piece on Glenn Beck followed by the Beck/Hannan interview. Also, any two minutes of Beck talking. Being a guest on that show would shred the credibility of Jesus. There's no need for an attack. Like Napoleon said, "When you see your enemy making a mistake, do not interrupt him."

[Cian O'Connor]

Sorry I don't follow.

The reason that we don't know what to expect from the Tories is that they haven't really said. I don't think the vision thing is an advantage, or a disadvantage, it just is. However it does help explain why people were excited about Labour, and aren't about the Tories.

Given who will be running the Tories once they're in power, I suspect we will look back nostalgically to Labour. Things can always get worse, and I rather suspect they will.

[ejh]

You mean sometimes they don't?