Sunday, April 28, 2019
Change UK stumble over no deal
For those of us still trying to work out what Change UK stands for, yesterday's headlines, reporting on their leader's pronouncement as to what format a people's vote will take, just added to the confusion.
Change UK may have no policy, no discernible ideology and no strategic and tactical sense, but surely we all knew that the ragtag group of MPs who form the core of this new alliance had come together because they rejected their previous party's stance on Brexit, and in particular the way we are drifting towards a no deal scenario.
And yet now we get their interim leader arguing that no deal should be on the ballot paper alongside the deal May has negotiated, and the third option of remaining in the EU.
Personally, I think this is dangerous nonsense. If the one thing MPs can agree on is that a no deal Brexit would be a disaster for the country then why offer it as a choice? And how exactly does the mathematics of a three option referendum work out anyway?
The odds are that no one choice will secure 50%, and then we will be back in the same sinking boat. Even with preferential voting, there will be scope for confusion and challenge if we have to transfer second preferences to secure a result.
Heidi Allen's reasoning on this is as confused and as vacuous as the political vessel she and her colleagues have created. She is offering a hostage to fortune to the Brexiteers and undermining the whole people's vote message.
Change UK may have no policy, no discernible ideology and no strategic and tactical sense, but surely we all knew that the ragtag group of MPs who form the core of this new alliance had come together because they rejected their previous party's stance on Brexit, and in particular the way we are drifting towards a no deal scenario.
And yet now we get their interim leader arguing that no deal should be on the ballot paper alongside the deal May has negotiated, and the third option of remaining in the EU.
Personally, I think this is dangerous nonsense. If the one thing MPs can agree on is that a no deal Brexit would be a disaster for the country then why offer it as a choice? And how exactly does the mathematics of a three option referendum work out anyway?
The odds are that no one choice will secure 50%, and then we will be back in the same sinking boat. Even with preferential voting, there will be scope for confusion and challenge if we have to transfer second preferences to secure a result.
Heidi Allen's reasoning on this is as confused and as vacuous as the political vessel she and her colleagues have created. She is offering a hostage to fortune to the Brexiteers and undermining the whole people's vote message.
Comments:
<< Home
They are not a 'new' party. they come from the old ones where they got the seats on FPTP and have an authoritarian way of looking at things. They have no idea of what it is like having to fight for votes etc. They will come down to earth with a bump wandering what happened.
Good job nobody noticed Vince saying the same stupid thing last week, really. Well, except those of us on the Awkward Squad who like to moan to each other about such things. I thought about doing a "FFS, Vince!" blog post, and then thought, actually, if nobody has noticed, lets let this one slide...
There is no use in pretending that a referendum question is simple. If 'No Deal' is not an option, this will stir up endless trouble ahead, providing a ready made narrative of manipulation and betrayal for UKIP and similar.
If there are three options, deal, no deal and remain, aside from the question of how to run such a vote, there is the same asymmetry of a specified defined out (remain), a somewhat defined outcome (deal) with an utterly undefined, not even an outcome (no deal). Whether the Brexiter machine can repeat their coup, is questionable, but a potent risk.
I think Heidi Allen is probably right despite the risk. The function of a new referendum would be to put a lid on Brexit and this could not be achieved with 'no deal' off the table.
If there are three options, deal, no deal and remain, aside from the question of how to run such a vote, there is the same asymmetry of a specified defined out (remain), a somewhat defined outcome (deal) with an utterly undefined, not even an outcome (no deal). Whether the Brexiter machine can repeat their coup, is questionable, but a potent risk.
I think Heidi Allen is probably right despite the risk. The function of a new referendum would be to put a lid on Brexit and this could not be achieved with 'no deal' off the table.
Ironic that people who vigorously opposed AV in that referendum now seem to be arguing for it as part of the'determing' referendum to come.
Post a Comment
<< Home
