Absolutement. At what point is a major part of government spending off limits to err…politicians? Me no comprende senor. By that logic we should all know our place and defer to our betters. Unpatriotic?!? Pah.

You’re spot on with the effect on the ‘solid English’ middle ground embodied by the Mail and its readers.

There’s been a distinct shift in editorial stance in the Mail (not sure about others) toward the Tories. It’s almost as if they’ve become the new New Labour to the patriotic, traditionally conservative mind set, with a string of pieces attacking them.

Hannangate seems to have been a godsent catalyst for dissatisfaction with the Tories. I think Labour would be better off taking a step back from the whole thing if they want to capitalise on it, lest they be seen as jumping on a grassroots bandwagon, or alienating large numbers of established supporters with the unpatriotic stuff that is only going to put lefties off.

This entry should have age restrictions, my goodness. Good though!

Hannan, as we know, spoke in defence of Kaminski moments before the Polish MEP spoke in defence of the Lisbon Treaty. That must of hurt Hanny. I’m sure all that Burnham – who looks like Mark Steel, right? Has anyone seen them in the same room? – aimed to do was kick Han while he was down. And don’t nobody tell me O’HannanHanraHan isn’t down at the moment, just because of that cheeky grin, look at the above figures. 1% in a YouGov poll!

As for patriotism, of course what Hansome Han did was unpatriotic, he went abroad to kick up a stink about our system, it might be a low, ad hominem blow to shake that particular stick like Burnham did, but whether we buy into the patriotic thing, what Hannan did was almost textbook unpatriotic act.

“Patriotism is a retarded sentiment which should be left to the fifteen year old kids in AOL and MSN chatrooms”

I’ve long thought that Samuel Johnson (1709-84), the famed lexicographer, had the definitive steer on “patriotism” according to his biographer, James Boswell.

“Patriotism,” said Johnson with no further explanation, “is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

Well, I made the same point on twitter that branding him as unpatriotic would play well with the DM crowd and less with the Guardian crowd.

But I had quite a few Guardianistas who said they felt proud of the NHS as a national institution and thus were fully behind Burnham’s comments.

I don’t have a problem with that. I think being proud of our national insitutions is no bad thing.

But then I’m not against nationalism anyway. I think there can be positive nationalism and doesn’t always have to descend into American-style jingoism.

That the NHS is a national institution has nothing to do with the concept of ‘patriotism’, even if I was to concede your point, Sunny, that there can be a positive form of nationalism. Which I don’t, but that’s not the issue.

There is nothing about the NHS as an institution that marks it out as intrinsically British. We weren’t the first to come up with it, we certainly don’t have the most comprehensive or egalitarian system in the world. I am proud of the NHS – but it’s got nothing to do with being British. There is literally no reason to link pride in the institution to the superlative-inducing pride described by the concept of patriotism.

The concept of patriotism shuts down debate; suddenly the focus of any debate ceases to be about the issue and becomes about competing claims to Britishness. Whatever the hell that is, in a nation built of four countries and the immigrant labour of millions of Asians, Afro-Carribeans and other minorities.

Moreover, Burnham’s attack on Hannan as being unpatriotic could just as easily have been used against the Left – and there are plenty on the Left who attack what Burnham’s government have done to the institution. The only difference is that the criticisms of the Left don’t get as widely reported (because we don’t get invited on Fox News, surprisingly) and therefore present a less opportune target for a government desperately trying to get a positive news cycle.

Sunny’s right here: to argue that we shouldn’t take pride in a national institution on the grounds it might be taken as jingoistic is fucking ‘retarded’.

Our health service is better than the US’s: if saying that makes me a ‘racist’ then paint my arse with the Union flag and spank me to the tune of Rule Britania.

But it isn’t better because its British. Furthermore, there are a number of health systems around Europe that deliver universal health care quite differently from the NHS, very often to favourable comparison on outcomes, costs or both. Criticism of the NHS as a British institution taking a lead from there would be no more patriotic than Hannan. It would, however, have the virtue of quite possibly being true. Which says about what patriotism is worth in terms of a public policy debate, or indeed at all.

“Patriotism is a retarded sentiment which should be left to the fifteen year old kids in AOL and MSN chatrooms”

A little advice – people who use ‘retarded’ as an insult should steer well away from comparisons to kids in chatrooms, as it’s a comparison that is very likely to rebound on you…

@10…how so?

Because *normally* they’re the only ones stupid or uninformed enough to use disablist slurs in public forums, that’s why…

No.

Next question.

Being neither stupid nor uninformed (nor disablist), you will have to forgive me. This article was not purpose written for LibCon, it was written for my own site, with a sense of anger compressed into the ten minutes I had to write the thing.

As far as hate-filled, sickening and potentially harmful phrases go, ‘unpatriotic’ is nowhere near as bad as using ‘retarded’ as a slur. Fucking Hell.

ED: Sorry, Andrew got there first. I wouoldn’t have commented if I’d seen.

“Being neither stupid nor uninformed (nor disablist), you will have to forgive me.”

You’re clearly one of the three – pick one. There is no more justification for use of a term like that than for saying ‘patriotism is totally gay’, or the racist equivalent.

Imagine a Muslim MP going over to the Middle East – on a trip paid for by a foreign government or poltical party or corporation – and describing, say, the British army as “evil”, “rubbish” or “*****”… the Far-Right hacks, tabs and bloggers would have a field day; consider the treatment meted out to Virendra Sharma by Iain Dale and some of his nuttier closet-BNP followers, in which Sharma was accused of treachery for praising NSCB.

Hannan’s comments were about a million times worse, and a million times more unpatriotic. Cantering off to the States on a trip paid for, well, we don’t yet know who paid for it, swanning around with the scummiest or Redneck low-life, appearing on Fox News and slating the NHS, how can Cameron possibly defend such action, and shirk away from disciplining him?!

Those quotes of his will play again and again and again, right up till the General Election.

There is nothing about the NHS as an institution that marks it out as intrinsically British. We weren’t the first to come up with it,

Unfortunately you miss the point about patriotism. It’s got nothing to do with being unique – just about having some pride in what you have. For example I may be proud of my record collection. I can still be proud despite the fact that those records aren’t unique in any intrinsic sense.

In the same way – you can be proud of your country, the way it’s run, it’s history, culture, it’s institutions etc without necessarily needing them to be unique from everyone else. It’s a whole package. And it’s a package that you like or at least like bits of.

Having pride in our national institions is nothing to sneer at, especially since it encourages people to keep them going, to contribute to them and to go further than is necessary.

The NHS makes me proud to be British, but I don’t support the NHS because I’m proud to be British.

Even if there is nothing intrinsically British about the NHS in the abstract, it came into being in the context of British culture and has both shaped and been defended by British culture. That is something that we can take pride in.

To be fair to Andy Burnham, I think he was suggesting that going overseas to slam our health system in other countries behind our backs, without having the guts to do TV interviews on the subject here, is unpatriotic. I think he kind of has a point there, although instead of the word “unpatriotic”, I’d use the word “cowardly”.

However, Shatterface’s comment is perverse.

“Sunny’s right here: to argue that we shouldn’t take pride in a national institution on the grounds it might be taken as jingoistic is fucking ‘retarded’.”

Absolutely no-one is saying we shouldn’t take pride in a national institution. We shouldn’t take pride in it for the simple reason that it’s British, any more than we should take pride in Enoch Powell or Oswald Moseley because they were British. We take pride in the NHS for other reasons.

“Our health service is better than the US’s: if saying that makes me a ‘racist’ then paint my arse with the Union flag and spank me to the tune of Rule Britania.”

Who accused you of being racist? I don’t see why you feel the need to adopt a right-wing lexicon and the vocabulary of victimhood when no-one has made those accusations.

The concept of patriotism shuts down debate; suddenly the focus of any debate ceases to be about the issue and becomes about competing claims to Britishness.

Also – political opponents don’t need patriotism to claim or shut down debate. They do so anyway. For example right-wingers constantly claim that debate on immigration is shut down. They’ve been claiming all week that people aren’t debating the issues around the NHS even though no one has stopped them.

People might use the patriotic card to shut down debate – but you can easily use the same card to take the opposite position. for example you could argue that it’s patriotic to want a better healthcare system for the UK, or that it’s patriotic to want to pull out of Iraq to save the lives of American/ British soldiers. It’s a card anyone can use.

But patriotism tied to institutions that are essentially universalist and egalitarian in nature? That is a form of patriotism and nationalism I can certainly support. And that is why the right will want to avoid it.

And race doesn’t even come into it – Brits can be black, brown or whatever colour they wish to be. And we can still be proud of the NHS – my mum was nurse for decades.

@ 18…Even the word ‘patriotism’ should give away the attachment that the concept has to a country. It’s not about having some pride in what you have, it’s about being devoted to one’s country by virtue of the fact that you are from the country. And that’s about the least sensible thing I’ve ever heard of.

But you haven’t begun to answer the other criticisms which I’ve voiced, Sunny. If being against the NHS is ‘unpatriotic’, then what about being against the army? Or against the State? Why is one considered unpatriotic, but the others aren’t? All of them are equally legitimate issues in the wider debate about how people should be governed, and the uses to which our collective resources should be put?

Or, if attacking the NHS in a foreign country is unpatriotic, then what about the international links of the Trades Union or socialist movements? We happily swan off to Brazil or wherever to carp and bitch to one another about the state of our home countries, and to offer support and sympathy to fellow activists who come to carp and bitch about theirs. We also work for change, while at home – but then so does Daniel Hannan, whether we like the change or not.

In ref to Dave Simple, I thought this piece was saying that dissing the nhs is not unpatriotic?

Have I missed summat?

Dissing the NHS is not unpatriotic. That is precisely what I said.

Though getting my name right would be useful.

Heh. Whether or not patriotic pride is an appropriate way to esteem the NHS, the more important point is that this was a doltish piece of political strategising on Burnham’s part. In the short term, he was ridiculed, and that meant that the pressure on the Tories was lessend. And in the long-term, painting your opponents as unpatriotic/alien/other/traitorous is a US-style culture warrior tactic. And the left don’t win culture wars, as I’ve emphasised on my own blog. Looking at the US, I suspect that’s true, at least in part, because the left simply don’t have enough crazy to fight on those terms. So no patriotism jibes in future, please. Whether or not it makes sense to feel patriotic about the NHS, it’s cack-handed strategy.

Hannan isn’t in the UK arguing we should learn from Europe, he’s with the far right in the US, campaigning against health reform and sucking on Murdock’s teat. Has he corrected the American media about Stephen Hawking yet? Surely HE knows better?

‘And race doesn’t even come into it – Brits can be black, brown or whatever colour they wish to be. And we can still be proud of the NHS – my mum was nurse for decades.’

Absolutely. Every doctor I’ve had since childhood has been South Asian or Chinese and my NHS dentist is called Helga.

@ 26. Why should he be in the UK arguing that we should learn from Europe, and in what way is that more or less ‘patriotic’ than going to a foreign country to support the arguments of people he agrees with? Being ‘patriotic’ or ‘unpatriotic’ has got nothing to do with the merits of his argument, or the character of the people he’s lining up beside. Which was the point of the OP. There are much more apposite things to hit him with that whether or not he is ‘patriotic’.

Dave Simple:

“Dissing the NHS is not unpatriotic. That is precisely what I said.”

And the piece you’re commenting on if I’m not mistaken. And lots of other people who beat you to the punch.

I think you’re arguing against yourself but I’m not quite sure…yet.

it’s about being devoted to one’s country by virtue of the fact that you are from the country. And that’s about the least sensible thing I’ve ever heard of.

Yes but a large percentage of people feel that way. And I will neither sniff at that or dismiss it so easily. In fact I think if people feel proud of their country only because that’s where they’re from – it’s not entirely a bad thing.

And I say that because pride and nationalism is encourages people want to do more for their country – to work to improve their institutions, to do better for their fellow countrywomen/men. It forms a social glue that builds social cohesion.

You may not agree with it, but I definitely do not buy into the idea that we should reject it. As I said earlier, nationalism can be good or bad – it just depends on the person and how we all shape the narrative around nationalism. The problem with America has always been that it’s primarily right-wingers who dominated the nationalism discourse and thus they ended up setting the agenda with it.

then what about being against the army? Or against the State?

As I said – you can ascribe policies which can be patriotic or unpatriotic depending on how you position your argument. You could be against fighting on international soil for patriotic reasons. You can be against the state or for the state for patriotic reasons. There is no set of rules that come with patriotism. And it’s folly to assume there does.

Hannan isn’t in the UK arguing we should learn from Europe, he’s with the far right in the US, campaigning against health reform and sucking on Murdock’s teat. Has he corrected the American media about Stephen Hawking yet?

He’s been saying this stuff for, literally, years. He’s written a book about it. And why on earth should he write to the Investor’s Business Daily and correct them? What the hell’s it to do with him?

Shatterface: Well exactly. I agree with all those problems with what Hannan has done, and those reasons are why I criticise him. I never defended the man.

I just said that using patriotism is a bad thing. It basically 100% opportunist, as in the circumstances I outlined it would obviously not be patriotic, but also would not be subject to the same attacks.

Sunny: Patriotism and nationalism have historically been used to other far more than they have to unite. Pandering to it now is pandering to the same emotive idiocy we see from the right on immigration.

Your entire defence seems to rest on patriotism not actually meaning anything, but just being a way of slapping a British flag on whatever policy position you have decided to advance anyway. In which case why bother even discussing it? Heck by your logic Hannan wants a better health care service because he loves the nation too. Theres no actual debate involved, its useless for deciding any substantive issue, and it a good tool for the right on issues like immigration and defence far more than it ever will be for anyone else.

Daniel – Dave Semple wrote this piece, and is subsequently commenting. And the chap who is saying that it is unpatriotic to diss the NHS is the Health Secretary, Andy Burnham. Clear now?

Semantics are important in this kind of question, so I think there are some benefits in making the following kind of distinction:

1) Being devoted to your country by virtue of the fact that you’re from that country does make some kind of logical sense (it isn’t surprising you would value and want to maintain the culture/cultures you’re associated and familiar with) and has some benefits, as Sunny points out. It also makes people more likely to defend aspects of their culture which are not good, though, which explains why patriotism is more often a useful tool for conservatives.

2) Thinking you’re better than someone else, or deserve better, because you’re from that country is plain wrong.

There are obviously different kinds, and levels, of patriotism. I think the Andy Burnham stuff is nearer number 1) than number 2), for what it’s worth.

Being devoted to working in the country and being more interested in it, yes. But that doesn’t have anything to do with policy positions. If you are defending something on the fact of it being British- which is essentially what Burnham did- then you have fallen into number 2.

We are debating about our country because its ours, yes. But the mere fact of us doing something doesn’t contribute, even slightly, to it being a better idea, and has no place in an actual debate about whats best.

Your entire defence seems to rest on patriotism not actually meaning anything, but just being a way of slapping a British flag on whatever policy position you have decided to advance anyway. In which case why bother even discussing it?

I’m saying that people WILL ascribe some sort of pride to the lifestyle they choose to live and the decisions they make. Hell, the NHS is well funded and politically protected precisely because people are proud of it and like it.

If they weren’t, it doesn’t matter that graphs you could pull out of your hat about life expectancy and spending – people would still not support it if politicians wanted to scrap it. So my point is that the NHS is perhaps the best real example that Britons still like aspects of socialism and would support it more if the institutions that worked on the basis of socialism actually worked as well as the NHS did.

Of course the patriotism card can be used to support whatever position you want. My reasoning for pointing that out is to say that if people are afraid of it because they think it will push them in a certain direction – they’re wrong. And yes, Hannan will also say he wants to dismantle the NHS because he wants the good of the country.

Butr never understimate the power and the resonance of nationalism. We ignore it at our own peril.

No, I think it does push in a certain direction. In most cases, it pushes away from change; on some issues, it pushes strongly to the right. I don’t think its something its benefical to encourage.

Sure, it has an impact, but it doesn’t actually communicate anything factual, so I think I’m quite happy with my characterisation of it being opportunistic.

As to the NHS being that was because of patriotism, no. Its that way because good universal healthcare is important to people. Much of the defense of the NHS has been a cipher for defending good universal health care against the terrible American system. If someone attacked the NHS on the basis of instead having a better system of universal care, you just could not get the same response.

Which is why its so unfortunate that this has been taken as a chance to wrap oneself in the Union Jack, rather than talking about what Universal provision means, why its good, and how it relates to a wide range of other political issues. As is, its just a point-scoring cul-de-sac and then the story will fade.

“Hannan’s comments were about a million times worse, and a million times more unpatriotic.”

Hannan’s criticisms of the NHS are a million times worse than calling the British army evil and rubbish? Hmm, if you say so.

As far as hate-filled, sickening and potentially harmful phrases go, ‘unpatriotic’ is nowhere near as bad as using ‘retarded’ as a slur. Fucking Hell.

My personal hobby horse- people telling other people what words it is permissable to use.

Definition of retarded when used as an adjective.

slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development

Because this adjective can be accurately applied to some children you are saying that it must not be used in any other context. To comply would be to permit you to retard language and to disable discourse and that would be bonkers.

As i said originally at TCF, it’s worth recalling that Burnham’s comments may have been calculated to be picked up in the USA, where the description “unpatriotic” is a smear of significant proportions, and thus would be quite a novel one to have turned on the right, given that it’s usually them doing the pointing.

As for the UK, i’m more with Sunny than Dave on this one; i don’t particularly care that much. It may have been useful for decreasing popular support for the Tories. Untasteful in the process, maybe, but still useful. (Which is not to say ends therefore always justify means).

However, on the subject about whether Dave is a “disablist”, it may be worth recalling that to use the word “retarded” is not the same as saying “nigger” or “gay”.

To retard is to slow down; to be retarded is to be slow or to be slowed down (thus I can be retarded…by the dog that won’t let me out of the room without biting me…without being “retarded” in the sense of being disabled – i.e. it’s a verb/adjective distinction). So when Dave wrote “is retarded”, he may plausibly be read as saying “is a slow or backwards-looking [to pick on another valid meaning] disposition, and therefore of little worth”.

This is not the same as saying “it is the sort of opinion held by the mentally disabled”.

Both are valid interpretations of what Dave wrote. To decide which he meant, a little context about the author: having no track record as a disablist, I think the former sense of “slow or backwards” is more likely.

Notice this sort of ambiguity simply doesn’t exist with a word like “nigger” (though it does with “gay”, however very few people use that to mean “happy” anymore, so considerably less so).

Bloody hell, pagar and I agree.

Well there’s a first.

Hopefully I wont end up on Speak You’re Branes.

Paul, I don’t think anyone uses ‘retarded’ in that sense any more, any more than they use ‘gay’ to mean happy. A quick Google search for ‘retarded’ shows not one use of the word in that sense in the first five pages of hits, other than a sub-hit on Wikipedia, under the main one for “Mental retardation” – every single one of them referred either directly to people with learning disabilities or was a derogatory comparison to people with them. Also, Dave didn’t state that this was his meaning, just said that it was written quickly and in anger.

Great.

The comment thread has descended into excuses for the use of the word “retard” and how it is not like “gay” and “Nigger”.

Question on everyone’s lips is, is “retard” the new “cunt” or is that the new “asshat”.

Tonga Tim:

Thanks for that, Dave Stimple was confusing me with his desire to argue with himself, it had me all over the shop. I’m clearer now…a little bit.

Look, nationalism is collectivism in its basic form. It’s about social solidarity – these are pretty much basic leftwing ideals.

My other point is that a LOT of the public still find pride in their country an important thing. I would never ever dismiss that.Especially since belief and pride in the NHS is about as leftwing as you can get.

Dave Semple – the NHS is a red herring, your objection seems to be the concept of patriotism, period?

Would you go so far as to ban national flags, for example, or are you just highlighting a general sense of irritation with those who are quick to push a nationalistic agenda?

Even so Burnham probably experienced a spontaneous orgasm when Hannon was slapped down by his own boss for slagging off what has rapidly transformed into one of our most venerable institutions – who can blame him for using whatever means necessary to claw back a few badly needed points in the popularity ratings?

As a non-socialist, I don’t really care to engage with that debate. I will note that its a type of solidarity that is reliant on many people- non-nationals- not being in the group.

No, but you haven’t really made much of a case for it being good, more useful. Also, as I said, much of the support was against Americas non-universal system- criticism compared to any other western, universal system would not have faced the same backlash, its unfortunate this was not central to the narrative.

‘To comply would be to permit you to retard language and to disable discourse and that would be bonkers’

‘Bonkers’ are people with an active sex-life, and as a ‘Star Trek’ fan I resent being excluded from your discourse.

‘Hannan’s criticisms of the NHS are a million times worse than calling the British army evil and rubbish? Hmm, if you say so.’

Hannan’s comments aren’t like criticising the British army, they’re like going abroad, joining up with a crazed bunch of religious fucknuts opposed to the modern world and actively taking arms against them.

And by ‘crazed’, I mean ‘cracked’. Like a paving stone.

And ‘fucknuts’ are testicles.

Sunny,

Nationalism isn’t really like the left’s collectivist social sentiments: nationalists exclude those not of the nation.

Furthermore, the left tends to have a large preoccupation with equality being a virtue, usually regardless of race or nation (or sex, class, sexuality etc). Nationalism however appears prima facie to hold, as a core belief, the position that in some sense non-nationals are not equal to nationals.

So the differences appear, at first glance, significant.

Burnham calling Hannan unpatriotic may not bethe wisest comment made by a labour politician. Sending our forces into Iraq and Afghanistan with inadequate planning and resources would be considered by many people as unpatriotic.
The Senior RSM of the Army ( ex Paras /SF) making a cpomplaint on behalf of wounded service personnel about the inadequate treatment at Selley Oak Hospital could be described as a lack of patriotism by Labour in not providing adequate resources. Browns cutting of the heliopter budget from £4.5B to £3.0 B is hardly the actions of a patriotic chancellor.

Perhaps it would have been better to ask Hannan why he was interviewed by an organisation whose boss changed his nationality from Australian to American to make more money and if News Internationa paid more taxes in the UK there would be more money for the NHS and Armed Forces. Also Burnham could have asked Hannan to explain the difference between himself and Cameron on their views on the NHS.

This link to an excellent (IMO) digest of public debate in the US over reform healthcare may help to clarify what is going on over there:

Misconception over key issues at core of debate
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/17/MNT4198FQ4.DTL&type=politics

The digest is perhaps especially needed in the light of this worrying piece in The Guardian:

Fears for Barack Obama’s safety as healthcare debate fuels extremism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/16/obama-rightwing-extremist-fears

So much for open, informed and rational public debate in America.

Paul Sagar @ 50,

Thanks for trying to define nationalism for me. That it owes more to the 1930’s than it does to any current strand might be something for you to contemplate. I am Scottish, and as far as I’m concerned you are Scottish if you say you are, and even if you don’t, I don’t want you chucked out. Neither does my party, the SNP.

So how does that square with your definition?

I’d have thought inclusive nationalism ain’t a bad thing, although it’s counterpart, exclusive nationalism most certainly is.