Apparently, tales of fluffy squirrels are turning kids against badger shooting and fox hunting. Image: Dan Murrell/NS
Show Hide image

Commons Confidential: Cons against cuddly toys

Plus: the latest from the party conferences.

Glass of wine in hand and tieless, David Cameron moved across a room full of hacks at the Hyatt hotel in Birmingham with the smoothness of a ballroom dancer. His wingman was his chum-cum-Chief Whip, Michael Gove; the former Times scribbler was the sole minister invited to the conference soirée. Cameron let slip that his “utterly heartbroken” speech in Aberdeen in the nervy days before Scotland’s referendum had been vetted by Gordon Brown. That the Tory premier bowed to his Labour predecessor reinforces the impression that, for ten days in September, old Irn-Broon was running the country.

The ConDems are disintegrating as coalition rivals battle for votes. In Taunton Deane, Jeremy Browne, the Lib Dems’ answer to Leslie Phillips (see page 23), defends a majority of 4,000 against the PR Rebecca Pow, a Tory wannabe granted a podium speaking spot at the Con conference. My mole recalled Browne’s private assessment of Pow. “I don’t feel particularly threatened,” said the Limp Dem, “but I imagine she organises a very good garden party.” Talk about damning with faint praise.

The Beast of Bolsover, Dennis Skinner, skipped his last meeting of Labour’s National Executive Committee to avoid being patronised by Ed Miliband. The veteran lost his committee seat as collateral damage in what looked like an inept plot by the leader’s office to oust the Scouse critic Steve Rotheram. Miliband praising his unintentional victim would have tested the patience of a beast with a hatred of hypocrisy.

The Tories want a cull of cuddly animal toys and tales of Mr Tod. Brian Williams, a Shropshire councillor, warned a Countryside Alliance gathering that fluffy squirrels and the like were turning kids against badger shooting and fox hunting. And there I was, thinking it was because sending hounds to tear animals apart for fun is repellent and scientific evidence doesn’t support blasting badgers.

Hope Not Hate’s Nick Lowles joins the honourable order of high achievers who’ve rejected a gong. The head of the anti-extremist group, I understand, declined a peerage offered by Miliband. Unsurprisingly, I found no mention of this refusal in Hope, the modest Lowles’s book about the campaign that defeated the BNP.

In the Manchester boozer Briton’s Protection, a pub serving fine ales and 300 whiskies, a young Labour researcher ordered a cup of Earl Grey. The landlady had to pop out to buy a box.

In Birmingham, the boxes of Sunday Telegraphs placed all over conference weren’t so clever when the headline screamed “Tory crisis” after Brooks Newmark quit and Mark Reckless defected.

Kevin Maguire is the associate editor (politics) of the Daily Mirror

Kevin Maguire is Associate Editor (Politics) on the Daily Mirror and author of our Commons Confidential column on the high politics and low life in Westminster. An award-winning journalist, he is in frequent demand on television and radio and co-authored a book on great parliamentary scandals. He was formerly Chief Reporter on the Guardian and Labour Correspondent on the Daily Telegraph.

This article first appeared in the 30 September 2014 issue of the New Statesman, ISIS vs The World

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.