Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.
By submitting your information you agree to our Privacy & Cookie Policy.

Report comment to moderator

Required fields.


Why I, an architect, stood as a Brexit Party candidate in the election


Well said. I applaud "ordinary citizens" like Ike who stood for the Brexit Party (as opposed to the party apparatchiks of mainstream political machines) and who advocated a defence the democratic mandate of 2016. This was a defence of democracy: pure and simple. Meanwhile fighting off slurs that we were all thick & racist (which always struck me as ironic given the established parties record on anti-Semitism and immigration controls. The egalitarians had no qualms in telling us that a huge section of the population was stupid. But for the Brexit Party, key to all this was that democracy itself was in jeopardy by the actions of the self-styled Great and the Good. For over three years, there has been a cavalier dismissal of the result of the biggest democratic exercise in British history. We were told that 97% (or some other made-up figure) of the "architectural community" supported Remain pressurised many secret Brexiteers to keep their heads down. But as Ike says, the disjuncture between architects who profess to represent the people - and yet who got it so completely wrong - ought to give us pause for thought. The earthquake of Brexit (which is now happening, hurrah!) should provide us all in the construction industry with an opportunity for a rethink. Architects may know best when it comes to architecture (discuss?) but that doesn’t give them the right to speak on behalf of people or communities when it comes to political life. Architects should wind their necks in a little, welcome the positive opportunities that now exist for democratic renewal, and importantly realise that their political opinions need to be argued for – rather than merely asserted. Ike may have lost the battle, but he – and democrats like him – have lit a spark for potentially radical, meaningful, open political engagement. I take my hat off to him.

Posted date

8 January, 2020

Posted time

11:31 am