I’m sure he’s now doing it just to wind you all up.

@astateofdenmark only in that one couldn’t caricature a better enemy than our man Dan.

One only has to see his comments urging British ex-pats in Spain to vote for a party that thrives on Francoist sentiment to see that Hannan’s politics refer to a deeper level of rightwingery(!!).

One cannot but suppose that the only reason he refers to the BNP as far left is because he believes he is the embodiment of the most right that one can go without falling off the edge!!

I’m struck by this bit of the quote from Mark Hanson:

t means to you can send signals, which if they were explicit, may cause an outrage, but by being subtle they make the desired impact. They’re often referred to as dog-whistle issues. [emphasis added]

There’s nothing ‘subtle’ about name-checking Enoch Powell: ever since the ‘rivers of blood’ speech, ‘Enoch’ has been code: a synechdoche for the whole racist agenda from legitimising discrimination to the long-held right-wing dream of repatriating of non-white peoples. The pub ranter says: ‘Enoch had the right idea’ and his mates all nod sagely knowing exactly what he had the right idea about – and it’s not the opinion of Leeds United’s Nigerian striker on the merits of a holding midfield player.

It’s possible he is just so out of touch that he really does see Powell’s pro-market work as his primary message. Enoch was a fairly interesting character. He was learning his 11th language Hebrew when he died, he was mates with Tony Benn despite their politics, and he was on the conservative front bench before he got dumped in the 60s after the “Rivers of Blood” speech.

However, I don’t think that is likely. It seems a snide, wink wink nudge nudge to me.

I’ll concede, that it might be possible to defend Hannan’s comments, but only by arguing that he is so massively out of touch that he doesn’t realise that Powell represents Racism incarnate to many people.

“I suppose praising the BNP, as long as it’s not immigration related, is ok too? After all Nick Griffin must be a lovely chap as long as you ignore his mad, racist conspiracy theories. Why not invite him around for tea Mr Hannan?”

Haha! Bingo!

Except there is a problem with the thesis that Hannan is dog-whistling on immigration.

He’s a libertarian…and libertarians are generally in favour of open door immigration policies (absolute free mobility of labour AND capital, small states etc).

This may be more a case of Hannan being fucking thick than Hannan being a racist anti-immigration dog-whistler.

Maybe.

Well Powell had a fairly complex career; it looks like he even worked with Labour in an attempt to bring Britain out of the EEC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell#Departure_from_the_Conservative_Party

And we know Hannan’s views on the EU and on fiscal conservatism. So I think you need rather more evidence that this is a racist dog whistle. Has Hannan supported racist policies elsewhere?

Hitler had a ‘complex’ career too. As probably did Nick Griffin. Apparently Hitler was vegetarian too.

Has Hannan supported racist policies elsewhere?

No. But he really does say odd things which make you wonder. He recently said he couldn’t tell the difference between myself and Sunder Katwala of the Fabians. I suppose our brown skin makes us difficult to tell apart. Other than that he’s very curteous in person.

Paul – “He’s a libertarian”…

hmmm….but *is* he, though? really?

and exactly which sub-species (out of the incredibly many, so it would seem) of ‘libertarianism’ does the decidedly dim Mr. Hannan subscribe to?

From what I’ve heard/read of his views, he’s yet another one of those who espouses ‘libertarianism’ on issues that suit him – possibly because it lets him lay claim to being part of a philosophical framework that otherwise would be beyond his ken, but would like to impose his own personal prejudices on the nation (then Europe…then THE WORLD!! he does have a slight passing resemblance to “The Brain”, from the “Pinky and The Brain” cartoon) in whatever authoritarian manner necessary when he feels like it.

Perhaps one of our self-identifying “libertarian” commenters could help out by laying claim to/avidly disavowing Mr. H?

“Apparently Hitler was vegetarian too.”

Yes if he was alive today, he’d listen to the smiths, depeche mode and the cure.

A very sensitive man.

Hannan appeases racists from Poland to Spain, but calls his homegrown racists leftwing because the right is just too precious, can you not see this??

It is inconceivable that Hannan was not fully aware of the implications of paying homage to Enoch Powel in a speech. Same for say, Ken Livingstone or George Galloway name checking Che Guevara or Arafat, even if it was to suggest they had nice beards. Such a move would be used against them and the Left in general would be condemned for it.

Hannan is well aware of Powell standing within British politics as a poster boy of the ‘send them all back’ face of the Tory Party. This was no gaffe or an ill chosen comparison. This was a studied remark designed to endear him to the blue rinse, piss soaked geriatric wing of the Party and damn the consequences to Cameron’s credibility. Hannan knew exactly what the reaction would be in:

a) The left
b) The Tory front bench
c) The Golf clubs and saloon bars of the Country.

Whether we like it or not the Tory Party may have its nice, happy faces in its front lines. The winner of the Open Primary the hand picked woman for the Norfolk by election, but the malevolent underbelly is still there and in vast numbers too. There are still people in the Tory Party who want a nastier approach to things like race, still don’t believe in Global Warming and still think single parents are harlots. Hannan’s remarks on this and the NHS were deliberate branches out to these people.

They may ‘tolerate’ Cameron as far as it goes and as long as he wining. But the majority of them would rather someone like Hannan was in charge rather than Cameron.

I would be genuinely interested in a credible poll of ‘grass roots’ activists/core voters on who of the two are more popular.

[8] “He recently said he couldn’t tell the difference between myself and Sunder Katwala”

Let’s be fair. I can’t tell the difference between you two either, and it’s nothing to do with the colour of your skin (in fact, if you didn’t keep mentioning it I wouldn’t even know the colour of your skin).

I hope you are at least open-minded enough to allow me to comment that you both have uncommon names without pulling out that famous R-card. When you have an uncommon name, people will generally identify with you based on a partial remembrance of your name and your views. As you both have similar names and similar views it’s understandable that one might mistake one of you for the other (again, nothing to with your skin colour).

And as a point, why would it be wrong to agree with every BNP policy except their views on immigration? From what I understand I don’t agree with any of their policies, but that isn’t based on my disagreement with one of their policies, in much the same way as I don’t vote UKIP even though I agree with them on Europe.

Sunny, Hitler wasn’t a vegetarian.

unseen – damn, I fell for a myth. I stand corrected, thanks.

No surprise Guido Fawkes can be relied on to try and spin away his mate’s comments.

Mark M – He’s met both in person. His comment was it was hard for him to tell us apart. Nothing to do with how our names sounded.

AndyGilmour @ 9:

[Hannan] does have a slight passing resemblance to “The Brain”, from the “Pinky and The Brain” cartoon

Funny, I always had John Redwood down for that role, especially for his endless policy ideas (that don’t work).

Jim @ 13:

There are still people in the Tory Party who want a nastier approach to things like race, still don’t believe in Global Warming and still think single parents are harlots. Hannan’s remarks on this and the NHS were deliberate branches out to these people.

Hannan’s more like the Harvey Proctor/Peter Bruinvels wing of the Tories from the 1980s than the old colonial/shire types (who are literally/metaphorically dying off anyway). That’s one of the reasons he’s both dangerous and the gift that keeps on giving – he may simply be the most headline-grabbing example of ‘Thatcher’s Children’ (coming to a Parliament near you…soon?).

As for his ‘libertarianism’ – using immigration as a scapegoat is the perfect distraction from using migrant labour simply to bid down wages.

@9 as one self-ascribed libertarian, I can neither lay claim to nor avidly disavow Hannan. He is anti-immigration while I am pro-immigration, and I am not sure what his views on war are (I am anti interventionist obviously). But he favours free markets and civil liberties while Labour and most of the rest of his party do not. And he favours much more local democracy, which I also favour and many libertarians do too. So, on balance, that makes him a positive force at least until a more consistent libertarian force turns up (in the LibDems, maybe one day?).

Funny thing is that Powell was pretty liberal when it came to social issues. I believe he supported divorce law reform, the legalisation of homosexuality and the abolition of the death penalty. He even favoured Asian immigration in the 1950s.

Incidently the idea that his views are comparable to Hitler or Griffin are absurd. They may well be old-fashioned, racialist and unacceptable nowadays but his generation and the Britain in which he grew up in undoubtedly sympathised. Unless I’m mistaken though there was never mass support for ethnic cleansing or Nazism. Heck, Winston Churchill had some pretty unpalatable views when it came to race but that was a result of the era in which he grew up. The point about Hitler then (and Griffin today) is that they were and are way off the scale of public acceptability.

As for Hannan quoting him, I’m pretty sure he’s referring to Powell’s support for free markets (which is what Powell was famous for before the Rivers of Blood speech). Truth is that most people, being politically apathetic, probably aren’t too fussed about references to Enoch Powell when highlighting his support for policies not limited to immigration. Then again when one looks at opinion polls related to immigration one can’t help but wonder whether most people aren’t bothered by references to him when discussing immigration.

I take a somewhat different view of this. Hannan is, I think, intending to do what he says – praise Powell for his views of national independence and sovereignty – which is not an odd view for a Eurosceptic (given how much that influenced Powell’s career, such as advocating a Labour vote in 1974). And I don’t doubt that he is liberal on race and immigration issues, and am sceptical of the dog whistle theory. Where I think Hannan’s argument is a mistake is that Powell’s views of nation are inextricably linked to his cultural essentialism about what makes a ‘people’, which is the basis for his anti-immigration and pro-repatriation argument.
I have posted about that here.
http://www.nextleft.org/2009/08/what-hannan-gets-wrong-about-enoch.html

Hannan is now stressing that he does take a libertarian view of immigration in comments to the newspapers overnight, though at first glance he may have been reasonably quiet on that issue. (I would be interested to know if he has written for the Telegraph on that to take on the right; as otherwise it would suggest that he is rather less keen to project his views if they don’t chime with the Tory base?).

I thought the tone of the Guido Fawkes post – based on a conversation with Hannan – was interesting, in Hannan is always enormously bullish about controversies which he kicks up, and enjoys the notoriety. Not this time? The post is trying to defuse and play down this one rather calmly.

… So I hazard the hypothesis that he has told Tory HQ that he can’t resile from what he has said on the NHS but that he isn’t planning to create too much controversy immediately …. though he might find that quite difficult
http://order-order.com/2009/08/26/hannan-labour-try-again/

This may come as a surprise to some people on here but even Peter Hitchens thinks Powell’s speech was disgraceful: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-492847/Enoch-paddling-sewage-knew-it.html

Richard @ 18:

Funny thing is that Powell was pretty liberal when it came to social issues. I believe he supported divorce law reform, the legalisation of homosexuality and the abolition of the death penalty. He even favoured Asian immigration in the 1950s.

…but Powell’s reputation is like the man in the joke about why he was known as ‘Sheepshagger’ despite all his other achievements. MPs liked to go on about how Powell was ‘a great Parliamentarian’ when everyone else had him down as a wild-eyed racial bigot/best PM we never had because he wanted to ‘Send ‘Em Back’ (delete according to taste).

Sunny, why don’t you just write a piece entitled “50 Reasons Why I Think Daniel Hannan Is A Cunt” and be done with it?

I’m not sure what I think of Hannan atm. He must know that any mention of Enoch Powell is going to get a mixed reaction. I think he knows exactly what he’s playing at. Whether I find that devious or clever, I’m not sure yet.

Sunny, why don’t you just write a piece entitled “50 Reasons Why I Think Daniel Hannan Is A Cunt” and be done with it?

Why should I expend the effort when Mr Hannan is doing it for me? It’s much more convincing coming from him.

Mr Eugenides, here are some choice words by Powell:

In 15 or 20 years time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man. We must be mad, literally mad as a nation, to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre…She is becoming afraid to go out; windows are broken; she finds extreta pushed through her letterbox. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children: charming, wide-grinning piccaninees…Here is their means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise and consolidate their members…to overawe and dominate the rest.

Hardly the words of someone trying to bring social cohesion to a country.

The point is that Hannan knows why Enoch Powell is (in)famous. If he is your main inspiration, even if you claim to disagree on all his substantive policy ideas, then you’re either barking or deliberately dog-whistling.

I also don’t buy the view that because everyone was racist in those days it’s ok. There were plenty of people who weren’t fascism apologists or BNP clones. Of course most happened to be on the left, which I guess is inconvenient for some people.

Wow, I hadn’t realised Hannan was actually fairly pro-immigration. If we came out in favour of drug legalisation and promised no more aggressve wars, I would be a convert! If he is talking to Reason.tv, perhaps he isn’t too far off.

Sunny and Sunder are piss easy to tell apart!

Sunny 30 words, Sunder 300! (/jk, sorry Sunder) 😉

All we need for a hung parliament is for dipshits like Hannan to keep talking. Poor Dave will be fuming! Cool!

Just on a point of clarity, was the point of the “Rivers of Blood” speech not [from Powell’s point of view] to try and stop immigration to avoid a racial war, rather than to start one? Was he not saying that he was fearful that racial strife would be the result, rather than calling for it?

Well Powell fought against the Nazis so presumably he wasn’t very favourable to fascism…

It’s already been noted that this is dogwhistle politics, and I think it’s worth noting that Hannan’s entire schtick recently has been to appeal to precisely the no-dick xenophobe faction of the Tory Party that has spent the last half-century pissing and moaning about the blacks, and writing stern letters to the editor every time they hear of some single mother being handed a chunk of government cheese. Precisely the faction David Cameron is quite happy to see flouncing off to UKIP and the BNP, in other words.

There seems to be a misconception amongst right wing bloggers that Hannan is taking up a principled position on the right of the party to appeal to alienated voters. This is incorrect – by trashing the NHS and invoking Powell, Hannan is announcing that he’s quite willing to suck off an entire paddock of ponies to get his face on TV. Seems to be working too – I predict that a lot of people who should know better than to cheer on such foolishness are going to wind up looking very silly indeed for taking this bloke at face value.

Shorter version – Hannan isn’t about to inspire an resurgence of the intolerant Tory nutter faction and take Parliament by storm; he’s about to detonate a giant shit-bomb in the faces of anyone who’s ever associated themselves with him so he can get a paying gig at one of America’s many, many wingnut welfare institutions or periodicals.

Sunny,

Shall we cast aside the contribution to statistics and genetics of Francis Galton because he was a racist and eugenicist? It is easy to find prominent figures who have made important contributions to society who held and promoted views today we would find vile.

Is it the future of the liberal left to attack their opponents by saying ‘I don’t think he is a racist but…’?

Where are the ideas?

Hannan blogged about Enoch Powell back in 2007, acknowledging that any mention of him will create controversy, while arguing that Enoch was right about Europe but wrong about immigration
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/3677651/Journalists_magic_word/

The Mail reports that a spokesman for the Euro MP said last night: ‘Mr Hannan is a libertarian on immigration.’ Overall, his views on immigration seem to me rather better described as moderate rather than libertarian.

“For what it’s worth, I think Enoch Powell was wrong on immigration. The civil unrest that he forecast, and that many feared in 1968, didn’t materialise. Britain assimilated a large population with an ease that few countries have matched. Being an immigrant myself, I have particular cause to be grateful for Britain’s understated cosmopolitanism. To be sure, inward migration should be controlled: we want a rough sense of whom we are admitting and in what numbers; and (in large part because of Europe) we are losing that sense. But a measure of legal settlement can benefit a country”.

by trashing the NHS and invoking Powell, Hannan is announcing that he’s quite willing to suck off an entire paddock of ponies to get his face on TV.

DING!

The penny be dropeth!

Hannan isn’t the evil face of today’s Toryism – he is the real face of it. Dave is a nice cushion to warm by the fire. The real problem is that Nulab is of the same ilk, same philosophy, same politics – just a little bit wormed along side of it. If the left want to depart from Hannan they have to give up Blairism by the truck load, and that means even Fabians have to get out on the left, the real left rather than accepting what Blair et al told you to accept.

“Enoch Powell was someone who wanted a racial war in the UK”

Sunny – why not ask Tony Benn or any other socialist who actually knew Powell to validate your ludicrous assertion?

[19] Sunny – sorry, I don’t know why I bothered. You had this argument on here ages ago and refused to see the true picture then too. I’ll drop it now.

[13] Jim – “[…] still don’t believe in Global Warming”. Global Warming isn’t something we should be ‘believing’ in. If we’re all going to have to spend loads more on our power because politicians think excess CO2 damages the planet then we deserve some hard scientific fact.

Is that Enoch Powell as in the “I see growing on the horizon the greater peril than Germany or Japan ever were… our terrible enemy, America….” Enoch Powell?

That’s not going to go down too well on the wingnut punditry circuit.

*shake head*

Why is it that every time I see these anti-anything-even-remotely-linked-to-the-Conservative-Party threads that Sunder Katwala is the only person who tries to see the bigger picture and genuinely discuss the issue rather than subscribing to the borderline hysterical ‘Ooooh look at him look at him’ posts and comments that are now commonplace on Lib Con?

Oh noes, LPRAT has shaken his head! That’s like a Roman Emperor’s thumbs down, you know, for LPRAT is the Emperor of Bloggistan…

this one may disappoint Letters from a Tory (though thanks for the general comment)

Can we make ‘Dan Hannan explains modern Conservatism’ a syndicated request show …. I thought ‘is climate change real?’ could be the next topic

And I think Dan H might just be blowing a gentle dog whistle on that one

http://www.nextleft.org/2009/08/hannan-poor-weather-forecasts-call.html

Mark @ 34

“If we’re all going to have to spend loads more on our power because politicians think excess CO2 damages the planet then we deserve some hard scientific fact”

Luckily for us the entire climate science community have produced the hard scientific facts, then, eh?

The best the anti science Tories have been able to muster is a few flim flam men, a dodgy list of accountants and economists, retired and dead PHDs and a bunch of names that are so far unverifable.

39

Sunder, Is Climate Change real? is a simple question. Of course it’s real. More interesting questions are which way the climate is changing and what are the main causes of such change.

These distinctions were so much easier when we talked about ‘global warming’. Which makes the change to the term ‘climate change’ all the more puzzling.

“Daniel Hannan is a libertarian on immigration“.

I fail to see this– surely limiting immigration is a restriction on freedom? I suppose my dictionary differs in so many ways, though.

(Or is the claim actually meant to deny that Hannan agrees with Powell about immigration? I’m confuzzled).

[39] Ah yes, the climate science community. They’re the ones whose records show that sea ice hasn’t been shrinking over the past decade and global temperatures are starting to cool.

For every piece of evidence that claims man-made global warming there is another that claims it is neither man-made nor warming. It’s hardly conclusive stuff.

When Enoch Powell died Tony Blair led the tributes:

“He was one of the great figures of 20th-century British politics, gifted with a brilliant mind.”

February 9, 1998

That is all.

Mark @ 42

“For every piece of evidence that claims man-made global warming there is another that claims it is neither man-made nor warming. ”

Bollocks. Staight forward Tory lies.

How have we got to Hitler and Climate Change already?!

“He was one of the great figures of 20th-century British politics, gifted with a brilliant mind.”

Good lord Guido, you’re correct – saying something nice about someone after they’ve died is in many ways very similar to citing that person as one of your great political influences.

Of course, Blair should’ve just waved a wanker-hand sign and called for Powell to be cremated in a skip, but then playing kissy-kiss with hideous right wing toads was always one of Blair’s greatest talents.

“For every piece of evidence that claims man-made global warming there is another that claims it is neither man-made nor warming.”

Thanks for that. It puts all your other comments into context.

Come on you guys! The old racist bastard did turn down the chance to lead the National Front, what more do you want?

Before he of course skipped out of the bunch of fannys that was the Tory Party in the early 70s and got with the real bigots in the form of the Ulster Unionists.

[44] Nice argument. Swearing then saying they are ‘Tory’ lies? Why are they not just lies? It’s not like I hear David Cameron telling everyone AGW is a myth. I think you’ll find the pro-AGW and anti-AGW people don’t split neatly between Labour and Tory. There’s nothing ‘Tory’ about what I said.

With regard to them being lies – have a google around. Firstly search for pro-AGW pieces, then search for anti-AGW pieces. On either side there are scientists that believe their view is absolutely correct, no questions. You cannoy deny that there are anti-AGW writers who come armed with evidence that demonstrate their POV, just as there are pro-AGW writers who come with similar evidence.

This section of the wikipedia bio of Powell puts a more complex slant on things (at least):

On 27 July 1959 Powell gave his speech on Hola Camp of Kenya, where eleven Mau Mau were killed after refusing work in the camp. Powell noted that some MPs had described the eleven as “sub-human” but Powell responded by saying: “In general, I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgment on a fellow human being and to say, ‘Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow’.”[30] Powell also disagreed with the notion that because it was in Africa then different methods were acceptable:

“Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, ‘We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home’. We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility.[31]”

Denis Healey, MP from 1952 to 1992, later said this speech was “the greatest parliamentary speech I ever heard… it had all the moral passion and rhetorical force of Demosthenes”.[32] The Daily Telegraph report of the speech said that “as Mr Powell sat down, he put his hand across his eyes. His emotion was justified, for he had made a great and sincere speech”.[33]

Looking at the paragraph they quote, as apposite now as then, who in parliament now could or would make such a speech?

Nah, I don’t buy it, the BNP don’t make out non-whites to be subhuman, they just don’t want anything to do with them in the UK.

They don’t get a point for that because the basic premise of their ideals is still shitty.

Daniel, you’ve probably spotted that I don’t really care what your luvvy self “buys” or not.

Cool. Lovely. Job done. Ace.

Great cjcjcjcjcjcjcjcjc but deal with the point, which is that many bigots don’t think that non-whites are subhuman, they just don’t want them around in ‘their’ country.

Like old Powell.

Cheers now!

‘When Enoch Powell died Tony Blair led the tributes:

‘“He was one of the great figures of 20th-century British politics, gifted with a brilliant mind.”’

Just goes to show you don’t need to be a Tory to be a cunt.

[55] I knew that from our current PM 🙂

Mark @ 49

“It’s not like I hear David Cameron telling everyone AGW is a myth. I think you’ll find the pro-AGW and anti-AGW people don’t split neatly between Labour and Tory.”

Dave Cameron is in the minority within his own Party. I get the distinct impression that the Tories are more anti the science behind Global Warming than agree with it. No doubt there are Right Wing Labour supporters who are equally anti science, but they appear to be in the minority of their party. I have not heard anyone in the Labour Party actually dispute the science as such (I will concede that there must be someone I have missed), the only descent I have heard is what the response should be.

“Firstly search for pro-AGW pieces”

Define ‘pro-AGW’. I don’t know anyone who is ‘pro’ Global Warming.

I think the term you were intending to use was ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ science. You cannot have ‘an opinion’ on science. Science is about what you can prove and demonstrate and what the data supports, not what you ‘believe’.

“On either side there are scientists that believe their view is absolutely correct, no questions.”

Scientists? What ‘scientists’ dispute Man Made Global Warming? No-one with any credibility has any evidence that stands much scrutiny.

“You cannot deny that there are anti-AGW writers who come armed with evidence that demonstrate their POV”

Cherry picked data, half truths and downright lies does not constitute ‘evidence’ of anything other than the desperation of big oil and their apologists to cloud the issue.

I do concede the fact that although the scientific ‘debate’ has been won, the Right have indeed won the political argument of allowing GW to take its course. The Left have all but disengaged from the fight and have retreated to the politics of demonstration, via climate camps and plackard waving.

ON HORRID ENOCH’S DREADFULLY PROPHETIC SPEECH:

Go back to *27* and read the extract carefully, word for word.

What actual inaccuracies can you find?

List them, one by one.

He didn’t mention muggings, crack dealers or exploding Muslims, did he?

One word cluster catches the eye:

“… to overawe and dominate the rest …”

Hmm, just the other day wasn’t that Shahid Malik telling us all that there OUGHT TO BE more Muslim MPs and that sometime in the future there would be a Muslim in Number Ten?

I quote dan han’s blog, from here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/3677651/Journalists_magic_word/

“For what it’s worth, I think Enoch Powell was wrong on immigration. The civil unrest that he forecast, and that many feared in 1968, didn’t materialise. Britain assimilated a large population with an ease that few countries have matched. Being an immigrant myself, I have particular cause to be grateful for Britain’s understated cosmopolitanism. ”

Well, that settles it. Sunny’s an idiot.

LFAT – wait,you’re really coming here imploring us for a nuanced discussion given the reactionary horse-shit you publish every day? Or is that apply only to Tories?

Gimpy: Where are the ideas?

We have those too. There’s space for plenty of stuff.

[56] Jim

“I have not heard anyone in the Labour Party actually dispute the science as such”

I suspect the situation would have been the same had the Conservatives been in office too. Ignoring whether I believe in it or not, AGW is a great way of raising tax revenue and calling it ‘fair’ (how can one successfully argue against a ‘biggest polluters pay the most’ system?).

“Define ‘pro-AGW’”
A piece written that concludes that global warming is caused by man. Similarly, anti-AGW is a piece that concludes global warming is either not happening or isn’t the result of man.

“Cherry picked data, half truths”
Unfortunately, the sheer amount of data available to collect and analyse regarding the climate is always going to result in a certain amount of cherry picking.

“big oil”
I do believe that we should seek to reduce our dependence on oil, but that goes the same with any finite resource.

Mark @ 60

“is a great way of raising tax revenue and calling it ‘fair’”

That is clouding the issue though. This is a science debate, not a tax one. You can argue about whether or not you think tax is the correct way to combat GW, but that is a different argument to the existence of GW. I have read and heard lots of decent concerning Labour Polices within the ranks of the Labour Party, right across the spectrum from Iraq and ID cards (another great way of raising revenue)

”A piece written that concludes that global warming is caused by man. Similarly, anti-AGW is a piece that concludes global warming is either not happening or isn’t the result of man.”

Is it as simple as that though? Surely, the science speaks for itself. If you measure something and it is consistent with the theory, you cannot label that scientist ‘pro AGW’ can you? You can only say that his findings add weight to the theory.

”Unfortunately, the sheer amount of data available to collect and analyse regarding the climate is always going to result in a certain amount of cherry picking”.

But you cannot take a piece of data out of context then use it as an example against Global Warming can you? You cannot say:
“ The Earth was warmer 200 million years ago, therefore Global Warming does not exist”
“England grew vineyards 2000 years ago, thus proving GW does not exist”

You have to examine the entire data set and form a hypothesis, constituent with your findings.

Those who are opposed (I use the term deliberately) to the GW theory use the above and other equally idiotic arguments all the time. Sometimes they just resort to lies.

How surprising to find you leaping on this story. Hannan has already made his position on immigration clear on the past, in fact his stance on immigration is more liberal than the official line of any of our three main parties. His praise of Powell had nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with his ideal of small state-ism. Powell’s political career was about so much more thant that 1968 speech (Which history proved mainly wrong) but then, the left and facts tend to be two mutually exclusive things, don’t they?

“This is a science debate, not a tax one”

In general, yes, but given how many governments now have a lot of tax revenue wrapped up in AGW it unfortunately is always going to cloud the issue.

“cannot label that scientist ‘pro AGW’ can you?”

Lazy labelling from me earlier. I was seeking to put climate research into two groups, one of which concludes AGW is real, the other that it is not. While scientist do have their beliefs, I agree that if he does his job correctly then the scientists belief should have nothing to do with his conclusion.

“But you cannot take a piece of data out of context then use it as an example against Global Warming can you”

No, you can’t take it out of context. You can use handy data as examples against it though. So in the case of “The Earth was warmer 200 million years ago” it is being used as a contradiction – essentially, the opposition is saying “How does your theory explain why the Earth was warmer back then?”.

Now you can disagree with the opposition all you want, but you have to admit it has made those arguing that AGW is real work a lot harder and make their cases/research far more watertight then they would have had to had everyone rolled over and accepted it.

Please more coverage for Mr Hannan – he really might be the best chance to stop a Tory elction victory!

Mr Eugenides,

Just on a point of clarity, was the point of the “Rivers of Blood” speech not [from Powell’s point of view] to try and stop immigration to avoid a racial war, rather than to start one? Was he not saying that he was fearful that racial strife would be the result, rather than calling for it?

Precisely that.

Sunny,

Mr Eugenides, here are some choice words by Powell:

In 15 or 20 years time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.

That’s a misquote: Powell claimed those were the words of his constituent. Given that many people expressed similar views at the time, I don’t think we can reasonably accuse Powell of lying about this.

That speech doesn’t show Powell was a racist: he claimed whites were not superior to blacks and he believed in equality before the law; he welcomed Commonwealth professionals and students; he just wasn’t keen on immigration in the sense of settlement, nor the notion that a citizen should be prohibited from discriminating in his private life in whatever way he wished. He believed this would lead to great trouble.

Now the fact is that there haven’t been rivers of blood (although Powell didn’t claim there would be, either) but there have been racially motivated crimes and racially motivated riots – and not just between whites and ‘BMEs’ (as the government charmingly calls them) but between British Asians and blacks, too, among others.

Conspirators may be interested in the independent review of the Oldham riots.

There remains concern about immigration, particularly in deprived areas, because people often blame their poor circumstances on immigrants and immigration. And ghettoisation, or de facto segregation (distinct from de jure segregation) does not help.

Immigration is important to people. It is the fifth most important issue in general elections, after economy, law and order, education, and health (those last in no particular order). As with those who claim to be allergic to man-made electromagnetic fields, the public’s concerns are misplaced but genuine. It is therefore wrong to attribute those concerns to mere racism and dismiss them as such.

Mark @64

“In general, yes, but given how many governments now have a lot of tax revenue wrapped up in AGW it unfortunately is always going to cloud the issue.”

I don’t see how. The politics issue is entirely separate to the scientific debate. Those who want to argue the politics should argue about the politics. The science on the subject is, largely settled. To try to deflect bad political policies by dragging the science into it is just stupid.

“I was seeking to put climate research into two groups, one of which concludes AGW is real, the other that it is not.”

There aren’t two scientific groups though is there? Not when you come down to it, not when you look at it objectively. The scientific argument to the actual existence and cause of Global Warming has effectively been over for fifteen years or more.

The two groups are those who understand the science and the deniers of various hues, from the nutcases, the Right Wing free marketers and the pitchmen for the oil industry. No-one with any credibility in the field disputes the science. The prognosis and time line? Well sure, you could argue that some disputes exist, but the existence of AGW is not seriously disputed.

You may as well argue that two camps exist in history as to the existence of the holocaust because a few ‘historians’ have doubts. No doubt they too would argue that for every piece of evidence the ‘pro’ have the ‘sceptics’ have equally convincing evidence too. Doesn’t make it true, does it?

“So in the case of “The Earth was warmer 200 million years ago” it is being used as a contradiction – essentially, the opposition is saying “How does your theory explain why the Earth was warmer back then?”

That is only relevant if the data you supply forms no part of the evidence. Every climate scientists knows that the Earth has undergone warming and cooling periods before, that is a given. No-one disputes it, no-one is suggesting that natural phenomena and human influence are mutually exclusive any more than death by natural causes would exclude the existence of murder.

“Now you can disagree with the opposition all you want, but you have to admit it has made those arguing that AGW is real work a lot harder and make their cases/research far more watertight”

I don’t see how. The ‘objections’ by most of the anti science brigade are really at the fundamental level, it is the Sun, it was cold last week, it snowed in Germany type of things or just pure inventions. No scientist has had to work harder thanks to the Oregon petition or the halfwitted nonsense that channel four put up a couple of years ago. No scientist was pushed any harder thanks to the church and their machinations and objection to the Earth’s shape or the Earth’s position in the solar system/Galaxy/Universe, nor was any evolution theorist from Darwin onwards helped by religious nutcases either. What pushed these men was the quest for knowledge and intelligent questions, not PR men with profits to protect.

“then they would have had to had everyone rolled over and accepted it.”

Rolled over? Why do you think the World’s economists and oil executives know more about the climate than the best climate scientist?

Lets cut to the car chase, the Rights attempts to derail the science was not brought about by them seeing something in the science, this is a fight for economic supremacy. Had Global Warming been caused by a huge CO2 machine operated by Muslims in Mecca, George Bush would have bombed it years ago.

Bullshit!
Why bother, it’s easy to tax people, you don’t need to mastermind a worldwide conspiracy, coin the term “anthropogenic global warming,” set up dozens of NGOs, hold international conventions, hoodwink an entire generation of scientists to raise taxes. You also helpfully ignore the wealth of proposals designed to be revenue neutral, but then they don’t fit with your conspiracy theory do they?

It’s been very easy to raise taxes, take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

Enoch was a man who tried to prevent rivers of blood. How ironic that he should be attacked by a Leftie whose approach to nationalism (fight the BNP) is likely to fulfil Enoch’s prophesy.

Deep Throat:

No, sorry, your premise is as false as your name.

“Why bother, it’s easy to tax people”

Yes but so much easier to get them accept higher taxes if its alledgedly for the good of the planet. Quite how giving more money to government helps the environment has never been made fully clear.

“you don’t need to mastermind a worldwide conspiracy, coin the term “anthropogenic global warming,” set up dozens of NGOs, hold international conventions, hoodwink an entire generation of scientists to raise taxes.”

No, but its not just about tax. It’s about political exploiatation. All these middle class eco warriors vote, and they are more likely to vote for you if you make the right noises about their cause de jour (remember the tories green rebranding ?). Plus you can give all sorts of potentially unpopular policies (from reductions in refuse collection to the imposition of toll roads) a greenwash which tends to buy the tacit support of gullible middle class do gooders sorry I meant the environmentally aware, who then attempt to set their pet cause as a social norm.

“You also helpfully ignore the wealth of proposals designed to be revenue neutral, but then they don’t fit with your conspiracy theory do they?”

I have yet to see a green tax that’s revenue neutral in the UK, and I have a feeling that my defintion of revenue neutral (reduces my tax bill if I exhibit green behaviours) is not the one the govt will use (reduces the tax bill for middle class cyclists and increases it for everyone else)

“It’s been very easy to raise taxes, take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.”

Ed “So what” Balls would be proud of you. Relatively easy to raise taxes so far maybe but it’s going to get harder. Taxes from tobacco, alcohol and petrol are going to fall in the medium/long term. Add to that the host of pressures already on public finances and it’s going to get significantly harder. Direct taxes seem to have gone out of fashion (too transparent for the left) so the agenda is to introduce a raft of consumption taxes based on carbon consumption.

Anyone who swallows MMGW hypothesis whole is a fool, and will probably believe anything.