Why do the “liberal” establishment so hate democracy?

On both sides of the Atlantic in relatively free societies with open and fair elections and referenda there is a nasty anger at the results from some  who claim the moral high ground of  being the “liberal” establishment. I too have no time for racism or undemocratic attitudes, but think many  voters for so called populist parties and  causes are decent people making good points about the change they wish to see.

Indeed, it is becoming so bad that in most advanced country democracies now the liberal elite fulminate against those the voters choose to elect. In the USA they pour bile on the elected President, Donald Trump. In Italy they complain that 5 Star and Lega who commanded a majority of the votes and seats at the recent election should not be in government as they do not conform to the Euro scheme. In Greece they used to reject the verdict of the people when they voted for  Syriza to sweep aside the old parties and to go on to challenge austerity, but are less concerned now Syriza has conformed with their views. In the Netherlands the Wilders party did well in the poll but is widely disliked. The governments of Poland and Hungary are seen as enemies of Brussels and of the establishment. The liberal elite are full of disapproval for the Brexit vote in the UK. Only in France has a populist movement met with approval, because it is one under Macron that seeks more European integration.

So why is there this contempt for the will of the people? It seems the so called “liberal” elite are worried about the obvious challenges to two of their pet projects. In Europe they are very concerned about the unpopularity of the austerity policies they impose on Euro states. Despite this causing high unemployment and poor economic growth much of the time, the elite insists there is no alternative to the limits imposed on borrowing and state debt. In Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Ireland and elsewhere the EU effectively puts up taxes and cuts spending in national budgets. In both Europe and the USA they seem upset that populists including the all important President Trump are not keen to become entangled in religious and civil wars in the Middle East. The elite prefers the Clinton approach of engagement, bombing and if necessary the commitment of advisers and troops to proxy armies on the ground.

The issue the elite most mention unfavourably is that of migration. They dislike the way people on both sides of the Atlantic vote for fewer migrants to come. They argue that this makes the populist parties racist. It is true there is a minority of voters and even politicians motivated by racial and religious considerations. This is not true of most of the voters, who simply argue for lower numbers. It is the populist voters who complain of  the consequences of rapid migration that they think creates housing shortages, lower wages, and pressure on public services. It is the elite who welcome cheap labour for their businesses or as helps in their own  homes.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Lifelogic.
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:30 am | Permalink

    The elite think they know best. So many of this “liberal establishment” are parasiting off other tax payers with their state sectors or EU jobs, their legal practices, academic positions, their BBC jobs or enjoying their subsidised farms or green crap energy subsidies.

    They think the EU is a good thing, open door low paid immigration is a good thing, climate alarmism and expensive energy is a good thing, the highest taxes for forty years is a good thing, ever more government and regulations are a good thing, building on EU workers rights is a good thing, they thing dire virtual monopolies like the NHS and state schools are a good thing ….

    They are wrong on every single issue. But May and Hammond think just like them too.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:34 am | Permalink

      Well said as normal L/L. You always seem to sum up the situation perfectly.

    • TR
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

      How many divisions do these liberals have? The majority let them lord it over us, that will be changing.

    • Peter
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

      Politicians do the bidding of lobbies. They are not really attentive to the wishes of voters. Voters do not fund their parties or offer opportunities for advancement.

      This has worked pretty well for lobbies as long as politicians were able to bring voters along with them. Bait and switch has proved useful. In USA moral issues often figure highly in election campaigns. Then when the elections are over the moral issues are shelved and the wishes of the lobbies are addressed. Cutting tax for corporations is usually a big lobby wish.

      However, the electorate have gradually realised that their jobs are being moved overseas. Their real pay is declining and their neighbourhoods are being radically changed by immigration. So they abandoned the old politics and this upset the comfortable world of the lobbyists.

    • matthu
      Posted May 21, 2018 at 4:45 am | Permalink

      In a nutshell as usual, Lifelogic.

      When are we going to get a political leader who speaks it as it is?

  2. Lifelogic.
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    On immigration it is clear that low paid near minimum wage immigration is a net liability to the tax payer, lowers others wages, stresses housing and public services and reduces overall GDP per cap.

    What is needed is some quality controls. Yes to the Indian doctor, scientist or professional engineer and no to the EU potato and cauliflower packer. A sensible points based system, as ruled out by Theresa May! Why did she rule it out?

    • Adam
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:21 am | Permalink


      Every immigration system involves points being taken into account, whether additive or not. The lack of any system is pointless, & allows anyone to enter, rather like during a large part of Tony Blair’s time in office.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:10 am | Permalink

      I have never had much time for Speaker Bercow but what is wrong with saying “stupid woman” if a woman is being stupid (not that I am saying Mrs Leadsom was being stupid). If it were a man one would surely say “stupid man”. So what is the wright thing to say about a woman:- “stupid person”, “stupid thing”, “stupid female humanoid” or “stupid dope” perhaps?

      • Richard1
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

        I think the reported use of a word beginning with f was what was objected to. You are right though, “stupid man” would not give rise to much fuss & if uttered by a woman might even elicit praise for feistiness. Nevertheless it would be good to see the back of Bercow, his self-centredness and pomposity is very difficult to take, not to mention his obvious partisanship.

        • Adam
          Posted May 21, 2018 at 8:31 am | Permalink

          Mr Bercow enables back-benchers opportunity to air their views. Beyond that, his performance has been low in quality continuously. Perhaps a current-day equivalent of Douglas Carswell could trigger his earlier departure, unless Mr Bercow as his own standard bearer raises it to manage it alone.

      • margaret
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

        Its just rude .. it is the stupid , not the gender. ” stupid is as stupid does”

        • Lifelogic
          Posted May 21, 2018 at 10:26 am | Permalink

          Well it is rude to say someone is fat, smelly or ignorant but it might well be true and sometimes it does need to be said.

          • margaret
            Posted May 24, 2018 at 9:27 am | Permalink

            1) No one should be told that they are ignorant. All have some type of knowledge.

            2) If a person suffers with body odour it should be communicated by a professional in a tactful way . If a person is carrying too much weight , then health issues should be discussed again in a kind way and if that person decides that they are happy this way, then it is their choice.

            3) Any direct judgment or statement of this type may be delicately handled by friends but not in the context of an insult.

    • bigneil
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      Why did she rule it out? Probably the same reason she has recently agreed to accept “more” – – – “more” isn’t a number, so doesn’t have an upper limit, so she can’t be called out on however many millions she waves in, all wanting their lives on the UK taxpayer, while demanding WE change to THEIR ways. She is after a place at the Brussels table and she is clearly willing to sacrifice the nation, the nation’s finances and our people just to get her seat in Brussels.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

        Dear Bigneil–She is of course completely hopeless and the pity is there is so little we can do about it, at least short term–One thing we can do though is point out what she has said and then ignored–One such pronouncement we do not hear much, indeed anything, about is her saying that one cannot keep bits of the EU–How does she just ignore such as that?–I wonder how many are like me and pay absolutely no attention to her–not even starting to listen or read about it when she says anything–She has negative leadership abilities–Totally lacking in inspiration and authority

    • L Jones
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 9:42 am | Permalink

      A little off subject – but with LL’s comment in mind – I sometimes catch bits of the ”The Archers” (I know, I should get out more) and they seem to be considering the employment of students as seasonal labourers, and introducing it as quite a reactionary subject. Students often sought work like this in the past, and thought themselves lucky if they could get it. Perhaps we should go back to those self-sufficient days – and young people with a desire to earn their own holiday money.

      Reply Yes, I used to get a summer job picking plums or cherries in Kentish orchards.

      • David Price
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 10:38 am | Permalink

        I paid my way through uni partly through seasonal work – chicken farm, stables, plastics factory, warehouses, whatever it took and wherever I could find the work.

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

          Dear David–Damn right–I used to work as a Hospital porter myself and felt very lucky to have the ‘in’ that got me the job–Probably illegal now–And prior to that packing in a Chocolate factory

      • getahead
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:58 am | Permalink

        We had taty-picking holidays in the East Riding back in the early fifties.
        Two weeks of back-ache.

      • Lifelogic.
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

        Indeed jobs for young people are a jolly good thing, be they at a cafe, farm, restaurant, factory, a paper round, shop, hotel or bakery.

        Regulations have alas made it far, far more difficult, expensive and often illegal to offer such jobs.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

        Hops for me.

      • margaret
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

        reply to reply .I might end up picking fruit; my flight to holiday next week has been cancelled and there isn’t any alternative.£1,000 down the swanee

  3. eeyore
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    To call someone racist exposes them to hatred, ridicule and contempt, and lowers them in the eyes of right thinking members of society. It is therefore actionable.

    I look forward to the day when a decent and honourable public figure has had enough of that sort of abuse from political opponents and calls them out in the courts.

    • Adam
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:37 am | Permalink

      Yes eeyore; it is strange that the term is used so loosely, when the punishment for hatred is harsher than for theft. However, those accusing others falsely would be averse to calling someone a thief, because of the risk of legal reaction.

      If those decent & honourable people enacted a few test cases via the court, many of the slanderous & libellous claims made against them so carelessly would be prevented.

      • libertarian
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

        Adam & eeyore

        The problem is that the courts are a major part of the “liberal” elite so I wouldn’t bet on them finding in your favour

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

          Dear libertarian–I have always taken the view that there is the world of difference between “racism” and “inciting racial hatred” and, Yes, I am one of those who wants his country back–This was England

          • libertarian
            Posted May 21, 2018 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

            Leslie Singleton

            Sorry Lesley I dont see what your post has to do with what I wrote

        • Adam
          Posted May 21, 2018 at 9:24 am | Permalink


          We favour justice. Courts that don’t break the law.

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted May 22, 2018 at 6:49 am | Permalink

          Dear libertarian–Apologies–Thinking about it, my Reply should have been addressed to Adam–I obviously misunderstood what you were seeking to say in your Reply to him

          • libertarian
            Posted May 23, 2018 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

            Leslie S

            No problem, thanks for clarifying

    • Lifelogic
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:39 am | Permalink

      Ah but the legal establishment (and I suspect most judges) are nearly all on the side of this pro EU “liberal elite”. Ambiguity, endless new laws and regulations and as many layers of courts as possible is just great for expanding the (mainly parasitic) legal profession and their fee income.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:40 am | Permalink

      Could someone define what racism or sexism actually is. Calling someone “racist” or “sexist” or “misogynist” now seems to be just another term of abuse for someone who you do not agree with.

      It is misogynist to say women are on average smaller than men or tend to study performing arts & languages rather more than they choose to study physics and engineering? Or that they earn slightly less due to them making different work life balance and career choices.

      Or are these just it simple statements of fact?

      • getahead
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

        A racist is someone who doesn’t like his crowded country being further swamped by immigrants.

      • Adam
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

        Adhering solely to facts reveals only truth, & should be a safe way of avoiding others’ annoyance. Even so, a bald, fat, 50-year old man might take offence merely by being described in the way that the human eye, a camera, a mirror, & numerical gauge, all prove as accurately fitting.

    • Mitchel
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

      It is also a charge where you are guilty as accused until/unless you prove your innocence.

      • matthu
        Posted May 21, 2018 at 4:51 am | Permalink

        Unfortunately you never get the opportunity to prove your innocence because hate crimes are defined in terms of how they are perceived by the accuser.

  4. DaveM
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:52 am | Permalink

    It’s because they’re not “the liberal elite”, but liberalists. And they’re still in the minority when compared to realists. For some reason, the kind of people who are attracted to liberalism tend to be the kind of people who rely on higher authorities and lawfare and soft power to “get their way”.

    The bile and derision you speak of is the result of frustration and impotence.

    You should ask your party leader – she’s a liberalist through and through. Classically illustrated by her desperation for international collaboration through dictatorial bureaucracies.

    • Mitchel
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

      Trotsky predicted that the fulcrum of socialism would move westward (that it could never be in Russia even if the revolution had started there)and so it has proven through a rolling top down rather than bottom up revolution ever since.

      Putin is reviled by the liberal elite because he has set off a reaction-the “plague bacillus”of 1917 working in reverse!

      • Eh?
        Posted May 21, 2018 at 8:40 pm | Permalink


  5. agricola
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:06 am | Permalink

    In answer to the question in the title of this piece, they the liberals have a sense of intellectual superiority which allows them to despise and dispense with democracy. In the UK I see it in the sneering contempt of their current leader.

    I also see it in the civil service and much of the parliamentary Conservative party. The results of our referendum was a bridge too far for most of them. It would appear from information now available that Margaret Thatcher, after her forced retirement, concluded that there was little difference between the Blairites and the Conservatives of that time. Moving to the present day, the Conservatives are still in that position. Their integrity as a party is only maintained by Labour’s lurch to the extreme left. I would be deluding myself if I thought the modern day Conservatives acceptable.

  6. MIke Stallard
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:12 am | Permalink

    In Singapore they build “Barracks” – skyscrapers to put the immigrant workers in.
    In UAE they have a rule that everyone has to have a health insurance and they check it by taking mobile phone numbers. Without that you cannot get education, a bank account or even buy a car. And if you lose your job, you leave.
    In Australia they have rules. Illegals are simply turned back or dumped on an island somewhere.
    Here the doors are more or less open. (Some criminals ed) go around killing each other – and anyone who gets in the way. A lot of people, used to State Communism depend deliberately on the state for support. And most of the people who come here, to our town, work very hard for very little reward. And their children, thanks to the schools, become British.
    Meanwhile, the national debt soars.

    • alan jutson
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

      Trying to renew my Driving licence on line today, DVLA computer programme say my address is invalid (does not exist) although it is on my current licence.

      I built the house myself 38 years ago, HMRC have no problem sending me demands, neither do the Local Authority.
      Is the DVLA computer fit for purpose, all a bit worrying given we are going to have seamless computer programme systems for future trade, or even worse for collecting and passing on EU tariffs.

      Another Government Department unfit for purpose ?

  7. Anonymous
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:20 am | Permalink

    It is quite obvious that the elite want a fungible population.

    A) It provides an ever increasing market for goods and provides cheap labour (the protected commercial elite)

    B) Anti nationalism salves the consciences of the anti imperialist leftists (the protected celebrity elite)

    C) It disempowers the voting proletariat. Dislike the vote ? Don’t change policy – change the voter ! (the protected political elite)

    What has been foisted upon us has not been subtle. It has been rapid, revolutionary and quite shocking.

    That the elites thought they could get away with this without consequence is surprising.

    There is little respect from them for the fact that we have rebelled in a lawful democratic manner and so they go on insulting us and the representatives we choose.

    An example I can think of in particular is Graham Norton whose Trump bashing is predictable and tedious beyond belief. The BBC make it very clear that they dislike mainstream choices on both sides of the Atlantic. It is now a political movement and no longer a broadcaster.

    • Anonymous
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:23 am | Permalink

      Should read: What has been foisted upon us – the unprotected – has not been subtle. It has been rapid, revolutionary and quite shocking.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:39 am | Permalink

      Anonymous. I have stopped watching all such programmes which doesn’t leave a lot of choice as from what I can see there is constant Trump bashing whether on the TV or the radio. Sick or what? I’m amazed they managed to keep the rabble away from the royal wedding.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:29 pm | Permalink


  8. Bryan Harris
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:22 am | Permalink

    I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that all the anti-British groups in this country now form a viable fifth column… Wherever we look, there are those that would not only deny us democracy, but enforce our allegiance to an oppressive system that cares not a jot for people.
    Aside from that they each have their own agenda, from the media to the union barons, and they are all fighting against us…. That’s why we needed strong leadership to get out of the EU, so we that we could show these groups that rationality works…. Now as we limp towards some sort of exit, we are weakened and the various groups will continue to pounce and make life miserable for us…
    OH for a strong impassioned leader that was truly of the right, and as tired of inept political compromises as we all are

  9. Peter VAN LEEUWEN
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    This is for you, Mr. Redwood, you don’t need to publish this as a comment for others to read:
    The question has a false premise, as in “when did you stop beating your wife?
    The other day I cut a small cake in two equal halves, as best as I could. Still, hte proportions worked out in the order of 52% versus 48%. So to claim that 52% is “will of the people” instead of the “result of a referendum” touches on demagogy. Isn’t that what is wrong with the UK at present, ignoring “the other half” and failing to build consensus?

    Reply The majority view prevails, as with the formation of a government and the enactment of its Manifesto. Of course the concerns and interests of all people here must be taken into account and more support encouraged for the policy. There is more support now to get on with it and leave than at the referendum itself

    • Sum marry sum don't
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:21 am | Permalink

      Peter VAN LEEUWEN
      48% of me believes I should punch you on your nose. 52% of me says no I shouldn’t. Now which is the will of me.? Do you want a hard punch or a soft punch. Would you like to stay in my customary grasp your arm and shove it up your back union?

    • alan jutson
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:51 am | Permalink


      The usual and fair way traditionally to cut a cake is for the cutter to offer the first slice to the non cutter.
      This usually ensures a fair slice for both.

      Problem with Brexit is some, after having purchased the cake at great cost, still do not want the cake cut at all, and so are trying to return it to the store from which it was purchased, but after its sell by date.

    • Edward2
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:57 am | Permalink

      You seem relaxed about the EU system where 28 members have a vote yet only 9 pay in.
      The Commission and the Council are not voted by European citizens yet hold great power over MEPs.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

        Or UK democracy where all adults get a vote but only about 50% pay for it in net tax payments in. So quite an incentive for the 50% non net contributors to vote for higher taxes for the 50% who actually pay for the bloated state sector.

        • Martin Jones
          Posted May 23, 2018 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

          I wonder what the result of the EU referendum would have been if you only counted the votes of taxpayers? In 1999 John Redwood opposed the Tory party changing its policy on adopting the minimum wage. I guess he was part of the elite then – British people working for peanuts was fine by him – market forces etc etc. When non-British people keep wages down somehow that’s completely wrong. And yes we do have criminals here from other EU countries, but then we have our fair share of criminals in Spain and all over the EU. How an MP and former cabinet minister educated at Oxford with links to the City can seriously think he isn’t a member of the top echelon of society is beyond me.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted May 21, 2018 at 8:26 am | Permalink

        Maybe good to realise the the European Council members are all heading democratic governments (including the UK! 🙂 ) and that the European Council has shown itself to be the real power in the EU. The head of our civil service, Mr. Juncker may call himself “president” as he presides the EC, but in reality has probably less power than your famous Mr Humphrey in’ Yes Prime Minister’
        If you were to demand that UK voters vote for the Dutch European Council member, you’d be a little too extreme, this is a voluntary, rule-based club of interdependent but still sovereign nations (all able to invoke their article 50 if they so choose). Reality has to be seen in its complexities.

        • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
          Posted May 21, 2018 at 8:30 am | Permalink

          @Edward2: ANd yes, I’m relaxed about it that (most recent figures are of 2016, Nehtelrlands statistical office) that this century the Netherlands has been the largest net contributor per capita to the EU. Why? We profit from making other EU members and regions less poor, as they will then buy our products and services.

        • Edward2
          Posted May 21, 2018 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

          Irrelevant if the votes in the EU ignore your wishes repeatedly when you pay billions in.

          • Edward2
            Posted May 21, 2018 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

            Your second post is a definition of the magic money tree.
            Pay in billions.
            Give that money to poorer nations.
            Then they buy your goods.

    • Dave Andrews
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

      I look at it another way.
      In the referendum, roughly one third voted to leave, one third voted to remain and one third didn’t vote at all (They counted it as so little worth).
      The one third that voted to remain is hardly a ringing endorsement of our 40 year membership of the EU and its predecessors.

    • Andy
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

      You do talk a lot of rubbish.
      But tell us all if the result had been the other way around, as you wanted, what notice would you and your ilk have taken of the other half that voted to Leave ??
      I can tell you exactly with the benefit of 43 years experience: sod all.
      Just like in your country where the EU Constitution was thrown out in a Referendum (you weren’t allowed to vote on the Lisbon Treaty were you ??) and when the Government lost the EU/Ukraine referendum by a decent margin they simply told you all to get lost.
      Perhaps in The Netherlands you shouldn’t bother with this democracy lark but just adopt tyranny as it is far easier and seems to be want you want. Good luck.

    • libertarian
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:27 pm | Permalink


      And a further 13 million didn’t vote at all. What do you suggest ?we go round their houses and ask them what they want? Referenda and voting in the UK has always been by majority vote. For someone so keen on being ruled by a bunch of maniac rule makers you dont seem to understand the consequences of following the rules

    • Sir Joe Soap
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

      Except that when the wife in question carries bruises and the husband boasts of his prowess with a bat then we are correct to draw our own conclusions….

      There is clear evidence that the liberal establishment don’t like the democratic referendum result and are trying to delay it or reverse it.

      Evidence such as:
      When our Prime Minister told us the day before the referendum, and that he would write his article 50 letter the day after the referendum, we believed him. He is what is being referred to here as a member of the liberal establishment.

      Evidence such as:
      The current tactic by the Labour and Conservative Parties of saying that they wish to leave both the EU single market and the customs union, and negotiate a deal with the exact same benefits. This will not happen, and it was generally agreed by these two parties previously that this would not happen, yet both are now pushing this line to delay decisions and the negotiation. They are both members of the liberal establishment and they are contradicting their earlier assertions.

      How can we have faith in a liberal establishment that twists, turns and contradicts itself in this way?

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted May 21, 2018 at 8:12 am | Permalink

        @Sir Joe Soap: I can see your point, but the establishment covers most remainers and leavers (or do you prefer remaniacs and brextremists?) among your UK MPs. It always surprises me for how long MPs manage to establish themselves as incumbents.
        Maybe that a now rumoured upcoming snap-election (by the Times and by Bloomberg) could be good for democracy: reconnecting with disenfranchised younger generations, moving away from the ideologists, ditching the DUP and ensuring the “all island economy” by a few extra controls at the only sensible place – Belfast, and then ensuring a reasonably soft Brexit (I still want you to leave my EU after all !).

  10. DUNCAN
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:30 am | Permalink

    At last an article from a respected politician who’s beginning to understand the liberal (or indeed illiberal is a more accurate term) left network that’s been under construction since the mid 1990’s. Driven by a pro-EU, pro-Democrat, pro-IMF clique these recognised ‘players’ have successfully infected every aspect of western politics and its various arrangements.

    The electorates of various democratic nations (collectively known as the ‘West’) have been subject to a program of propaganda using a myriad of political strategies and techniques designed to de-power them, slander them, silence them and impose control over them.

    This political elite despise democracy. They see it as an inconvenience and a barrier to their seemingly uncontrollable and unaccountable freedom to formulate policy and implement it without our agreement. Should democracy deliver results this elite find objectionable they simply invoke their strategies and slander, demonise, neutralise or try to destroy anyone or thing that emerges as a threat.

    Obvious examples are Trump and Poland. We are told by thinkers (liberal left protestors obsessed with race, gender and sexuality issues) that he’s a racist and a misogynist. This of course is tosh but it serves a purpose if it demonises him and undermines his authority. These critics never praise democracy and freedom and the choices offered up. No, they slander the choices made because they resent the result

    And Poland. Poland has a far-right government. This is the EU stance on one of its member states. Yes, read that again. The Polish people have elected a far-right government. Most normal, apolitical people know this to be absolute tosh but the de-legitimisation process of a political threat is all important and the race card is enacted.

    What is sad is that my party (Tories) have also embraced liberal left politics in all its forms. Race, gender and sexuality is now an obsession for my party. Virtue signalling Tory MPs a common sight.

    The above is a pathetic form of politics designed to silence the majority whose normal views and the right to say them have been criminalised by MY PARTY. Yes, the party of freedom, libertarianism and free-speech have criminalised anyone who dares to say things the liberal left find disagreeable

    What we are seeing is a direct assault on freedom of speech and liberty by an unaccountable political class who will not tolerate opposing views. This elite are slowly constructing an authoritarian environment

    Gramsci’s ideals and ideas are slowly being being put into practice across the west. It isn’t the invisible hand of the free-market but the spectre of invisible political players that is now the dominant theme

    It is my belief that unless this elite and its totalitarian values are not confronted we will ‘wake up one morning’ in a world in which our instinct to express our opinions and our right to express our opinions will have been removed and destroyed

    The fall of Thatcher and the election of an EU Trojan Horse in John Major signalled the end of liberty and freedom in the way I understand it.

    The election of Blair in 1997 was the death knell of our public freedoms and since we have been subject to control and manipulation by various State agencies and organisations.

    Thoughts are routinely massaged. Opinion is monitored. The BBC. The EU. Political parties have been infected. The CPS. The Police. The Civil Service. All areas of state activity have been infected with this liberal left virus

    I believe in freedom, liberty and democracy. I also reject the idea of society (a false, intellectual construct that’s not a reflection of the real world) which I have always believed is a tool of social and political control. The individual is real. The social group is a contrivance. We have become sheeples and are treated as such

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:42 am | Permalink

      Well said Duncan.

    • agricola
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

      Spot on, and if you highlight specifics even this diary fails to publish or edits to kill the direction of a valid argument. The truth behind current knife and gun crime being a specific we are not allowed to discus.

    • cornishstu
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

      well put Duncan that about sums it up as I see it too. They are even trying to create a 2 tier legal system whereby an attack on the favoured gets a higher level of punishment than if perpetrated on us lesser mortals.

    • TR
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

      Good insightful post.

    • Ian wragg
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

      Excellent analysis.

    • John C.
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

      As far as I can see, what you say is absolutely true. The problem remains: what can we do about it? Do we just lament our steady drift to State Control?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted May 21, 2018 at 4:33 am | Permalink


    • matthu
      Posted May 21, 2018 at 5:05 am | Permalink

      Another excellent contribution.

      This is why I read this blog. (Unfortunately, I am in a small minority of “conservatives”. )

  11. The Prangwizard
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:31 am | Permalink

    An apt description of these anti-democratic and authoritarian elites is Liberal Fascists.

    • Dick Turpin
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:51 am | Permalink

      The term fascism carries with it some regard even to its ardent critics a concern to ones country and people as being of some importance. These liberal fascists as you call them are traitors to any believe system except that of the laws and practices of law-breakers .

  12. Bryan Harris
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    You touched on migration also JR – a touchy subject….I believe there are several reasons why the liberals want massive migration, but fundamentally, they see it as a way to destroy our society, so it can be changed to their perverted image.
    The EU are as guilty, because Merkel is determined that we move towards a owg, so by creating chaos with so many immigrants, it will mean the plan is advanced. If the EU had been sensible about this, the would have created a safe haven in the ME, but saw this as an opportunity to water down existing pressure groups…They also do not give a damn about democracy or the chaos they cause.

    • SecretPeople
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 9:40 am | Permalink

      There is an encouraging report in the Sunday Times that says Five Star and Lega in Italy, having negotiated shared policy agreements, have had these approved by 94% of their members, meaning they are now set to govern.

      Their commitments include repatriating 500,000 illegal migrants, turning back boats carrying migrants across the Mediterranean and breaking the business of people trafficking. The article adds:

      “To the surprise of some, Five Star voters — who are generally regarded as on the left and socially progressive — seemed happy to embrace the League’s cultural agenda, which affirms the Christian identity of Italy.”

      • Mitchel
        Posted May 21, 2018 at 9:44 am | Permalink

        A “Red-Brown” coalition,sometimes referred to as “National Bolshevism”;a phenomenon last seen,I believe,in the early days of the Weimar Republic!

    • NHSGP
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 10:19 am | Permalink

      Far simpler explanation. They see low paid migration as a way of getting cheap servants for themselves, with other’s paying

  13. Peter Parsons
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:43 am | Permalink

    In the USA, Clinton polled nearly 3 million more votes than Trump.

    In the 2017 General Election, only 32% of the votes cast actually counted in determining the result.

    In the 2015 General Election, the first decision the Conservative Party made was to write off 550 or the 650 constituencies as irrelevant to the outcome.

    The last two single party UK governments had just 36.9% and 35.2% of the vote.

    Are those the statistics of fair elections?

    Does a minority representing a little more than a third of the votes represent “the will of the people”?

    • Bryan Harris
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:24 am | Permalink

      If people decide not to vote then they cannot complain about the result – but with so many put off politics, FPTP is still the best way to decide elections – Why? because we believe in representation, and I can directly access my single appointed MP and get to know him and put my views to him.
      Those that imagine PR is the way forward are wrong – its a compromise situation, that waters down strong government, and provides weak compromising governments…which in turn weakens democracy.

      • Dave Andrews
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

        I agree entirely,
        I want to vote for a person, not a party.

        • Bryan Harris
          Posted May 21, 2018 at 7:23 am | Permalink


        • Peter Parsons
          Posted May 21, 2018 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

          Open List PR and Single Transferable Vote, both PR systems, involve voting for a person, not a party.

      • getahead
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

        Bryan, “and provides weak compromising governments…which in turn weakens democracy.”
        But we have one of those governments already. With FPTP.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:34 pm | Permalink


        • Bryan Harris
          Posted May 21, 2018 at 7:24 am | Permalink

          We don’t have a weak government because of the voting system – it’s because the Tories cannot get their act together in a coordinated way

          • hefner
            Posted May 22, 2018 at 8:00 am | Permalink

            And why can’t the Conservative government get their act together? Could it be that FPTP creates both a Labour and a Conservative parties with multiple tendencies within each of them, tendencies unable to agree with each other on essential questions like what Brexit should exactly produces.

          • rose
            Posted May 23, 2018 at 9:04 am | Permalink

            Both parties are coalitions. You seem to be saying the cure for that is more coalition.

      • Caterpillar
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

        BH, 2 vote mixed member PR permits a known constituency MP plus proportionality.

        • hefner
          Posted May 22, 2018 at 8:02 am | Permalink

          But clearly BH is far from being conversant with details of voting systems.

          • Bryan Harris
            Posted May 22, 2018 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

            and you are hefner?

            …how come certain people always attack others when they run out of soething to add to the discussion – a socialist tendency?

    • agricola
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:38 am | Permalink

      In answer to your last sentence, probably not. That is why the referendum was so significant in indicating what the majority thought.

    • Peter Wood
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:26 am | Permalink

      Yes it does. We had a referendum on the issue in 2011.

      • Peter Parsons
        Posted May 21, 2018 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

        There was no form of PR on the referendum paper in 2011.

    • Andy
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:30 am | Permalink

      They confuse the will of the people with the will of themselves.

      • Edward2
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:58 am | Permalink

        I look at the result.

      • NickC
        Posted May 21, 2018 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

        Andy, Indeed you do.

    • alan jutson
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:31 am | Permalink


      You are correct, but you do not suggest a workable and fair alternative.

      We actually had a referendum on the voting system just a decade ago, the existing system won.

      Proportional representation sounds great until you see how the chaos of Brexit with everyone with different views even in the same Party making government almost impossible.
      Just imagine trying to settle a taxation, benefits, care, education system with everyone putting forward their different ideas.

      Manifesto pledges would just out of the window with coalition governments.

      • mancunius
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

        Alan, it might be less chaotic if Tory Remainer MPs who are trying to overturn and subvert the government’s Brexit strategy actually stuck to the 2017 Tory Party Election Manifesto. And better still if the Tory Party makes it clear that it will not allow MPs to betray the election manifesto, and permanently removes the whip from any Tory MPs who vote against the government – and the people – on this crucial matter of Britain’s sovereignty.

        • alan jutson
          Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:41 pm | Permalink


          Agree, would also help if the Labour Party confirmed the policy outlined in their Manifesto too, but we are where we are.

          Many of the politicians think they know best, no matter what the people voted for.
          They seem to forget they are supposed to work for us,
          A Referendum leaflet was produced and delivered to every household at great cost, it said our vote would be final, we would leave the Customs Union and the Single market if we voted to leave.

          The EU produced the Five Presidents Report before the Referendum, it outlined how the EU would change when it moved forward in the next few years, funnily enough not heard what type of remain excuse being made yet, but give it time !

          Politicians have a great way of confusing themselves, and everybody else with complicated idea’s and actions.

          Actually makes you wonder how they decide to cross the road each day without getting run over.

          The Lords of course know how to fill in a timesheet though “no problem” also rather like the expenses form, although some got those wrong !!!!

      • Peter Parsons
        Posted May 21, 2018 at 5:44 pm | Permalink


        My workable solution is to change the system to either Single Transferrable Vote (the form of PR used in Ireland and Scottish local government) or Open List PR (the form of PR widely used in Scandanavia).

        Both of these mean we would still vote for individuals (not parties) as today, and both result in the election of constituency representatives as today.

        The difference would be that the outcome of an election would be much more representative of the expressed will of the people, unlike today.

        Both of these systesm would also mean tactical voting is unnecessary and get rid of the FPTP concept of a wasted vote (is there anything more undemocratic than a voting system where votes can be explicitly stated as a waste?).

        This could all be implemented by taking the existing Westminster constituencies and combining them in to groups of 3-5. For example, Berkshire currently has 8 constituencies returning 8 MPs. These could be combined in to 2 multi-member constitencies returning 4 MPs each (so no change in the total of MPs) using either STV or Open List PR.

        Rather than a single MP, we would now have a choice of representatives to lobby and approach (just as many of us now do with local government) and we can choose whether we lobbied all of them or just those likely to be sympathetic to our view or issue.

        In situations where a party has more than one elected representative in a constituency (as is likely in many places), those representatives could share a common office and support, share case focus and perhaps focus on those areas which play to their natural strengths and experiences (as often happens in local government today).

    • Green Man
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:31 am | Permalink

      All parties entered the elections and agreed aforehand to the rules. They made the rules, in fact.
      Your last sentence is constitutionally on a rules based system like ours, incorrect. The winner represents the whole of the people irrespective of their original vote. It cannot be otherwise unless you wish silly green people in power who will have us scouring the woods for half rotten flea-bitten berries to eat instead of a good solid piece of animal steak, with chips…and mushy peas and a glorious sugary cold fizzy drink

    • JoolsB
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:37 am | Permalink

      And in the 2015 election UKIP got nearly four million votes, more than the SNP, Lib Dums, Green & Plaid Cymru put together and yet not one single MP.

      We can hardly call ourselves a democracy as long as the Labour party and the Liberal elites that are currently masquerading as Conservatives have got FPTP stitched up between them.

      • Timaction
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

        Agreed. Of course they don’t want to bring our democracy into the 21st Century so there will be millions of disinfranchised voters who will stay at home as they want “none of the above!!”.

      • Bryan Harris
        Posted May 21, 2018 at 7:32 am | Permalink

        It may seem unfair if a party gets more votes across the country, and gets no MP’s, but we’ve broken the country up into constituences so that we will know our MP, and he will represent us – TBH it’s a false idea to suggest that overall counts mean much, and parties might get a high vote in certain areas, like for example, the SNP might be strong in Scotland but get no votes in Cornwall – SNP got MP’s because they won constiuences.
        FPTP is about accountability and responsibility…. You cannot get rid of a badly performing MP under PR, by voting against him – but you can under FPTP

    • Edward2
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 9:08 am | Permalink

      The elected person, president or MP has to represent all who voted.
      If they fail to do that they usually fail in subsequent elections.

      Voters know the rules and often vote tactically.
      If there was a different system the voters may well change their tactics.

      Nearly all post war governments in the UK had percentage voting figures similar to the two you highlight.

      PR in its numerous forms, which I imagine you prefer, has many flaws too.
      Which can be shown up by alternative random statistics.

    • Lucas
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 10:28 am | Permalink

      Good points, particularly on voter apathy, but you cant change rules retrospectively. If you could, there would be endless uncertainty.

      Plenty of Presidents have won with lower vote totals. Why didnt Barack Obama change that?

      Everyone knew how the electoral college system worked in the US, and the Democrats had ample opportunity to target their campaign accordingly.

      Many Governments of all colours have won on less than 50% of votes cast.

      UK elections have turned on marginal constituencies for decades. Nothing special about 2017 election.

      There was a referendum on alternative voting systems, albeit amongst a limited range of options in 2010. The public voted to keep first past the post.

      If people cannot be bothered to vote why should we care about what they think? Isnt it reasonable to assume the support for something is similar in those that didnt vote as those that did? What other basis can we proceed on?

      We have to listen to democratic results, as imperfect as they may be. Complain and about the system, not the outcomes.

      Fix the rules before the votes, not after.

      • Ghost of JB
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:46 am | Permalink

        Apologies but spell-checker changed devolution into revolution, I have no idea what you think about revolution.

      • Peter Parsons
        Posted May 21, 2018 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

        The evidence shows that voter turnout in equivalent elections (comparing e.g. national government to national government) is 7-8% higher under PR systems than under systems such as FPTP.

        Many people understand how FPTP works and make a decision that participation is not worthwhile as they know their vote serves no purpose under the system.

        I want to change to rules to a system where participation in elections is always worthwhile, and show how this can be done in my reply to Alan elsewhere in this thread.

    • Ghost of JB
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:44 am | Permalink

      The electoral system we have is the one we have. The coalition government asked if we wanted an alternative and we said no.

      I note that you don’t complain that all constituencies aren’t the same size, meaning that voters in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are over-represented, nor do you complain about the lack of regional revolution in England, again meaning that the Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh are over-represented or the fact that certain regions (need I list them again?) are better financially supported than others.

      It seems that you’re bothered about the mechanics of our democracy only in so far as it helps your political agenda.

      • Peter Parsons
        Posted May 21, 2018 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

        Actually, I agree with you on constituency sizes and on regional devolution. I am opposed to EVEL because it is based on FPTP and therefore is not based on accurate representation of English voters. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish voters get forms of PR or PR elements in their devolved assemblies. Outside of the London assembly, English voters are denied this fairness of representation.

        I’m actually bothered about the mechanics of UK democracy insofar as those mechanics fail to give every voter an equal voice.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:45 am | Permalink

      Lucas. Would you be saying that if the resulting vote was the same but not to leave the EU? No, thought not.

    • libertarian
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

      Peter Parsons

      Tell you what, you pop round to all the people who didn’t bother to vote and have a word , see how they’ed like to be governed .

      As someone who has campaigned about our appalling system of government for many years I find it hilarious how many people now think its a problem because they lost a referendum

      Tell you what why dont you start a movement to change democracy, starting with scrapping the Lords

      I dont remmener Clinton, the Remain camp or indeed anyone else complaining about the system before they were on the end of “the wrong vote”

      • Peter Parsons
        Posted May 21, 2018 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

        I am involved in a number of such movements and have been since before 2016. The result of the EU referendum have had no effect on my views that the UK needs reform (Commons, Lords, devolution settlements etc.).

  14. oldtimer
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:50 am | Permalink

    The House of Lords certainly wants to overturn the referendum result and is acting to do so. This is in breach of the Salisbury convention and risks a serious constitutional crisis. Pushed to and beyond the limits of its powers the HoL will have declared itself unfit for purpose. It remains to be seen if the House of Commons will actually follow this example. If it does the constitutional crisis would be magnified by a factor of ten and would plunge the country into a situation last seen in the 17th century.

    • Bryan Harris
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:27 am | Permalink

      Many in the HoL’s are clearly acting out of self interest – I woud like to see a royal commission established to weed them out – There should be no room in a democracy for people that pursue the aims of the competition(enemies).

      • Ian wragg
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

        Over 50 are in receipt of EU pension and a significant number work for organisations in receipt of EU funds.
        Promotion of the EU is a condition of getting the payments.

        • hefner
          Posted May 21, 2018 at 8:00 am | Permalink

          Ian, I like your comment, but do you really think that our Nigel and the other UKIP MEPs will renounce their pensions on 31 March 2019?

          • rose
            Posted May 23, 2018 at 9:06 am | Permalink

            If they are paid at all they will be paid by us, not the EU.

    • Oggy
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:50 am | Permalink

      I agree entirely.
      And of course the House Of Lords is full of Liberal elites, so their 15 wrecking amendments came as no surprise.
      The EU will presently be ecstatic, because if as you say the commons don’t remove the amendments it will emasculate the UK’s position and for all concerned it will be ‘job done’. BRINO and the end of democracy in this country.

    • Andy
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:32 am | Permalink

      For someone who claims to have voted to restore Parliamentary sovereignty you don’t much seem to like Parliamentary sovereignty.

      • mancunius
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

        MPs who first insist there must be a referendum, then agree its decision should be binding, then afterwards when the decision doesn’t please them form a cross-party clique to pervert and reverse the result, so as to reduce Parliament to the status of a local parish council subject to foreign jurisdiction…

        That’s not Parliamentary sovereignty: it’s treason.

      • libertarian
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:37 pm | Permalink


        “For someone who claims to have voted to restore Parliamentary sovereignty you don’t much seem to like Parliamentary sovereignty.”

        Absolutely, but you can’t do much to change it when the thing you’re trying to change is run by somebody else

    • Lucas
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 10:18 am | Permalink

      Yes, HoL definitely acted ultra vires, and *should*, as a public body, be subject to a Judicial review. Gina Miller, where are you now?!
      They have overstepped the idea of amendments in both number and scope, to the point of constructive veto. They have breached the Salisbury convention and gone against the referendum result. They are trying to introduce new legislation in effect.

    • NHSGP
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 10:27 am | Permalink

      800 new peers and cut off the funding.

      Funding is just for parliament, not the peers.

      See if they like that

      • nigel seymour
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:31 am | Permalink

        If you are referring to the 300 quid per day for signing on and staying for 10 mins then yes. If they attend and spend the day then I’m ok with that providing they speak and/or vote. The EUW Bill may well clear the air when it returns to the commons…

  15. BOF
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    The liberal elite are the worst of all anti democrats. They dislike the thought that the people know better than they do. They wish to be in control, regardless of the wishes of the people.

  16. Adam
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:15 am | Permalink

    It is unlikely that the so-called liberal elite hate democracy per se, because they use its empowerment when it goes in the direction they want. Many of them do however behave disgracefully when democracy exposes the nastiness of their ways, & uses its legitimate power to support the commonsense & good will of the majority.

    • Bryan Harris
      Posted May 21, 2018 at 7:40 am | Permalink

      They (the liberal elite) simply believe that it should always work in their favour, and find any reason to attack those that voted against them…. They have no love of voters, as such and would rather the UK had a system like the EU commission, with no responsibility, no accountability, invisible ownership of things gone wrong, and a total lack of oversight by anyone

  17. Richard1
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    I find it difficult to take a view on Poland and Hungary. The EU pours bile on these elected governments and the BBC refers to them as far right and a threat to democracy. But it’s not that obvious why. There still seem to be functioning democracies in these countries, people aren’t being locked up, killed or maltreated for opposition (as they are in places like Venezuela, Gaza etc). The government in Poland wants to carry out judicial reforms which are said to be anti- democratic, but was elected on a clear platform and seems to have public support. Growth in GDP in both countries is c 4%. It seems the new Govt in Italy will be subject to the same treatment unless, as is likely, it buckles under as Syrizia has done in Greece. If you are in the Eurozone or are a net recipient of funds you need to sing from the EU hymn sheet.

    • Bryan Harris
      Posted May 21, 2018 at 7:45 am | Permalink

      Still many states have not realised that the EU can do much as it pleases – it has all the authority it requires to punish as it sees fit or to withold funds…. Once direct EU taxation fully supports the EU, then there will be no need for the EU to even pay lip service to national states…. any leaders who then do not follow orders will be deposed, no doubt with the help of an EU army.

  18. Blue and Gold
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    Why is it that members of the elite, like Mr.Redwood, think they know better than the ordinary citizen?

    ‘in the USA they pour bile on the elected President, Donald Trump’. He quite deservedly has bile poured on him. Are you saying , Mr.Redwood, that because he is democratically elected he shouldn’t have bile poured on him? Just because he is the Brexiteers buddy, and of course now we have to bow and scrap to such a human being as him, because we will be absolutely desperate for trade,

    The elite in this country are dragging into the pit of despair because they hate the EU so much.

    • Edward2
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

      The elite are all pro EU

    • mancunius
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

      You know, it’s really quite amusing how clamorously you insist, under the impression that just opining or contradicting without supporting evidence – and then insultring anyone who disagrees with you – somehow puts you in the right.

      That is not so.

      On the specific point, Donald Trump surprisingly shows every sign of succeeding in many of his key domestic and foreign policy objectives so far, and he’s scarcely even begun. Clinton would have been the same disaster we remember from her unelected years bossing the White House and the American people, and expensively botching any policy programme she was allowed to handle.

    • Bryan Harris
      Posted May 21, 2018 at 7:48 am | Permalink

      How biased and inaccurate can you get Blue and Gold – YOU have it all the wrong way around

  19. KeithL
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    Am afraid that with populism comes a lot of ignorance..consider the evangelical bible belters in the US who believe that the world started four thousand years ago because the bible says so?.. consider the old retired disgruntled disappointed in the UK..living in retirement homes and two roomed flats and then wonder how they think their lot could be reversed when UKIP and Farage came on the scene..well it hasn’t happened yet..but put it down to populism again. Everywhere you’ll have populism coming to the fore for a myriad of reasons and it is always played with by very clever politicians who pop up from time to time.

    There is a strong case to be made for only the educated under a certain age, say working age people under sixty five with at least secondary education- and I mean ‘working’ people- having the vote on matters of national importance.

    Reply What an arrogant and undemocratic comment.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:49 am | Permalink

      Keith L. Your views are an affront to democracy itself. I am approaching 65 but my husband is 71 and still working and paying his taxes. He listens to all sorts of political programmes and reads things online to try and get a level view of politics. He is well educated with a City and Guilds and is still sane. How dare you say he shouldn’t have a vote. You are what is wrong with this country. You are the type of person John is talking about.

    • The Prangwizard
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

      I must say that the comments go beyond arrogant and undemocratic, as you no doubt understand, Mr Redwood. They expose an underlying wish to go further, to question certain people’s right to speak freely, or to exist. It exhibited itself before and during WW2. Everyone is in danger from views like thisif extended.

    • sm
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

      Keith, presumably you would be happy if individuals were only permitted to vote once they had passed the following tests:

      must be under pensionable age
      must live in dwellings with more than 2 rooms (do bathrooms and kitchens count? )
      must be sufficiently wealthy or in a happy relationship to avoid disgruntlement
      must have a minimum of 2 A-levels (or would you prefer a University degree?)
      must not have any religious beliefs that YOU find unacceptable

    • Jonp
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

      KeithL..have to agree.. popular democracy has largely failed us…uninformed people consumed with negativity have in the past allowed themselves to be overtaken by unscrouplous politicians and populat tabloid press gutter stuff and this infused with peoples rage has led us to this sorry state we are in now..voting with everything else in mind except the issue at hand. We should go back to the time when only property owners and rate payers had the vote especially in referendums that can impact so much on the economy.

    • John C.
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

      Also extremely confused and illogical.

  20. formula57
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    The Evil Empire is staffed and driven by the “liberal” establishment of course and they see it as the highest state of their accomplishments. Accordingly, it is appropriate to regard the Evil Empire as a hostile power and necessary to so do for our own survival. Why then does this Brexit government not wake up to this point?

  21. Iain Moore
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    A ruling elite never go quietly when their power is threatened , the liberal elite are no different.

  22. Shieldsman
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    New Labour (Tony Blair’s followers) see themselves as the Liberal Elite with their social science degrees.

  23. Shieldsman
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    Why do I have to await moderation, pray?

  24. William Tobin
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    “On both sides of the Atlantic in relatively free societies with open and fair elections…”

    But the problem is that the elections (or referendums) are not seen as fair by many people. Can you imagine how dispiriting it is to find that the candidates you vote for are almost never elected, such as in “safe” seats? The electoral system strongly affects how politics is done – I invite you to consider the case of New Zealand pre and post the MMP reforms of the 1990s. My view is the country is far better governed, and more democratic, for having abandoned FPTP. Personally, I favour STV in 3-member constituencies over MMP as a way to break the power of the party managers while keeping a link with the voters. Further, and very importantly, 3-member STV constituencies would produce results where at least 75% of those who vote have voted for a candidate who is elected. This would be so much more positive than the current FPTP system where often it is considerably less than half of votes that go to the person elected. But FPTP serves the interests of party, not country, and so is unlikely to be abandoned soon.

    • Caterpillar
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

      Don’t really want to debate this but two vote MMP (unicameral) as in NZ is better than any STV system. The two potentially relevant issues in NZ are (I) the threshold at which a proportional seat is given (potentially set to discriminate against small ‘populist’ parties) and II) potential for prior arrangements between parties or candidates to game the system.

    • forthurst
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

      In New Zealand the people were asked whether they wanted to retain FPTP or change the system. No doubt if they had been asked whether they preferred FPTP or AV, they would have selected FPTP as AV is even worse.

      The most important criteria for a voting system are that it has a low threshhold to entry and that it yields elected members in proportion to the votes, in other words, the opposite of our system.

  25. Dave Andrews
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    The elite liberals, having abandoned true morality, have synthesized a new morality of their own. Their views on a number of issues are based on their own accepted arbitrary dogma.

    This position allows them to be proud of themselves, and they can dispense with the notion of humility. Their narrative is full of sanctimony.

    Whether their own consciences have been trained to go along with everything they say I somewhat doubt.

  26. Kenneth
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    The “liberal elite” are an alliance of unelected bodies mainly receiving taxpayer money either directly or indirectly.

    It is within the power of the government to choke off most of these organisations by stopping the funding.

    The greatest waste of our money has been the eu and we should then stop funding the many quangos, charities and the BBC and then sack the political activists within the civil service, the legal profession, the judiciary, some police forces and many councils and then reform the Lords.

    It is our fault for funding powerful unelected nobodies who oppose democracy and it is within our gift to solve the problem.

    We have made a start with eu withdrawal but there is still far more to do to save and promote democracy.

  27. Oxiana
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    An article in the D Telegraph by Dr Rado Tylecote of the IEA provides very interesting food for thought and is particularly appropriate in the context of JR’s comments today:

    Remainers cannot call themselves liberal while they try to preserve the EU’s control https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/18/remainerscannot-call-liberal-try-preserve-eus-control/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_AqrBFrzdDlnL

  28. L Jones
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    All very interesting and to the point. Thank you.

    But why keep calling these people ”elite”? They’re not elite.
    Elite: ”a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society”.

    Can’t see it myself. But it’s obviously how they see themselves.

  29. Caterpillar
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    It is over 70 years since Orwell commented on the Anglophobe behaviour of the so called intelligentsia in the UK, such an attitude towards their own countries does seem to have spread to other nations in recent years. Just over a decade ago there was a glimmer in the UK that there would be a patriotic kickback to this, loyalty to a place and way of being, without the desire to enforce it on other places (opposite to the EU’s behaviour). The kickback still seems to exist in the electorate but not in the intelligentsia or institutions. My loyalty to place has certainly been confused through the devolution process and an evolving capital city, but a way of being that includes democracy, reason, violence free dissent, a smattering of duty, fairness and decent, considerate behaviour are still OK by me, however much these are sneered upon by the intelligentsia/institutions.

    • eeyore
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

      The philosopher Roger Scruton has provided a useful word for those who dislike and despise their own country and its people, “oikophobe”.

      As the first step toward nailing a perversity, a folly or a wickedness is to name it, I think this word deserves more general use.

      • hefner
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

        Interestingly enough, the word oikophobic seems to have been introduced earlier by the poet Robert Souley in 1808, and was used to describe a desire (particularly among the English) to leave home and travel. How things change.

    • Andy
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

      Nobody in the ‘intelligentsia’ that you series would object to those things you mention.

      • Caterpillar
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

        Andy, I think you are mistaken. Democracy is ignored if it does not give the preferred result. Evidence and theory are selected to give the preferred reason. The others in the list are viewed through cultural relativism.

  30. NHSGP
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    One could ask you why you don’t like informed consent when it comes to the state?

    Allow people who don’t want certain parts of the state to opt out of the “service” and to opt out of paying for it too.

    Equally on the informed consent, why are you as part of the government still hiding the massive off the book debts? eg. The 10 trillion you owe for pensions.

    Consent is after all what protects the minority from the tyranny of politicians.

    If we don’t consent you are screwed. Hence you don’t want it.

    Why for example would you reserve the right of slave labour for MPs?

    Migration is another example. When did you ask the population to pay for low paid migrants in their millions? No consent yet again

  31. nigel seymour
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    This is all a bit stale and backward looking. 17.4 m people voted to get their country back and certain individuals and groups just don’t like it. JR could in fact be described as a LE on account he has a job for life as far as Wok Con is concerned. As long as he supports Brexit to the letter of the 17.4m people then I’ll remain a Con member.

  32. Helen Smith
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    As much as anything I dislike the melting pot idea, I want England to be England, France, France, Italy Italy and the Windies to stay as the Windoes. What will be the pint of travelling if the culture of every country is the same?

  33. Pat
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Very simply the “elite” value their power above all else. Their alleged Liberalness is merely a cover.
    Of course sending 50% of young people to university does create a lot of people who accept what the “elite” say.

  34. Iago
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    ‘Why do the ‘liberal’ establishment so hate democracy?’

    I would say that this ‘liberal’ government’s willingness to return the country bound and yoked to the European Union is proof of their hatred and contempt for the electorate.

  35. mancunius
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    The Aussies have a useful phrase: ‘cultural cringe’ – to describe those whose self-hatred makes them ashamed of being the people they are, and who look to supposedly superior foreign influence to whose hegemony they cravenly wish to subject themselves.
    Australia, one can’t help but notice, is a country that knows how to govern itself and is unashamedly and coolly independent. We could, and possibly should, take lessons from them: if we ask nicely, maybe they can send us some civil servants who’ll coach ours in the gentle art of national self-confidence and calling a spade ‘a bl… y spade’.
    Because our present lot are only good for deferentially ordering the ‘plat du jour’.

  36. Stephen Priest
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    What sets Brexit politicians apart is generally they are unorthodox and tend to have ability to think for themselves.

  37. Dennis
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    How is it possible for Switzerland, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland etc., etc. to exist on populations fewer than 65 million and rising? Perhaps I have been misinformed and these countries don’t actually exist at all!

  38. Ron Olden
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    The reason ‘liberals’ and socialists hate democracy, is because they don’t consider themselves to be part of the nations in which they live.

    And even if they did, they still see us, as people to be governed by them, rather than people we employ to govern us.

    They regard themselves as part of an international elite:- rather as European monarchies prior to the 19th Century, and before that, the Roman Catholic Church used to.

    As far as they are concerned, we are all subjects whom they rule. For them ‘democracy’ is just a facade.

    Largely due to the nature and demographics of populist politics, ‘liberals’, social democrats, and anyone who offers superficially ‘progressive’ easy answers, have over the years, tended to be good at winning elections.

    Therefore elections are thought by them, to be good mechanisms by which they can get their own way. They’re only interested in elections when they win them.

    It’s when they lose something really important to them, like the EU Referendum, that their nasty authoritarian natures come out.

    So, for example, Remainers were vehemently opposed to having the EU Referendum in the first place and even when the result was known, they went to the Supreme Court to show it was only Parliament that could invoke Article 50, claiming that anything else, was ‘Mob Rule’.

    Tim Farron even managed the feat of voting to hold the Referendum, but then going on to vote to refuse to invoke Article 50!!

    Now that they’ve lost the lot, they’re all for Referenda after all, and want one on the details of the terms of the Brexit Deal, whilst demanding that any of us who votes against the deal, because we’d rather Leave with No Deal at all, be counted as votes to Remain in the EU!!

    ‘Democracy’ however is always, to some extent a facade. The people who rule us are the people who are best at getting adopted as candidates for parties which are strong in the localities where they stand for election, and are then best, at going on to present themselves to the public in elections.

    Winning an election is a skill and a talent. Democratic choice itself is often peripheral. Having said that however, it’s the best system we have.

    And it could be worse, We could have proportional representation, in which case the only ‘democracy’, would be within the candidate selection process itself, and you’d have to join a party, and become influential within it, to have any say whatsoever.

  39. nigel
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Ah “Populism”……. when a majority view prevails on issues the ” self defined intellectual elite ” do not want to happen as it is against their actual or virtue seeking interests.

    Therefore a ” bad thing”

    “Democracy”……. when the same self serving elite get the majority vote to do things the way they want it.

    Therefore a ” good thing”.

  40. Andy
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    I’m liberal and I don’t hate democracy.

    You’ll note it is the Brexiteers who consistently show contempt for democratic norms.

    They tried to break the law to get their Brexit through.

    Then they tried to bypass Parliament.

    Then – when it was clearly going wrong – they tried to blame civil servants.

    They accuse those who dare ask questions of being traitors or mutineers.

    They refuse to let people change their minds.

    Brexiteers have, throughout, defied democratic norms.

    Their motives are clearly dark and sinister. There is no other explanation.

    • Oggy
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

      And you are brainwashed.

    • Edward2
      Posted May 21, 2018 at 6:05 am | Permalink

      Too many paragraphs.

  41. Norman
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    ‘Elites’ are invariably, sooner or later, corrupted by power. They may begin well, but have always usurped their proper role by suppressing ‘decent people making good points’. I guess this goes to the heart of our historic struggle for freedom, and speaks of a much deeper conflict between good and evil.
    To illustrate, only this afternoon I came across this quote from William Tyndale – the Reformer martyred for his scholarly work in getting the Bible out to the people in English instead of Latin. This fascinating book is believed to have been read by Anne Boleyn, leading to the deathbed conversion of Henry VIII, as testified by the godly Archbishop Cranmer (later martyred under Mary)
    “Because our holy prelates and spiritually religious, who ought to defend God’s word, speak evil of it instead, and shame it all they can, and rail on it; and bear their captives in hand, so that it causes insurrection and teaches the people to disobey their heads and governors, and moves them to rise against their princes, and to make everything common, and to make havoc of other men’s goods: therefore have I made this little treatise that follows, containing all obedience that is of God. Whoever reads it will easily perceive not only their contrary teachings – that they lie – but also the very cause of such blasphemy, and what stirs them to so furiously rage and to belie the truth.”
    From: ‘THE OBEDIENCE OF A CHRISTIAN MAN AND HOW CHRISTIAN RULERS OUGHT TO GOVERN In which also (if you mark diligently) you shall find eyes
    to perceive the crafty conveyance of all jugglers. Set forth by William Tyndale 1528’. (Text taken from the 1831 edition of The Works of the English Reformers Vol. I Ed. Thomas Russell, A.M. London)
    The shadows of the Reformation are indeed long, and still with us today!

  42. L Jones
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    As of 2000 hours today, there are over 30 uses here of the word ”elite” to describe a bunch of self-serving, egotistical, self-important, jumped-up nobodies.

    Why do people think they deserve this epithet? This is how they see themselves, not how WE should choose to describe them. There are far more fitting words that might be used.

    • Prigger
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

      A fitting set of words for them would be the past tense of “up-and-coming

  43. K Matier
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    As someone(76yrs old) who has lived all of my life in N.Ireland I am sick to death of hearing the EUs lie about the Irish Border.There is no problem at all.It is all to keep us in the custom union
    Can Mrs May and the rest notsee this and act accordingly.Perhaps at the end of the day they do not want any change.If this is the case they will pay a price for deceiving the majority who wish to leave
    For too long the so called liberal elite have ignored and disregarded voters who they consider are unable to make decisions.Be in no doubt we will win

  44. Peter D Gardner
    Posted May 21, 2018 at 4:33 am | Permalink

    Dr Redwood it is the same old story repeated agin and again throughout history around the world. The ruling hierarchies seek ways of governing that suit them and those who do not rule seek changes and freedom from being bossed around. The elites now join up across national governments. Thus Westminster and Whitehall were and in their thinking largely remain, branches of the EU governing elites, be they politicians, influential financiers, businessmen and women, activists or whatever, they were at or near the top of their particular tree and reach out horizontally. It is particularly dangerous in education because those who would not have got into a respectable university twenty years ago are now in the approx 50% who do and are told they are the best therefore their views should carry more weight and, by the way, these are the views that will earn you the right to be in the elite (since you don’t actually have much merit on your own) and when you leave university these are the views you should impart to the great unwashed.
    The EU is a gift to such elites. It is the best vehicle available to those who have failed to persuade and seek a way of bypassing democracy. No elite likes to be held to account and there is no structure in EU institutions or law to ensure representation of the people in a way that will produce coherent results. Part of the reason for that is that its electorate is far too diverse to form a cohesive society. It has no demos as well as lacking the structures. Ergo its cannot be democratic.
    The vote to leave was a vote against the elites be they in Westminster, Whitehall or the EU. There is precious little difference between them in terms of accountability and sensitivity to the general population and their arrogant sense of entitlement.
    Historically this situation if not corrected always leads ultimately to the failure of the country or civilisation. Countless books on the subject.
    Brexit is just the first but necessary step. After that a wholesale clear out of the governing classes is required.

  45. rick hamilton
    Posted May 21, 2018 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    No reference at all to UKIP, without whom there would never have been a referendum to start with. Or to their defeat of both major parties in the EU parliamentary elections. With almost 4 million votes at their peak but never more than two MPs thanks to FPTP there should be some decent recognition of Nigel Farage’s achievement whether you like it or not. He is treated as a paraiah by the vested interests of the establishment despite the large populist support for his campaign. Meanwhile we have a Labour ‘shadow chancellor’ promising to destroy capitalism and model the UK economy on Venezuela. Which of them deserves more respect?

  46. Sakara Gold
    Posted May 21, 2018 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    My late father was of the view that if it was possible to change the “system” by voting for another party, the Establishment would ban democracy and introduce National Socialism. Democracy may be an imperfect system but compared to Fascism, it is infinitely preferable.

    Disruptive technologies such as internet shopping may be inconvenient to the established high street retail outlets, but they bring cost savings to consumers, choice and increased employment opportunities in the delivery sector. The fact that big American tech companies have conquered the retail sector and not British companies is due to lack of entrepreneurial spirit and reluctance to accept change.

  47. getahead
    Posted May 21, 2018 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    Brilliant, Peter Gardner.

  48. ian
    Posted May 21, 2018 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    You can only vote for the liberal establishment, they own the most MPs in the house and are in every party with a majority, it imposable have anything else, even if labour leader won the next election he would find his outvoted in his own party by the liberal establishment.

  49. Simon Coleman
    Posted May 21, 2018 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Mr Redwood the democratic politician – really? When have you nso much as a nod to last year’s General Election result, when May LOST her majority after going to the country asking for more executive powers to negotiate Brexit. Your response to the election – give the government all the power it needs to push through a hard Brexit and keep Parliament out of it. Do you want Parliament to have final say on any deal? No. And your claims about what people voted for in the 2016 referendum are simply your own wishes…there was nothing on the ballot paper about the Customs Union or leaving without a deal. And you should listen to a moderate Brexiteer such as Mr Hannan, who says that the 52-48 (actually closer) result represents no sort of mandate for the government to push through its own type of Brexit while sidelining Parliament. And do you have any interest in the debates in the devolved Scottish and Welsh institutions or the border debate in NI? Quite obviously not. You believe in bolstering the executive power to push through the most radical changes to our country in generations, while sticking two fingers up to the various democratic institutions who should be holding the government to account at every stage. Your ideas of democracy you just make up as you go along to serve your interests.

    May has made a fatal error by threatening the EU with a no deal walkout. The EU know it’s no threat at all because of the certain economic damage. And where did she get the no deal rhetoric from? From you and Rees-Mogg etc. Maybe she is finally learning that listening to you people is the surest way to create a political crisis.

    • Edward2
      Posted May 21, 2018 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

      The Government still forms a working majority Government.

      You need to go back and read your Leaflet again.
      Then watch speeches by our PM and Chancellor when they said what leaving the EU meant.

      No deal…so far it has been the EU that has rejected every option.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page