He and Osborne have a project which sort of apes Brown – Blair.

After the election, should they win, Cameron would be turned out – a year, maybe? – and Cameron’s pro NHS soundbites would be ignored by his successor, who would follow the interests of the Billionaires who own the tory party and run the media.

What NHS? they would ask. It was always a postcode lottery, we are simply funding it on a local basis.

See Carswell and localism: http://www.talkcarswell.com/show.aspx?id=923 et seq

The NHS
Hunting with dogs
Kaminski

Come on, somebody start this contest!

Thanks. the LC piece is drawn a longer analysis on Next Left
http://www.nextleft.org/2009/08/taking-hannanism-seriously.html

I think the motivation driving Hannanism’s attack on the NHS and the political uses of Hannanism for the more electorally-focused right seems to me well captured in this 1994 comment on the New Right by the political philosopher Jerry Cohen, who died this month.

“Considered as practical proposals, the theories of Friedman, Hayek and Nozick were crazy, crazy in the strict sense that you would have to be crazy to think that such proposals (eg abolition of all regulation of professional standards and of safety at work, abolition of state money, abolition of all welfare provision) might be implemented in the near, medium or long-term. The theories are in that sense crazy because they are uncompromisingly fundamental: they were not devised with one eye on electoral possibility. And, just for that reason, their serviceability in electoral and other political contest is very great. Politicians and activists can press not-so-crazy right-wing proposals with conviction because they have the strength of commitment that depends upon depth of conviction, and depth comes from theory that is too fundamental to be practicable in a direct sense”.