In this gloomy weather, the last thing we want is more doom and gloom and yet the Oxford debate with Farage and Clegg showed up some worrying things.
Failure analysis is a key component of progress and the Out campaign failed on many levels:
1. It did not have people of the first water on the team:
And sadly for Mr. Farage and Mr. Nedvidek, their Tory stablemate Bill Cash was simply not up to the job.
For all of Mr. Farage’s talents the one thing he doesn’t have enough of is time to prepare; and it showed. He employed elements of his usual, stump speech though, threw in a funny, if not overstretched metaphor about Britain’s membership of the European Union being like the relationship between an old married couple, with the wife (Britain) being long-abused by the EU, and seeking a swift, but amicable divorce.
On the other side, they put up the best student debater they could find, plus Clegg in a far better showing, knowing he could not be taken to task for the broad generalizations, and Barosso played to the floor, as he would.
The sum total of our blogs in the sphere, the debates, the EU elections – all of them put up a case which blind Freddy knows to hold water – there is NO justification for remaining in this appalling Union – but it wasn’t allowed to come out at this debate.
Fine for Yougov or Survation to say there is a majority for Out – we’re nowhere near the referendum time and already Stay has scored its first win, a win which will reverberate throughout the student communities and academic world, those people in turn influencing their families and friends.
Too many of us are already congratulating ourselves over the 52-48 poll – I saw it just now on Twitter. Yegads!
2. As was mentioned, the opposition had quality debaters and they’d practised. They knew the audience and played to it.
3. The audience consisted of the largely already brainwashed. It’s no new thing – I was brainwashed by my professors, lecturers and tutors at university and it took years to overcome the falsehoods. One can’t blame the students for being brainwashed when all most had ever had was leftwing teachers and now university staff. We saw the example of the banning of International Men’s Day in the States the other day, where the staff and alumni joined students to ban it. There’s formidable power in that.
Maybe the best analogy is the Douglas Adams excerpt where Ford Prefect explains.
Arthur accepted this, and Ford continued, picking up his early fierce momentum as best he could.
“The point is,” he said, “that people like you and me, Slartibartfast, and Arthur — particularly and especially Arthur — are just dilletantes, eccentrics, layabouts, fartarounds if you like.”
Slartibartfast frowned, partly in puzzlement and partly in umbrage. He started to speak.
“— …” is as far as he got.
“We’re not obsessed by anything, you see,” insisted Ford.
“And that’s the deciding factor. We can’t win against obsession. They care, we don’t. They win.”
“I care about lots of things,” said Slartibartfast, his voice trembling partly with annoyance, but partly also with uncertainty.
“Well,” said the old man, “life, the Universe. Everything, really. Fjords.”
“Would you die for them?”
“Fjords?” blinked Slartibartfast in surprise. “No.”
“Wouldn’t see the point, to be honest.”
And there it is. The left saw this Oxford debate as critical to its campaign – someone like Barosso comes over to speak? We need to think about that.
And they need no contributions from the public to fund their campaign – the old money is bottomless, just as it has been for the EU project. The whole of academia is one bastion of leftism.
And why was an obscure debate at a university so important? Because they build on that first success, they mention the mighty Farage being toppled and having no answers, they play up the divisions between the Tory version of Out and the UKIP version. The Tory version is in the hands of fuddy-duddies and the UKIP in the hands of amateurs.
They reduce a key idea – get out of this bloody Union – and turn it into a debating evening circus where the most entertaining speakers, not the best arguments, win. It is like HIGNFY for real, with an army of researchers behind the talking heads.
Then we come to the Aaron Banks mess and Farage and Carswell being at odds.
And there we are again – bitter rivals fighting each other for pre-eminence. Where was Richard North in all this, where were any of the classy speakers to back Farage at that debate or who would want Farage to back them? Would anyone work with him? Would each try to “lead” the debate – all chiefs and no Indians?
Do any of you care? And let’s sheet it home here to this blog – many who don’t like my contributions – how many of these did not bother with this post? You see the extent of our problem on the Out side – personal feelings override, prevent, any concerted campaign.
Not an issue with them – the Narrative takes care of all that, the arguments come down from on EU high.
What are we?
[We’re] just dilletantes, eccentrics, layabouts, fartarounds if you like…
We’re outspoken people, using our own rhetoric, bound by an idea – get out of the EU – but are essentially unherded cats, professional in ourselves but unprofessional in political campaigning, i.e. we do not subordinate ourselves to “the cause” and that is the nature of our individualism.
I know very well many [former] readers do not like my “attacks” and that’s the same in Slartibartfast’s reaction to Ford’s “attacks”:
Slartibartfast frowned, partly in puzzlement and partly in umbrage …“I care about lots of things,” said Slartibartfast, his voice trembling partly with annoyance.
We’re just not geared up for it, not set up for it. Each blogger ignores the others and attempts to make the definitive statement at his or her own place. Try matching our approach with the slick Common Purpose machine, backed by the international Them and their campaigns stretching back into history – it’s professional criminals versus rank amateurs.
Where were the major Brexit writers at that Oxford debate? Where were they? Not invited, no? Why not? Because those there wanted to be the ones to “lead” the charge.
On the left though, there is no such division – it’s slick, it showed, the students were sucked right in. The overwhelming result – stay in the EU.
And one penultimate thing – who brought this report to Breitbart? Why, Raheem Kassam, whom so many on our side do not like as a person. Do you see what I’m driving at here – there is way too much of personal politics.
How the hell can that sort of thing hope to overcome the snowjob they’re going to do to us closer to the time? The Tories saw off UKIP in May that way, the whole machine will be behind this Stay campaign. Bavarian money is behind this Stay campaign.
Where are we if we can’t even get along together?
Where is Out?
And one last thing – if these students voted this way – students of 18 and 19 with the vote – just how would 16 and 17 year olds also vote? The demographic studies have been done, the Lords have approved. Why do Stay want 16 and 17 year olds voting? We’re being stitched up here.