Theresa May got in a pickle on LBC radio this week with an obvious "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question: how would you vote if there was another referendum?
D'Oh!
On three occasions she dodged the question on the grounds that it was hypothetical. Of course, she had to say that, but the problem was it left the impression that her view hadn't changed since the referendum, leaving her open to the jibe: how can she deliver Brexit when she doesn't believe in it?
I have no idea why she didn't she say "I voted remain in the referendum. But the whole point was to ask the people and the people voted. I don't believe there should be another referendum but, if the were to be, I'd vote leave because it's what the majority voted for and so that's what should happen".
The supplementary question, "but do you really believe that's would should happen?" is then easy to answer: either simply "yes" (provided you want to deal with "why have you changed your mind?", which is easy - see above) or "that's irrelevant, see above".
Of course, this is an easy answer for me, as it's what I think. But her flat-footed approach had me holding my head and shouting at the television.
Part, but only part, of Theresa's problem is that she isn't as sharp and instinctive as a Cameron or Blair. And she doesn't have an Alistair Campbell watching her back.
I'm not as clever (or as devious) as Campbell, Theresa, but I'd be a lot cheaper!
Phil you say 'I voted remain in the referendum. But the whole point was to ask the people and the people voted. I don't believe there should be another referendum but, if the were to be, I'd vote leave because it's what the majority voted for and so that's what should happen' But that's a bit like a rigged jury sentencing you to prison or worse and you saying 'no let me hang' even though you were being offered a retrial!
ReplyDeleteI think you confuse democracy with the fact that it is an inherently unreliable form of governance (even though there is nothing better than it) and at times the electorate votes against the very thing it voted for at a previous election. Interestingly comrade JC has now said he would vote to 'remain' in any second referendum when most of us presumed he actually voted to 'leave' the first time around. TM allegedly voted 'remain' but now won't say how she would vote in a second ref'. Of course as she does not want a second ref' she can't say how she would vote in one as it would look like she was going to hold one! PH, JC and TM are all over the place me thinks:-))
I am a simple man, DM (I can imagine you nodding in agreement). I took at face value what the then PM, Mr Cameron, said: that it was a once-off in-out referendum and I assumed everybody else did the same and voted accordingly. Anything otgervthan implenting "leave" seems to me to either thwart the expressed will of the people (e.g. if Parliament resiles on the then PM's commitment to implement the referendum result) or is in the realms of the neverendum, if there are to be repeated votes until the stupid public come up with the result that the BBC, the Church of England, the Guardian and the odd political party think is right. Just like being in the EU, then, as they have a track record of telling countries to vote again until they get it "right". I disagreed with the result but it was the result. However, the whole unholy mess shows why referenda are a bad idea. If your party loses a general election you just set to getting ready for the next one. An approach which just leads to never ending chaos applied to referenda.
ReplyDeleteTongue firmly in cheek here: do you look forward to the return of Nigel Farage if the Remainers keep us in? You won't ever hear the end of him! Except I fully expect the EU wouldn't allow us to withdraw Article 50. For medical reasons - they're sick of us!
You are right about referendums Phil, they are virtually always a bad idea. The bigger and more complicated the issue the more dangerous the simple question becomes. With Brexit I bet 95% of those who voted and virtually all of those who decided not to were making a decision based on only limited knowledge/understanding of the consequences of their actions. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and elect representative to take such complicated decisions for us. For MP's to say it's too tough for us you lot had better make it should have sounded very loud sirens.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. But, as we both know, it was only about keeping the Tory party together. It's not yet clear whether it has worked.....
Delete