Peter Hitchens and Daniel Hannan have a public disagreement

I like both these guys. They’re inspirational. Interested to see them in a conflict of ideas. Its the kind of archetypal political disagreement. Hannan thinks its better to be in the tent, while Hitchens prefers to piss on it from the outside.


There’s a secondary question there too that I suspect we all grapple with. Is it worth trying to change a party like the UK Conservatives (so far gone), or is a completely new party a better alternative?

And it is universal in that it applies in NZ with the Nationals and in the US with the Republicans.

I suspect its one of those things where you dither over a decision for a possibly unwise degree of time in the hope that something will happen that will make that decision easier.

8 thoughts on “Peter Hitchens and Daniel Hannan have a public disagreement

  1. Hannan is wrong: campaigning for Labour or Greens (or in NZ, NZF) isn’t “smart” – it’s treason,


    • Thank you for that opinion Mr. Berwick. Isn’t it wonderful to be able to make these kind of decisions without the responsibility of having to act upon them?

      BTW, look out for my post on Jacqui Lambie later today, she has similar ideas to you regarding the Greens in Tasmania.


      • Why the sarcasm, Redbaiter? It’s plain as day that those parties are complicit in mass immigration and intend replacement of the white population.

        Just establishing this basic fact is a major contribution.

        Having stated his opinion, Mr. Berwick must now take responsibility for it by doing what?

        I think we should take a page from Orwell. The first duty being to restate the obvious, owtte.


        • Why the sarcasm? Because the person using the idiotic posting name Andrew Berwick has a habit of making inflammatory comments and I think that habit is motivated by a narcissistic desire for attention rather than a wish for any real solutions.

          It is easy to spout off on message boards. What would Hannan gain right now if he stood up and accused the Greens and Labour of treason? If Hannan is working towards any objective within the Conservative party I respect his right to operate according to the strategy he chooses. For what he has achieved I think he has earned that right.

          If Hitchens is advocating a new party, that too is a rational solution to the changes that are necessary. We need such competition of ideas.

          Any plan, radical or not, has to have an objective and a strategy for obtaining that objective. Preferably that strategy should be rational and although not devoid of risk, at least demonstrate a reasonable chance of success in meeting the nominated objective.

          The objective too should be clear.


          • Copy that Mr. Berwick has been iritating in the past.

            However, he didn’t say that Hannan should make charges of treason, only that politicians who campaign for the sellout parties are commiting treason. He omitted the Tories for some strange reason. They are no less contemptible than the others.

            Selling out whites is indeed job no. 1 for the silk drawers set. You’re quite right to focus on practical measures. As you say, electoral politics have been undermined for a long time, not least by the enormous dependence on rich (and controlling) sugar daddies who are, shalk we say, unsavory.

            Soros even financed the Secretaries of State project to ensure leftist thumbs on the scale.

            We have to get creative. Write-in voting is inexplicably ignored in the States and voters continue to buy newspapers that hate America. Just the mass withdrawal of cooperation has a lot of appeal.

            I share EAD’s reservations about Hannan. His book on the British legal tradition was a good sign but he’s gone squishy and seems a lot like any “respctable” Republican here. Britain’s answer to our resident sail trimmer, Rand Paul. I confess I can’t document the reason for my distaste for Hannan, mostly b/c it’s a pain to make comments on a phone!!


  2. Any respect I might have had for judas goat Hannan’s lucid defense of the solid principles of the English-speaking peoples has long since been worn away by the perpetual whoring-out of his conscience to the Conservative Party of the UK and it’s shabby clique of opportunists, profiteers and sell-outs

    Have a read of the above article Reddy – you will see the parallels with our own sell-outs in blue. The only sad thing about what is going on over here is that people still support and stand up for the very party that is betraying them. At least the UK have UKIP but I am anticipating massive anti UKIP propaganda and vote rigging will mean they won’t get nearly as many seats as they would if the UK had a properly functioning democracy including fourth estate.


    • Well, Hannan might be better off in the UKIP but he may not, for if you take a good hard look at what UKIP is its not really the ideal solution.

      As I said about the NZ Conservative party, its not what it stood for that matters, it is more that is it an agent of change. Same applies to UKIP, where Farage has managed to gain popular support and momentum for change. The real issue is not the UKIP, it is what happens after the UKIP manages to snatch some of the political power away from the two major parties.

      The idea I think is more that we take power away from Labour of the Conservatives (or National in NZ) and that’s fine and good. It has to happen. What we do once that power has been reduced is another thing. Who really knows what UKIP will do?

      I think we should recognise that it has taken the cultural Marxists decades of planning and subversive action to arrive at the state we are in today. If we wish to use the Democratic system as the solution, we need to temper our expectations to what is possible by that method. If we can change things quicker than what the Marxists have done over 70 years of so then good.

      If we say that their destruction of the democratic system has made that framework unusable then we need to seek another avenue of change, and that avenue has to lead us somewhere that provides a clear alternative with a successful solution.


  3. To be truthfulI haven’t been following too much of what Hannan has done lately, so I’m prepared to accept the criticism that he has perhaps joined the natives.

    I saw Hitchens on UK Q and A last week and he was as acidic as ever towards the political establishment.


Comments are closed.