… when it gives us the wrong answer, or so it seems 😉
I keep reading, in the last few days, an ever more prominent but completely illogical viewpoint being expressed in the press and on the airwaves.
It is this: “…the referendum vote was so close that we need another referendum to sort out the mess we are in.”
The latest bandwagon jumperer-onner to espouse this laughable view is Owen Smith, the lacklustre and doomed alternative to Jezza (the Trot) Corbyn, on Wednesday’s Radio 4 Today program. John Harumphries did a wonderful job in showing us what a lightweight twerp he is.
One feels sorry for what was the Labour party…
Well, OK I don’t really 😉
But then again one is not impressed by any of the alternatives; the Liberal Democraps or the unelected PM, Theresa May (but one grudgingly has to say that she is probably the best of a pretty poor bunch).
If you recall, the 2015 election was so close that even our Dave, who had already packed his Orlebar Brown “swim shorts” (£225, but not from M& S) had to unpack them again and wait for his referendum result get-out of jail card.
“Phewee, that was jolly close Sam, I thought we might have to stay on for three more years!”
The result was indeed close, BUT it was a result that our system says we have to abide by!
Oh, and by the way, more people voted in the referendum that any British general election since King Alfred burnt his cakes (Ed: may need verification?). That makes the LEAVE result even more unarguable with.
The same truth applies to that irritating Scottish woman who keeps an banging on and on and on about the need for another Scottish referendum. The “No” side won, with 2,001,926 (55.3%) voting against independence and 1,617,989 (44.7%) voting in favour. The turnout of 84.6% was the highest recorded for an election or referendum in the United Kingdom since the introduction of universal suffrage.
Nicola, you lost by 10%, so ‘shut up’ . Well, she needs to be told.
I think our Theresa may have put the same view more gently in her meeting with Ms Sturgeon than have I, but, hurrah for Theresa!
If this view was valid, the simple fact is that in our “first past the post system” there would not have been a government since 1992. Why? Because, the majority of each winning party has been so small, and based on so small a sample of the population who actually get off their arses to vote that there would have to have been a vote every month for a month of Sundays to sort out “the mess we are in” (I quote the ever more prominent view that provoked this elegant rebuttal.)
Could it be perhaps, that the Remain camp are the ones who have most access to the more populist airwaves and the press rooms?
The lesson for the Westminster bubble and indeed the Edinburgh McBubble is that we the people are more likely to vote when our vote might actually make a difference.