Thread by @docrussjackson

So despite having a very long history of involvement with explicitly right-wing publications, most recently of course the @spectator, Andrew Neil constantly chastises people who dare to assume his politics might just possibly be right-leaning.

On 15th July Mr Neil aggressively admonished @Femi_Sorry, saying "We've never met or talked. You have no idea what my views are on any major issue today, tho you think you do. To call me "scarily right-wing" is inaccurate, a smear and a hard left trope. You should withdraw it."

A few hours ago, following news that his politics show will not now be running again - mainly because he didn't fancy that late afternoon slot offered him from the @BBC - he even tweeted admonishing someone explicitly expressing their support for him. Why?

He admonished the person because they said they 'disagreed with his politics'. In response, Mr Neil asserted that: "What you “think” are my politics and the reality are, I suspect, two distinct and different matters."

So why DO so many of us assume he leans to the right?

Might Mr Neil's response to Ben Shapiro's question to him tell us anything about his politics?

In an infamous interview, Shapiro asked him: "Why can't you just say you're on the Left? Is it so hard for you? Why can't you just be honest? It's a serious question."

His response?

I admire people who at least try to keep an open mind, and who carefully consider relevant evidence before reaching conclusions - rather than either parroting the establishment line, or offering a predictably contrarian 'hot take'.

So while accepting that occasionally some people in later life can & do shift their political beliefs - & Mr Neil might be one of them - let's have a little look at some of his past positions and decisions that might give us some clues about his political allegiances & leanings.

During Mr Neil's time as editor, The Sunday Times backed a campaign to prove that #HIV was not a cause of #AIDS, including in 1990, a serialised book by a US conservative who rejected the scientific consensus on the causes of AIDS & argued AIDS could not spread to heterosexuals.

Articles & editorials in The Sunday Times cast doubt on the scientific consensus, described HIV as a "politically correct virus". In his 1996 book Full Disclosure, Neil wrote that the HIV/AIDS denialism "deserved publication to encourage debate."

Fair enough. Debate IS healthy.

That same year, he wrote that the Sunday Times had been vindicated in its coverage, "The Sunday Times was one of a handful of newspapers, perhaps the most prominent, which argued that heterosexual Aids was a myth."

Not quite the same thing imho, but ok. Benefit of the doubt?

Of course, by 1999 infections were the highest for a decade, & of 2,457 people diagnosed with HIV that year, 1,070 were infected through heterosexual sex & 989 through homosexual sex & most of the rest through intravenous drug use.

Let's turn to climate change!

Neil rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and has frequently invited non-scientists & climate change deniers to debate climate change on his @BBC programmes.

In 2012, Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change & the Environment at the LSE, said:

Neil had "rarely, if ever, included a climate scientist in any of its debates about global warming" on his @BBC programme The Daily Politics, & wrote that Neil lets inaccurate & misleading statements about climate change go unchallenged on The Daily Politics!

Surely NOT!

So what about war in Iraq?

Like climate change, it's not *necessarily* a Left/Right thing, though it's fair to say the Right tend to be a bit less concerned about the environmental costs of a strong economy than the Left, & more hawkish when it comes to international disputes.

Neil was an early advocate of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, describing the case for war & regime change advanced by Tony Blair and George W. Bush as "convincing" & "masterful".

Some might say he was a little 'gung-ho'.

In 2002, Neil said that Iraq had "embarked on a worldwide shopping spree to buy the technology & material needed to construct weapons of mass destruction – & the missile systems needed to deliver them across great distances". 🤔

Neil also said "the suburbs of Baghdad are now dotted with secret installations, often posing as hospitals or schools, developing missile fuel, bodies & guidance systems, chemical & biological warheads &, most sinister of all, a renewed attempt to develop nuclear weapons." 😱😱😱

Neil claimed that Saddam Hussein would provide Al-Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction & had links to 9/11.

The consensus view is that there is no credible evidence of Hussein's involvement & in 2006, President Bush made clear that his administration did not have any evidence.

We all make mistakes!

What about war in Afghanistan?

Neil was a vocal & enthusiastic proponent of British military involvement, deriding those opposed as "wimps with no will to fight": he labelled the Guardian "The Daily Terrorist" & the New Statesman the "New Taliban". 😳

He compared Tony Blair to Winston Churchill & Osama bin Laden to Adolf Hitler, while describing the US invasion of Afghanistan as a "calibrated response" & a "patient, precise & successful deployment of US military power".

Have we all got it wrong? Could Neil be a secret Lefty?

Obviously nobody can possibly know with 100% certainty what Andrew Neil's political views are, & as the now ex-most senior political interviewer at the impartial public broadcaster the @BBC, it's absolutely his right to choose to try & conceal them from any public scrutiny.