For those who prefer politically correct language, may I suggest the following:
“Idiocy” refers to extreme stupidity or foolishness, describing very silly behaviour or acts, but historically, it was an outdated and offensive clinical term for profound intellectual disability, now replaced by respectful terminology like “intellectual disability.” In modern, non-technical use, it means senselessness or a lack of sense, while its historical meaning pointed to severe mental impairment evident from early childhood, stemming from Greek “idiōteía” (state of a private person, ignorance).
Having been made aware that Scott Horton had announced his resignation as a Portland councillor on his Facebook page, I ventured with trepidation, knowing what I was about to find. I was sadly alarmed but not surprised.
For those who are unaware of Ex-Councillor Horton, let me enlighten you.
If one has a moral compass, we certainly get the picture. But tragically it does not end here.
Back to venturing onto Horton’s Facebook page. I have attempted to articulate it below. For anyone who has studied politics seriously and intellectually, the term “intellectual disability” just about touches the sides.
Let us begin with Mr. Horton’s statement:
‘For the record it is with regret, but more disappointment that I have resigned from Portland Town Council. I was sad to see that Dorset Council control Portland and PTC with their far left and even a distorted green agenda . I have possibly encountered some of the worst people I have ever come across both on and via the council. Not all I met some great people. Further to that a considerable amount of prejudice wrapped in a flag of diversity .
It is not the place for a man like me. I have neither the patience nor the temperament. I am a leader, not a follower and do not tolerate fools gladly. As for codes of conduct I have my own and very high standards so it’s not a weapon that can be used against me just personal issues and groundless complaints from anonymous individuals.
Nothing has changed for me as a servant of Portland with my love and pride for our people, (that does not include people who do not have Portland’s interests at heart, just their own agendas).
Thank you for all of your support however I feel that had I remained I would be part of an overall problem and not a solution for the future. I am always here if and when required, I am not hard to find. Times change and big changes are ahead with strong governance .I may be back …..but I’m still here.’
What follows this is, at this moment in time, 63 comments of the most breathtaking ignorance and affirmation for bigotry that it makes Cruella De Vil look like a Jesus of Nazareth.
What unfolds in this cascade of comments is not a serious political argument. It is a grievance performance; a self-flattering morality play in which one man casts himself as the lone “leader” besieged by shadowy “far left” forces, while a chorus of admirers elevates him to Churchillian martyrdom. It would be comic if it were not so depressingly revealing.
Let’s start with the central claim: that a Dorset unitary authority and a small town council are under the grip of some “far left” machine pushing a “distorted green agenda.” This is political illiteracy dressed up as courage. Dorset Council is not a revolutionary soviet (if that is what they misunderstand “far left” to espouse). It is a mainstream local authority operating within one of the most centralised political systems in Europe, constrained by national legislation, statutory duties and funding settlements set by Westminster. Local councils in England cannot run deficits freely, cannot nationalise industries, cannot set their own tax regimes beyond narrow bands, and are legally obliged to meet environmental and planning requirements set by central government. If this is “far left,” then the phrase has lost all sensible meaning. Being “far left” is to tear down the pillars of capitalist greed and replace them with egalitarian ideas. For the millions… who die every year due to exploitation and hardship being “far left” would be a dream state.
And that is precisely the problem. “Far left” in political science has a definition. It refers to ideologies that advocate the abolition of capitalism, extensive public ownership of the means of production, or revolutionary restructuring of the state. Nothing in Dorset’s governance remotely resembles that. Supporting renewable energy targets? Not far left — that has been official Conservative government policy for years. Promoting diversity and inclusion in public bodies? That is compliance with the Equality Act 2010, legislation introduced under a Labour government but supported and implemented by successive Conservative administrations. Environmental planning requirements? Often derived from national planning frameworks and, historically, from policies enacted under Tory leadership.
When everything you dislike is labelled “far left,” you are not making a political argument. You are advertising that you do not understand the political spectrum.
The rhetoric in the replies deepens the caricature. “Lefties,” “dinosaurs,” “tyrants,” “long march through the institutions,” “big brother state agenda.” These are not locally grounded critiques of planning decisions, housing allocations or budget priorities. They are imported culture-war slogans, lifted wholesale from American conservative discourse and online conspiracy ecosystems. The “long march through the institutions” is a phrase associated with mid-20th century Marxist theory, later popularised by right-wing commentators who see shadowy ideological infiltration everywhere from school boards to parish councils. Deploying it in the context of a Portland town council debate is like accusing the WI of Bolshevism because they support recycling.
Then there is the nostalgia: “true Portland families had priority on council housing.” Let’s fact-check that sentiment. Social housing allocation today is governed by national law requiring councils to assess need and avoid discrimination. Prioritising “true local families” over others purely on heritage would fall foul of equality legislation and housing law. The rose-tinted memory of a closed, insular allocation system may feel comforting, but it would be unlawful now and for good reason. The idea that fairness equals favouritism for one’s own tribe is not sound governance; it is parochialism.
The self-mythologising is equally telling. “I am a leader, not a follower.” “Codes of conduct… not a weapon that can be used against me.” Public office, however minor, is not a personal fiefdom. Codes of conduct exist because councils are corporate bodies bound by standards frameworks. They are not optional guidelines to be overridden by individual self-assessment. Declaring yourself above procedural accountability is not strength. It is the opposite of democratic maturity.
And what of the repeated suggestion to “join Reform”? Here we reach the heart of it. Reform UK positions itself as anti-establishment, anti-“woke,” anti-“green madness.” Yet many of the policies its supporters deride: environmental regulation, equality duties, fiscal restraint in local government are embedded in statute passed by governments of different stripes over decades. The caricature of a “far left” Britain simply does not survive contact with policy reality. The UK has had 14 years of Conservative-led government. Corporation tax has fluctuated but remains internationally competitive. Trade unions are among the most restricted in Western Europe. Public ownership is limited compared to many OECD peers. If this is a socialist dystopia, it is an extraordinarily market-friendly one.
The language used in some comments is not merely ignorant but dangerous. One contributor suggests “these lefties are far worse than far right they need taking out.” That is not robust democratic debate. It is eliminationist rhetoric. When political disagreement morphs into dehumanisation, it corrodes the very civic fabric local councils are meant to uphold.
Most striking is the inversion of victimhood. A council obliged to follow equality law becomes an oppressive regime. A requirement to debate within procedural rules becomes tyranny. A difference of opinion becomes persecution. This is the politics of permanent grievance: any resistance to one’s will is proof of conspiracy; any compromise is betrayal; any code of conduct is a weapon.
There are, of course, legitimate debates to be had about planning policy, housing priorities, environmental trade-offs and local governance culture. Councils can be cliquey. Meetings can be frustrating. Personalities can clash. But to inflate ordinary municipal disagreement into a battle against “far left distorted green agendas” is not analysis, it is theatre.
The casual use of “far left” as an all-purpose insult reveals a profound narrowing of political literacy. When mainstream liberal democracy is mislabelled extremism, the spectrum collapses. Words lose precision. And once language loses meaning, reasoned debate goes with it.
What remains is noise: applause for imagined heroism, suspicion of “agendas,” conspiratorial hints of “karma coming,” and a reflexive belief that any institutional constraint equals ideological oppression. It is not that these supporters are wicked. It is that they are politically unmoored; consuming slogans instead of substance, importing narratives instead of engaging facts.
If local politics is to function, it requires something more demanding than self-regard and borrowed culture-war catchphrases. It requires patience, compromise, literacy in how institutions actually work and an understanding that disagreement is not tyranny. Without that, every parish hall becomes a battlefield in a fantasy war against enemies that exist largely in the imagination.
And that, more than any resignation speech, is the real problem on display here.
