paulhanley

Dismissive complacency. How very typical.

By James Bartholomew in today's Telegraph. In his election campaign Donald Trump said he would 'drain the swamp'. He meant that he wanted to remove lobbyists and corrupt practices from Washington. But now the phrase is increasingly used in Britain and it is about something related but different. It is about an elite which has take control of public life. This elite is not intentionally evil; its members consider themselves to be the most civilised well-meaning and decent among us. As a generalisation they are well educated and come from relatively prosperous backgrounds. They are left-wing 'progressive' or, if Tories, of the One Nation sort. They think that since they are supremely civilised with an open co-operative mindset they must be in favour of EU membership. The takover of parliament by this elite has been obvious. Three years ago nearly all MPs stated that they would respect the result of the referendum. They have not done so. Why? Because they disagree with the result and are confident that their judgement is superior to that of ordinary people. The reach of this elite extends in to the House of Lords, where many are appointees of Tony Blair, David Cameron and Theresa May. But the patronage of these PMs has spread them everywhere - to quangos and agencies like the Electoral Commission, the Crown Prosecution Service and even the police. Oxford colleges are now headed by fully paid-up members, such as Will Hutton, former Labour peers and former BBC executives. The BBC, of course, overflows with members of the new elite. This takeover of power is profoundly damaging. It has decreased confidence that we live in a real democracy because of the disrespect that has been show to the result of the referendum and to Leave voters. It has also undermined trust in the fairness of our institutions. Decisions have been made that appear to be motivated by the views of this elite. The raid on the offices of the Brexit Party by the Electoral Commission just before the EU elections is one example. Discrimination against right-wing or non-PC academics is another. There was a time when it was considered proper that prime ministers and others down the patronage chain should appoint people who were suitably qualified and that they should come from a range of political views. This new elite has dropped those ideas, so confident is it of its moral and intellectual supremacy. How then should we bring an end to its dominance? It will not be easy because this elite exists wherever there is power and influence. The first step must be to vote them out of the Commons, regardless of which party they belong to. Next, reform of the House of Lords must finally take place. Say 35 per cent of the members should be elected by PR. The most fundamental change would be to make all politicians less important. Under our representative system, once MPs are elected the public has now power over them. We should move to become more like a direct democracy, like Switzerland, where are all major decisions are taken by the public. A national vote takes place whenever a certain number of people sign a petition in favour of it. And the vote must be respected. Of course the elite hates this idea - just as it hated the EU referendum - because real democracy denudes them of their power. The old political parties are comfortable as they are. But distrust and anger are building up. Our own swamp will have to be drained. It is only a matter of when and how.

This. He was democratically elected - whether people like him or not.

Wow hang on a minute. He's an expert. Only remainers are allowed to quote experts. You're overstepping the mark here. 🙂

No worries. I'm going to try to get as many of them up on You Tube as possible before the new season starts. Neal had been a good player for Liverpool. As with Asa Hartford, by the time he'd signed for us his legs were going.

Gavin is good in all these games.... in hindsight we badly mismanaged that lad. Absolute screamer by Thommo there. Petty rule!

Bolton 1 Halifax 1 from the 1986/7 FA Cup. The second of the three games after the 1-1 draw at the Shay that I posted the other day. Tony Caldwell scores for us and the Halifax scorer is none other than Phil Brown, 18 months before he signed for us for £17,000. This is a proper old school cup tie, end to end, goalmouth thrills and spills, played on a muddy pitch and in torrential rain. The fact that we struggled to deal with a Fourth Division side was surely a portent of our relegation fate to come.

Bolton 1 Halifax 1 from the 1986/7 FA Cup. The second of the three games after the 1-1 draw at the Shay that I posted the other day. Tony Caldwell scores for us and the Halifax scorer is none other than Phil Brown, 18 months before he signed for us for £17,000. This is a proper old school cup tie, end to end, goalmouth thrills and spills, played on a muddy pitch and in torrential rain. The fact that we struggled to deal with a Fourth Division side was surely a portent of our relegation fate to come.

Used to live in Hitchin. Visited Luton once. That was enough. Stevenage is as bad!

There are very few Brexiteers around here. They all know better.

It was a Tuesday night in March last time. Although from memory it should have been a Saturday in January but the FA Cup intervened.

Witney Whites! I doubt he's more disliked. But he ain't popular!!

I live in Oxford Oxford United fans are on the whole pretty down to earth sorts. They're less likely to be found in the posh/academic and studenty parts of the city, more likely to be found on big estates like Blackbird Leys, Barton and East Oxford in general. In other words, the parts of Oxford that don't fit the dreaming spires stereotype. You'll find them in some of Oxfordshire's market towns as well - Didcot, Witney, Abingdon, Bicester etc. They've consolidated in League 1 after a decade and a half below that level. Previously they've done OK at tier 2 level and even had a good spell in the top flight in the 80s. Tier 3 is probably their natural level. They still have a three-sided stadium. There have been a number of winding up orders of late - centred around the ground owner demanding his rent. He's called Firoz Kassam. The stadium is still called the Kassam from when he was Chairman and actively involved. Now he's a distant figure who influences the club's fortunes in a generally negative way. Their main rival is Swindon, I don't live too far from the railway station and twice I've seen Swindon fans and Thames Valley Police at odds with each other when they've visited. Oxford currently have the sign on Swindon in derby matches. Reading are a historic rival but there's been no game for ages. If Robert Maxwell had got his way the two clubs would have been merged and called The Thames Valley Royals. I enjoyed our 2-4 win at the Kassam two seasons ago. Not so much the awful 0-2 home defeat. Took some mild stick the Monday after that.

We wouldn't be on our own - we'd be trading with the whole world as well as with the EU. The world is so vastly different to when we joined the EEC. But anyway...... let me test you out on a couple of things which I've been thinking for a while and which I am pleased to see the Brexit Party has begun articulating since their formation: 1. Post-independence and free of the EUs stultifying template of regulation and corporatism we have to do all we can to restore the lost link between people and power, a lost link that is at the root of much of the current dissatisfaction in this country. The English regions need to be given a lot more responsibility for their own economic growth along with the ability to directly benefit from that economic growth. Local/regional politicians could therefore be held directly accountable at elections for the health/wealth of the local economy and the policies they've implemented to try to achieve that success. As part of that I believe the regions of England need their own USP in trading with the whole of the world. At the minute this country is very imbalanced - only three regions contribute more than they get back from the Exchequer - London, the South-East and the East. Lots of economic potential lost locally and nationally. 2. We need to abolish the House of Lords. As people who talk about the loss of democratic accountability via the EU we can't then seek to defend a wholly unelected second chamber. It is a relic of a bygone age and needs to go.

I would say that there are common themes among all leave voters. The belief in the nation state being the upper limit of democracy, that we can and will be better off economically and as a healthy democracy when we wholly manage our own affairs and that the EU is unaccountable, distant and beholden to corporatism. Reasonable remainers will generally argue "we must stay in and reform" ... to which the answer is we've tried until we are dateless. That's why so many of us are fed up of it and want to leave. We can but hope that from this clutch of Tory leadership hopefuls there's someone fairly near the start of their political career who is now going to rise to the top and fill the void. It's far from impossible. Margaret Thatcher would never have been described as a major force in the Conservative party in the mid-1970s. As we know from football unproven doesn't mean lack of potential. As for inherent risks .... to my mind (and as I've said on here many times) the greater risk is staying in and being unhappily bound up to a federalist political project and an over-regulated economic project that will kill wealth and widen the gap between decision makers and the populace.

Thanks. Point by point in answer. * To those of us who voted leave it really is much clearer. We want to be able to set our own laws, set our own policies and finances and make our own way in the world as a nation state - completely free of the EU. We're happy to have a good strong trading relationship with our European nation state neighbours. I personally would prefer this to be on a bi-lateral basis with individual European nation states because the EU sucks the life out of economic prosperity with its wearying regulation and corporatism - but the EU is there so we have to deal with it. * A referendum very rarely has a place in the democratic process - but there are exceptions. I'd say this is very definitely one, for two reasons. 1. We'd had a referendum to confirm our membership - and the EU has evolved way beyond what we voted to join. 2. The question of our relationship with the EU does not run in a linear way along party lines, which means it cannot be adequately dealt with at general elections. * I agree re the political parties. It is a sad state of affairs that we live in an era absent of political heavyweights - just at the time when we need strong leadership. * It doesn't have to be a total mess. We just need some clear leadership and someone who'll be tough with the EU's negotiaters. Around that table, quite frankly, we need to follow their negotiating example. You're right to say that 52/48 is a comparitively close result - a bit closer for instance than the Scottish independence referendum. But neither was it wafer thin. 1.3m votes is a close but clear margin. As such it's about time remoaners (as opposed to reasoned remainers of your own profile) stopped toxifying the political climate.

I'm not so sure it's a non-binary question. As a principle I think it's absolutely the right question to ask. I agree with you that there then follows a secondary question - what type of future relationship do you want with the EU - either as a member (for those who want to remain) or as a non-member (for those who want to leave). The trouble is - as a leave voter, - there's been such endless abuse of the "thick racists" variety over three years that you become suspicious of the motives when a line of questioning seems to want to muddy the waters on the outcome of the 2016 referendum. That's polarisation - but it's polarisation caused by extremist remainers. I know for a fact that had the outcome in 2016 been remain I'd have accepted it. I'd have remained frustrated with the EU and I'd have articulated that - but I wouldn't have gone in to denial that a majority of those who turned out disagreed with me and I wouldn't have been calling for a second vote. Such behaviour lacks any democratic values or integrity.

By definition if you put three, four or five options on a ballot paper rather than two the result will be different. Irrespective of the subject being voted upon. You're asking about the difference between a soft and hard Brexit. I could equally ask whether you'd have accepted various shades of remain on the ballot paper. The trouble is, once you get away from a binary choice, it's very unlikely one side will get more than 50 per cent which means entrenched opponents of the outcome have even more opportunity to seek to undermine a result they didn't want. I'm saying that in a theoretical way rather than in one that directly addresses a vote/referendum on the subject of EU membership.

The mood has not changed. I'll tell you what has changed though - suddenly you believe in democracy. You spot a way of manufacturing an election result you like and you're all over it like a cheap suit. When it's a result you don't like - 52/48 in a referendum that explicitly asked the question 'leave or remain' .... well, you didn't like that result. So you can deny that one and try to undermine it. The extent of the duplicity is quite startling. You are the epitome of the sour, hysterical, sore-losing remainer. You need grief counselling.

My analysis is simple. You think you've found an election/result that suits you so you're creaming your drawers about it. You've no idea how each individual Labour or Conservative voter would have voted. Nor have you any idea how those who turned out in the EU referendum (72 per cent turnout) would have voted as compared to the 36 per cent in the election last week. On every level you are clutching at straws. So I shall repeat again. At the EU referendum - in which the clear question was asked, should we stay in the EU or leave, 52 per cent (17.4 million) voted leave. 48 per cent (16.1 million) voted remain. To be in such a state of utter denial three years on is not healthy. You should have been assigned a grief counsellor some considerable time ago.

You've clearly seen in to the minds of all of the Conservative and Labour voters to create this impartial analysis of the EU election of yours. What a clever man you are. As ever the remain voters have startling intellect and insight way beyond that of the hopes and dreams of us window-lickers on the leave side. How could we ever have thought we could compete in debate with such incomparable wisdom. EU referendum. Leave or remain. 52/48 in favour of leave. It's not what you want to hear but true nonetheless. Google it and see for yourself.

The remain vote is not bigger than leave. You've no evidence of anything of the sort. The last time a referendum was held on this issue directly asking the question leave or stay, leave won. Now that is a categorical fact. The electorate were given a view of a post Brexit world that does not fit in with your pro-EU, pro-corporatist, anti-democratic world view comfort zone. They opted to vote for it in greater numbers than vote against it. So enmeshed in your own rectitude are you that you were and continue to be confounded by this. Hence your straw clutching attempts to create a parallel reality. You lost. Get over it. Seek counselling.

You are a citizen of the post democratic age. You can't cope with election or referendum results that go against your world view. Try arguing against what I said instead of dismissing it. Aren't us window-licking leave voters allowed to use long words? Does it confound you when we do so? Just like it confounds you when you are on the losing side in a referendum?

If ever saw the sanctimonious remain arrogance distilled in to one paragraph this is it. Don't let people have a vote - they might decide something I/we disagree with. We're one step away from disenfranchising people here on the grounds that they have been deemed "too stupid". A technocracy, a plutocracy, a geniocracy, a noocracy. Elements of this attitude verge on all these forms of governance. It's not an attitude that is compatible with living in a democracy society though. We had a referendum on whether to stay in just after joining. And on such a momentous issue we had a vote on leaving - a long overdue vote given how changed an animal the EU was compared to the EEC we joined. The problem is you just can't compute the result. Parliament is supposed to reflect the wishes of the people - otherwise what's the point in having it? What's the point in democracy if it isn't based on governance mechanisms that deliver what the majority asked for? And parliament clearly does not do so on this issue. It speaks volumes about people who think democracy can in any way involve not allowing "people who lick windows for a passtime" their say. In effect you're saying 'anybody who disagrees with me is thick' or 'an extremist'. This type of stuff is every bit as bad as racism, sexism and any other ism you would care to mention. This is liberal intolerance writ large and precisely the mindset from which ills of our modern day culture like no platforming emerge. Its shameful. It's not Brexit that has to be stopped - it's this type of dangerous attitude.

On such earnest advice are decisions made not to touch Sowerby Bridge with a barge pole.