Saturday 5 November 2016

David Dimblebly is aghast

(h/t a kind reader!)

David Dimbleby, throwing his hands up in despair at the British public

There was a striking exchange on Thursday night's The One Show following the judges' ruling over Brexit:
Matt Baker: We heard a lot of angry people there in our little film which we've just shown in our studio. A lot of people didn't realise that the actual referendum was advisory and not binding. I mean, did you see this chaos coming?
David Dimbleby: That's what I don't understand. That the government itself said 5 years ago that referendums don't instruct parliament. And that's all the judges said. They said if you're going to have a referendum it's only advisory unless you make it very clear at the time that it's not advisory, that it's one that compels parliament to do something. And they didn't do that. 
Alex Jones: No, they didn't.
David Dimbleby: And I don't understand why. It's as though nobody had thought this thing through. It's weird. 
Of course, the really 'weird' thing here was that not one of these BBC presenters, including David Dimbleby, mentioned the leaflet which every household in the UK received from the government during the referendum:

The circled bit (for any passing BBC types who haven't got their specs on) reads:

So that, Mr Dimbleby, is why people thought it was binding. Because - contrary to what you said - the government did tell voters it would be binding. And it kept telling them that. The public weren't being stupid.


  1. I saw this, and thought Dimbleby was, as usual, blinkered - failing to give any credence whatsoever to opinions other than his own. He must be the epitome of BBC bias. Matt Baker and Alex were way out of their depth. Undoubtedly, the general BBC euphoria over the 'Brexit Court Defeat for UK Government' on November 3rd had spilled over into the One Show's cosy twee world. The three of them, Baker, Jones and Dimbleby all looked and sounded ridiculous.

  2. It's yet another BBC example of keep repeating a lie until it's true.

  3. Dimbleby's well off newspaper-owning family were all big Liberal Party supporters and of course they were and are (as Lib Dems now) the most Eurofanatic of all the parties.

  4. Dimblebore, the man who on the 2015 election night said 'this is a dreadful result', before very obviously getting a prompt through his ear-piece that, after a hesitation, made him add 'for Labour'.

  5. Seeing as how Dimbleby watched a Tory majority unfold before his eyes on national television in 2015 but was still stunned by it on election night, and then this year didn't notice a Brexit result being rubbed in his face every Thursday afternoon for something like three months straight, you can't really expect him to have a clue here.

    I'm just an ignorant, parochial United Statesian, and even I knew it was non-binding. Although surely everyone got the impression that the Government would for once follow through, I knew - mainly thanks to Spectator comments - that there still had to be an Act of Parliament to make it happen. I thought it was to repeal whatever Act it was that made Britain join the EU, but at least I wasn't surprised MPs get to have their say.

    Which is, of course, the problem, as a majority of them are die-hard Remainiacs, as is the Prime Minister. The thing is, I'm not so sure how much of a career threat a Remain vote would be for most MPs.

  6. I didn't get the government leaflet though I did get a couple with the name of Jack Straw's son at the bottom in (minuscule) small print. Looking at the what you have highlighted, the very first thing it says is "The referendum... is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union." That's clear indication that it is a decision. It doesn't say "This is your chance to give your opinion / view / advice... ."

    I noticed the other day the summary of the Judgement got the order of the referendum wording wrong, as leave or remain. The actual Judgement got it right, as might be expected. The order the wording of the referendum question puts Remain in before Leave. I wonder how that was decided and whether it is weighted in favour of remain because it is the first option one reads. If they had worded it in the order of Leave or Remain would it have made a difference to the result, with even more voting for leave? Did they not do so because someone thought it would be a bias favouring Leave but if that's the case was there a similar bias in wording it the other way but which was invisible to the question setters or was just disregarded because it seemed the right and proper order or because it suited the Remain-favouring establishment? Of course it's water under the bridge now but we've been hearing from Dimbleby, the BBC and assorted objectors ad nauseam that the majority was [various synonyms were deployed] a small or close one. We all know the figures and there is no ambiguity about them or about the result - the impartial broadcaster could have chosen to describe it as clear or decisive or simply a majority, couldn't they? Yes of course they could but for the matter of Agenda, which emerged pretty much as soon as the result was known.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.