Dan Hannan is, of course, the MEP who has become popular for sprouting libertarian ideals, most recently annoying the Fabians by saying this.
My question is, does anyone know of an interview, article, etc, where he has espoused any obviously Austrian ideals? The only clue I can find is that his picture on his wikipedia page is sourced as “I created this work entirely by myself on behalf of the Mises Youth Club. The picture is hence ‘courtesy of the Mises Youth Club’.”
Does anyone else know?
No, he is British.
Sorry.
I don’t think he is that familiar with Austrian economics or free market economics in general to such an extent as to label him Austrian or anything.
Austrian in this context is not a phillosophy or religion, but an economics school of thought (which I believe to be the proper/correct school for the study of economics). Has Hannan studied Austrian economics? I doubt it!
Mr. Hannon more likely falls in the neoclassical school where he can blend his political ideology more anonymously. I did like his line from a speech to PM Gordon Brown, “You can’t spend your way out of recession and you can’t borrow your way out of debt.” That’s common sense.
I lol’d.
I follow Hannan’s blogs pretty regularly, and cant remember him mentioning the Austrian School in any of his posts (or interviews on TV). However, he is familiar with Jeffersonian ideals of limited government (Jefferson is a personal hero of his), as well as being familiar with Ron Paul.
Loved his recent attack on the NHS.
While definitely not of the anarchist variety, he is nonetheless a defender of libertarian ideals, and is therefore a bastion of hope in these socialist British lands. Perhaps we could find a way of introducing him to the Austrian School?
Mr Hannan probably faces the possibility of being marginalized by his own party, since the ‘pro-market’ Conservative Party shackled itself to the socialist welfare system in the UK some years ago, because it is a ‘Great British Institution’; thus attacks on its existence are ‘un-British’, not matter how reasonable or correct the criticisms are. I honestly don’t hold much hope of a libertarian rebirth in the UK, since a good deal of the populace are just as heavily invested in the great lie, too.
That said, I do admire Mr Hannan’s eloquent criticisms of socialism in general. Sadly, he’ll be regarded as speaking gibberish by his fellow politicians, and many others.
Being British myself, I ought to note that the Conservative Party does not actually have a libertarian tradition at all, and resembles a quasi-corporatist/authoritarian moralist party. The only exception to that, perhaps, was the heady days of the 1980s with Lady Thatcher. And even then, she has since been (metaphorically) cast under the bus by the current party apparatchiks. The only other great British politician of the recent past would be Enoch Powell. Although a registered Conservative as well, he constantly annoyed the party leadership by speaking his mind over the party line, and was a dedicated advocate of the free-market as we understand it. Although, his one error was entrusting the government with the money supply.
But to answer the overall question posed, I suspect Mr Hannan knows of the Austrian School but has not made, or had, the opportunity to express that fact.
The same thing with the Canadian conservatives. We did have a sort of revolution, where the western Reform party merged with the dead Progressive Conservative (hello doublethink!) party to form a new conservative party, but in less than 5 years, all traces of free market radicalism and federalism have been lost. It was just a way to siphon off and undermine what was a growing western separtist movement based around more traditional american conservative ideals (old right).
2 years ago I thought the same about Ron Paul. The way to avoid being marginalized, is for us (laymen) to rally around these figures and promote them. I’m an ancap, but I promote Ron Paul to statists all the time. Many end up coming over to anarchism, but it’s incremental. We have to be willing to combat the statists by moving with the same methodical and deliberate gradualism they have used to undermine freedom. We have to embrace the long view.
Paul and Hannan have the message at the right time, all they need to do is locate the remnant, and then they will have a constituency.
I recall this interview where he mentions artificially low interest rates being a cause of recession and pointing out that “you can’t legislate against recession”. He also says this:
Hannan’s views are compatible with Ron Paul’s and most what Tom Woods promotes. Hannan holds old right perspectives similar to Chodorov.
Daniel Hannan has mentioned Hayek as an influence:
“Then Labour found a clip in which, asked who my political influences were, I included, in a list ranging from Friedrich Hayek to Thomas Jefferson”
Well, I do know that Mr Hannan is fairly popular in his home constituency of South-East England, so for that reason alone, the Conservative Party leadership probably won’t ‘punish’ him too much. As to your other point, I am inclined to agree, actually. I guess I came off as a bit pessimistic, since being a libertarian in the UK requires a whole lot of patience; don’t worry, I’m not going to falter though. 
Another aspect of British politics Americans (and North Americans) may not be aware of is that the Labour Party has only ever achieved electoral victory because of Scotland. England is overwhelmingly traditionalist by nature (thanks to the landed gentry and numerous rural areas) and has never earnestly embraced socialism as practiced by Labour; they regard the philosophy as a bizarre continental (european) import. The industrial city of Glasgow was the epicenter of socialist rebellion in the UK and its influence quickly conquered Scotland – except the Borders [with England] region, that was always more anglicized anyway.
(Today, virtually every Scot is living on benefit (social security checks) or is employed by the state; no more than 20-30% are privately employed.)
To emphasize that further, the current Prime Minister is a Scot (so was Tony Blair) and most of the Labour Cabinet are Scots – another aspect of British politics the English resent. Since the 1950s, socialism gained a deathgrip on Britain through Scottish voters who always provided just enough support to tip the scales in Labour’s favor, otherwise it would probably be a marginal party like the Liberal Democrats (the aging hippy party).
The main issue libertarians face here is convincing those married to the welfare system; many of whom have depended on it for generations now. Nonetheless, the recent politician’s expenses scandal, the financial meltdown and the Orwellian handling of Iraq/Afghanistan and the fact Gordon Brown despises England have stoked incredibly ill feeling in the UK. In fact, the new national hero in England is Oliver Cromwell, who famously removed both the parliament and monarchy and was reluctant benevolent chieftain (dictating wasn’t his style) of Britain’s only period as a decentralized republic.
As for libertarianism in the UK, David Cameron (the current Conservative leader) has appropriated the term as to mean, effectively, socialism on a smaller, ‘less offensive’ scale; not that scary continental stuff, but a kinder, safer English version.
Canadians are like the Scots. If not directly working for the state or on welfare, they are operating under some sort of state privilege, such as unions.
But the worst part is, many Canadians swallow it all hook line and sinker, attacking anyone who dares question social democracy.
Where in Canada do you live?