Of Traitors and Fools

Like many others, I have watched the Dan Hannan video clip and like many others I was impressed by the pithy and accurate summation he made of Gordon Brown’s incompetence. Indeed, even Mrs L, not normally very political, commented upon both the quality of the speaking and the precision of the content.

My attention is drawn, however, via the Conservative Party Reptile to a response to all of this by Tom Harris. Harris is a fool. He makes himself look an even bigger one with this response.

What was truly repugnant about his speech was the total absence of any sense of patriotism. Some Tories on the extreme right of the party share the problem of some Republicans in the States: they don’t regard the head of government to be the nation’s leader unless he or she is also a member of their little party.

Putting aside the rank hypocrisy of a Labour politician complaining about what he perceives as tribal politics, he is wrong on every count. A point made pretty much unanimously by the many commenters to his risible piece. And, if we are to talk of patriotism (the last refuge of the scoundrel) then surely it is unpatriotic to stand by and say nothing while an incompetent buffoon ruins the country.

Harris confuses loyalty to one’s country – something that Hannan clearly demonstrates (and, indeed, loyalty to those who elected him) – and loyalty to the prime minister. None of us owe any loyalty to the prime minister and the prime minister is not Britain or the British people, so tearing him a new arsehole is not a lack of patriotism, it is the right and proper thing to do.

Gordon Brown isn’t just Labour’s prime minister; he’s Britain’s prime minister, and for any UK politician to launch such a disgraceful, personal attack on his country’s leader — in a foreign country — is nothing short of disgraceful. 

Which is why he’s so popular in David Cameron’s Conservative Party, I suppose.

Harris also forgets that this is not a foreign country as such (even though that is where it is based), it is the European parliament, where Hannan is an elected member representing a British constituency during a debate in which the British prime minister made a speech. Therefore, his comments were entirely appropriate. Indeed, he would have been doing his constituents a disservice had he not done so. It’s also worth making the point that Gordon Brown is not my leader, he is my servant and a piss-poor one at that. I’d like to sack him forthwith, but am unable to do so. And, let us be clear here – no one has a duty to be loyal to the prime minister and anyone openly criticising him anywhere is not a lack of patriotism. I am loyal to my country, I openly despise the prime minister and will happily make that clear wherever I happen to be. If we are to talk sedition, squandering the country’s wealth and leaving us with a mountain of debt comes somewhat higher up the tree than open criticism of the person responsible. If we are supposed to respect the office despite the incumbent, then at least let’s have an incumbent who doesn’t bring the office into disrepute.

And, of course, Harris, like other tribal politicians cannot differentiate between shades of opposition. Many of those who enjoyed the speech are nothing to do with the Conservative party. But then, Harris is as much a buffoon as his leader – and, dear God, we are supposed to believe that he is one of the better ones.

What continues to disappoint me when reading the drivel on blogs such as Harris’ is that he is supposed to be a professional debater, yet cannot put together a coherent argument without resorting to logical fallacy – usually the ad hominem, which along with snide, supercilious sarcasm is found in abundance during his responses to the comments on his blog. And, like the consummate professional politician that he is, he fails to respond to the points made to him.