They do say that many a true word is spoken in jest. I was
thus highly amused by the Tweet in the attached graphic which pointed out that
the Boaty McBoatface episode is an example of how open democracy can lead to
stupid outcomes which can subsequently be reversed.
For those not familiar with the story, in 2016 the UK Natural Environment Research Council obtained a new boat to conduct research in the polar regions. In a burst of enthusiasm for open democracy the NERC set up an online poll allowing the public to choose a name. By an overwhelming margin, the most popular choice was Boaty McBoatface – a facetious choice derived from a throwaway line by a radio presenter which was made in jest. This placed the NERC in an invidious position: Either it risked the credibility of the organisation by bowing to public opinion or it could override public opinion and choose the name itself. In the end, it opted for the latter with the new boat subsequently named after the respected naturalist Sir David Attenborough.
Apart from raising a question of what the UK public was thinking in 2016, as it followed up this episode by voting for Brexit three months later, it raises all sorts of issues regarding engaging the public in open democracy and how to minimise the cost of polls giving undesirable outcomes. It is not as though this sort of thing has not happened before. One of the most infamous examples occurred in 2012 when the soft drinks company Mountain Dew created a new flavour and held an online poll to choose a name. The top suggestion, which earned the most votes by a landslide, was "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong." Not surprisingly that suggestion did not go down well with PepsiCo which eventually shut the contest down.
The Brexit debate was taken much more seriously but, like the Boaty McBoatface case, it was not a binding referendum – government is not legally bound by the snapshot of public opinion on 23 June 2016 to implement the result. But one of the key principles required of participatory democracy is that it has to be seen as legitimate. Encouraging people to participate, only for their vote to be ignored, undermines the credibility of the process. It is for this reason that I have a lot of sympathy with the prime minister when she argues that a second referendum cannot be permitted. If blame for the one time nature of the referendum is to be apportioned anywhere, look no further than her predecessor, David Cameron, who deserves all the opprobrium he has so far received – and more – for he it was who failed to properly set the parameters, and ran a campaign of spectacular awfulness by assuming that people were broadly happy with the status quo.
One of the key lessons that has emerged from the rash of recent poll outcomes is that public engagement is vital. Participants in the Mountain Dew and McBoatface polls had no skin in the game. They had nothing to lose by making a ridiculous choice, and they knew it, hence the outcomes. Arguably, even a vote for Trump will have relatively limited consequences – in two years’ time the American electorate will have another chance to have its say. But the Brexit vote is different in that it is a one-time for all-time choice.
We can question the extent to which the electorate was properly engaged, particularly in view of complaints around the time of the referendum – and subsequently – that many people did not understand what they were voting for. There are also many questions surrounding the legitimacy of the Leave campaign which has called its validity into question. And as it becomes clear just what Brexit entails, there is a sense that the views of the electorate are beginning to shift (as I noted here). But politicians are fixated on the notion that the vote two years ago is sacrosanct. For Brexit supporting politicians, they are at least partially motivated by the fear that they may not be able to replicate the 2016 vote if a second plebiscite is held (though I would not bet the house on that). Consequently, it is a perfectly rational strategy for them to oppose another referendum.
But with demographic trends not running in the Brexiteers’ favour (here) and signs that many MPs do indeed understand the costs of Brexit, we should perhaps view Theresa May’s attempt this week to extend the transition period as a ploy to buy more time until there is clear water between the Remain and Leave camps. At that point, a second referendum may make sense as the terms and conditions under which Brexit are to be implemented become more clear.
Ardent Brexiteers who fear that the UK may never fully leave the EU probably have a point. But the fact that large swathes of the population were not properly informed about the choices on the table in 2016 means that the final outcome of the referendum may not be known until some years after the event as the Brexity McBrexface farce unfolds.
For those not familiar with the story, in 2016 the UK Natural Environment Research Council obtained a new boat to conduct research in the polar regions. In a burst of enthusiasm for open democracy the NERC set up an online poll allowing the public to choose a name. By an overwhelming margin, the most popular choice was Boaty McBoatface – a facetious choice derived from a throwaway line by a radio presenter which was made in jest. This placed the NERC in an invidious position: Either it risked the credibility of the organisation by bowing to public opinion or it could override public opinion and choose the name itself. In the end, it opted for the latter with the new boat subsequently named after the respected naturalist Sir David Attenborough.
Apart from raising a question of what the UK public was thinking in 2016, as it followed up this episode by voting for Brexit three months later, it raises all sorts of issues regarding engaging the public in open democracy and how to minimise the cost of polls giving undesirable outcomes. It is not as though this sort of thing has not happened before. One of the most infamous examples occurred in 2012 when the soft drinks company Mountain Dew created a new flavour and held an online poll to choose a name. The top suggestion, which earned the most votes by a landslide, was "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong." Not surprisingly that suggestion did not go down well with PepsiCo which eventually shut the contest down.
The Brexit debate was taken much more seriously but, like the Boaty McBoatface case, it was not a binding referendum – government is not legally bound by the snapshot of public opinion on 23 June 2016 to implement the result. But one of the key principles required of participatory democracy is that it has to be seen as legitimate. Encouraging people to participate, only for their vote to be ignored, undermines the credibility of the process. It is for this reason that I have a lot of sympathy with the prime minister when she argues that a second referendum cannot be permitted. If blame for the one time nature of the referendum is to be apportioned anywhere, look no further than her predecessor, David Cameron, who deserves all the opprobrium he has so far received – and more – for he it was who failed to properly set the parameters, and ran a campaign of spectacular awfulness by assuming that people were broadly happy with the status quo.
One of the key lessons that has emerged from the rash of recent poll outcomes is that public engagement is vital. Participants in the Mountain Dew and McBoatface polls had no skin in the game. They had nothing to lose by making a ridiculous choice, and they knew it, hence the outcomes. Arguably, even a vote for Trump will have relatively limited consequences – in two years’ time the American electorate will have another chance to have its say. But the Brexit vote is different in that it is a one-time for all-time choice.
We can question the extent to which the electorate was properly engaged, particularly in view of complaints around the time of the referendum – and subsequently – that many people did not understand what they were voting for. There are also many questions surrounding the legitimacy of the Leave campaign which has called its validity into question. And as it becomes clear just what Brexit entails, there is a sense that the views of the electorate are beginning to shift (as I noted here). But politicians are fixated on the notion that the vote two years ago is sacrosanct. For Brexit supporting politicians, they are at least partially motivated by the fear that they may not be able to replicate the 2016 vote if a second plebiscite is held (though I would not bet the house on that). Consequently, it is a perfectly rational strategy for them to oppose another referendum.
But with demographic trends not running in the Brexiteers’ favour (here) and signs that many MPs do indeed understand the costs of Brexit, we should perhaps view Theresa May’s attempt this week to extend the transition period as a ploy to buy more time until there is clear water between the Remain and Leave camps. At that point, a second referendum may make sense as the terms and conditions under which Brexit are to be implemented become more clear.
Ardent Brexiteers who fear that the UK may never fully leave the EU probably have a point. But the fact that large swathes of the population were not properly informed about the choices on the table in 2016 means that the final outcome of the referendum may not be known until some years after the event as the Brexity McBrexface farce unfolds.
No comments:
Post a Comment