Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Sunday, 26 June 2016

Migration - Hannan In Trouble

After the BBC Newsnight appearance of Dan, Dan The Oratory Man, and Evan Davis’ clear exasperation that the Vote Leave crowd were now saying there might not be any reduction in immigration following Britain’s departure from the EU, the disquiet started. Many had voted Leave precisely because they were given the impression that immigration would be reduced, especially that from eastern Europe.
One only slightly used fire extinguisher, what am I bid? Yes, it's with you Sir, you in the front row

Hannan was now calmly saying this might not only not happen, but that he didn’t have a problem with it continuing. All those who did have a problem with it continuing, and who thought that in him they had found a champion for their cause, began to realise they had been taken for fools, something which Zelo Street has been telling anyone prepared to listen for some time - that Hannan talks well, but lies badly.
How would he broach the issue? Simples. By lying again: “A lot of Remainers are now raging at me because I *don't* want to cut immigration sharply. There really is no pleasing some people”. No Dan, it isn’t “Remainers”. IT’S YOUR OWN SIDE. Daniel Knowles - one of his fellow journalists - put him straight. “They're raging because your campaign - your allies if not you - promised that to win”. Bit obvious, really.
And Martin Gentles had to point out something else that was rather obvious, if not to Hannan: “he may find many on his side are not as relaxed with that proposition as he is”. Quite, especially, as Rupert Evans also had to point out, “It's the reason for a third of the Leave vote. Depressing, really”. A third of that 17 million were motivated to put their cross in the Leave box because they believed that would cut immigration.
So the backlash was all too predictable: “They are raging at you because you lied and lied and lied and lied about it”. That seems to cover all the bases. Would someone care to second that emotion? “Yeah it was the lies, mate”. It’s a wonder that Hannan doesn’t have permanent access to a fire extinguisher, what with all the burning trousers.
We even had someone giving the impression they were a Star Trek fan: “I am, and have been, highlighting your deliberate lies”. They may not have been his friend, though, not now. One Tweeter told The Great Man “As a rule it's not good form to lie before a crucial irreversible vote. PS about that £350 million a week …”.
Another put it equally directly: “'We can't cut immigration if we're in the EU' was taken as a promise to cut immigration. You tore the country apart with lies”. What the electorate was given to understand was that there would be a cut in migrant numbers. So one Tweeter’s suggestion was all too predictable: “I know, Twitter needs a special ‘Dan Hannan Liar Notice’ extension. 12 million characters should be enough”.

Daniel Hannan was OK when he was a fringe character. Nobody got affected by all his lies then. Now he’s been pitched into the mainstream, he’s discovering that not only does power bring responsibilities, but also that actions have consequences.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

So now it is established (as if we didn't know already) that the Leave mob are racist liars and hypocrites......Parliament is entitled to reject the referendum vote.

It might ruffle some feathers amongst the suckers who voted Leave......But you know what? FUCK 'EM. They're only turkeys voting for Christmas anyway.

Arnold said...

So what we had was a referendum result that gives both sides a reason to start rioting. Brexiters as they now know there will be no £350m a week and no mass deportations. Bremainers as they know they lost due to lying on an industrial scale.

SimonB said...

Brexiters disappointed that they've been lied to can always boycott the rags that spread the lies. I'd love to see that. Anyone care to dress up as an Enoch Powell ghost and suggest it to them?

Anonymous said...

All of you traitors bashibg the leave voters are happy to sign your rights away.

There is a lot to this referendum and valid reasons for wanting out but by all means, keep throwing your toys out of the pram.

One day, just one day you will see the good in our parting of company.

Stephen said...

Traitors? Really?

pete c said...

If we'd parted ways after a decent debate with folk on the centre or centre/left side then fine.

That debate didn't happen, so I resent 100% handing my future over to unrestrained 'progress' in the hands of uncaring right-wing slash and burn merchants.

And I've not yet come across a right I wish I hadn't signed over. And at least some of us 70 yr olds having been round the block a bit do see that there was not anything on offer but the negative in this unnecessary and wounding vote.

A lot to this referendum - yeah right! Dream on. The next few years are about to get rather unpleasant.

Richard Norris said...

As a 73 year old, I can but echo pete c's comment above. I am finding it very difficult to come to terms with the immediate result of this reckless, corrosive and hugely destructive referendum which goes against what I have believed in for most of my adult life.
The casual deployment of jaw-dropping mendacity as a tactic by the Leave campaign I found very unsettling, likewise the simple rehashing of anti-EU myths, dished out by the right -wing rags for the last twenty to thirty years.
If Scotland opts for independence then yet more destructive, needlessly self-inflicted instability will be the result. What next in this disaster?

Rich M said...

@4 Anonymous 21:09.

'Traitors'....you are using the language of a scoundrel. You might be a naïve adolescent, and in which case you should try to grow up and mature, for all our sakes.

If you are already a 'responsible' adult then perhaps you are an unredeemable scoundrel. And if you think you have some power to see the future and that the people you are addressing will see the beauty and rightness of whatever future this is then you are a deluded scoundrel.

Anonymous said...

To Rich M.

Be charitable. He might have been referring to New Labour. If he was, it's fair enough.

Rich M said...

@9

But he wasn't referring to New Labour and I don't agree that it would automatically be 'fair enough' used in this context. And I think to use the term 'traitor' in a factional political context is perhaps very different to the term being used in the sense of 'traitor to one's country'.

The latter seems to me to be a much more sinister and potentially dangerous use of the term. Don't you see? Or perhaps I am being a bit oversensitive at the moment. Not like we've just experienced an event that throws into question just what Britain (and England) is.

Anonymous said...

To Rich M.

I don't want to batter this to death.......but yes, you're being "oversensitive."

The ninth edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, page 1479, defines "traitor" as A person who is treacherous or disloyal, esp. to his or her country. Which is a fair description of what New Labour did and is doing, almost irrespective of "country." (Though you could quite reasonably argue that a deliberate sabotage of the principles of one of the great democratic British political parties is as much a betrayal of the country as it is of the party). So you can be a traitor to a principle at least as much as to a country.

But then it becomes a pedantic argument over a form of words and frankly I can't be bothered with that. It's just a waste of time.

Meanwhile, today more New Labour lowlives have continued their betrayal. To which I say: good riddance and don't come back...go form your own party...you could call it the Social Democratic Party...and see how far you get. My bet is about they would get about as far as the last gang who tried it on. Which is why they try to leech off the moral appeal of the (original) Labour Party. They know on their own they'd be eaten alive.

Which is why I have utter contempt for them. They don't belong in the Labour Party and never have. The membership of the party have already shown them why.

Rich M said...

To Anonymous,

I thought you might come back to this. Have you ever looked up the word 'zealot' in your dictionary? Am not feeling so sensitive now.

Anonymous said...

To Rich M.

I had every expectation this might further reduce to pedantry and arguing a form of words.

Which is why I hesitated before the previous post. And which is why I now leave the field to you. I can't be arsed with nonsense. But good luck with yours.

Unknown said...

It gets worse though. If immigration stays at a broadly similar level (as I believe it will), what will those who voted out because they thought it would be cut do then? Direct action? Voting for even more extreme parties? The vulnerable will suffer, Hannan will be just fine.