A timely tale on the perils of Referendums …

“So who’d be so daft as to want a Referendum on Christmas?” said the political pundit.

Only later did he discover that he was – apparently –  living in a metropolitan ‘bubble’ where everyone was in favour and who could, every year, afford the escalating costs of Christmas. And, after all, a dedicated, slightly eccentric minority had always campaigned to cancel the event. Eventually their pressure told and the PM called a referendum!

That’s when the problem arose, What was it really about? Some saw it as a vote against the commercialisation of Christmas, with Christians delighted to go back to the low-profile commemoration of the early church. Then others claimed it was a vote for genuine multi-culturalism and an opportunity to achieve disestablishment of the church of England.

We then had a row about the consequences. Anti-Christmasers insisted that the devout could still observe the virgin birth, but the Human Rights lobby complained it was an illiberal policy, Business leaders claimed that the economy would suffer, but others felt that having the right to determine the nature of our very own winter festival was a price worth paying.

The Government was initially relaxed. Most of the Cabinet agreed to support the PM but a couple of bah-humbug Ministers broke ranks and started campaigning for abolition. When they began to say that abolishing Christmas would mean a major cash saving for the NHS, (due to reduced attendances of inebriated revellers at A & E departments), their opponents questioned the figures. The same campaigners then made a list of all the other potential religious festivals with which the UK could collaborate – if only we abolished Christmas first. In reply, the pro-Chistmasers said this would take many years, and there was nothing to stop such collaborations with faiths and nations right now. The Chancellor then put his foot in it, by releasing dramatic figures on the likely damage to the festive season economy. The loss of retail spending and associated tax revenues might indeed prompt an emergency budget; other taxes might rise and public services could be cut.

But something wasn’t right. On previous occasions, dire warnings from the suits would have ensured public support. But this time was different. Opinion polls started showing that the public didn’t believe the scaremongers. Indeed, large parts of the country seemed to relish an opportunity to vote against the ‘establishment’, no matter what the Referendum’s subject-matter might be!

Some of the Cabinet started to hedge their bets, and became rather quiet. The Leader of the Opposition, unwilling to share a platform with the Chancellor and his apocalyptic predictions gave the impression he wasn’t bothered if Christmas remained in the calendar or not. By the time we went to the polls, the whole issue was on a knife-edge.

The following morning was like no other. Millions of people celebrated. “We’ve got our Winter back” they cried. But others were in deep shock, feeling deprived of something they regarded as an intrinsic part of their lives, and afraid of the consequences. Everyone started to blame everyone else. And the PM who called the Referendum quit, and was reported to be emigrating to now-quieter pastures of Lapland. He has left the knotty problem of how to cancel Christmas to others.

The political pundit was ecstatic. As shop assistants, warehouse staff, toy-makers and reindeer-stables worried about their future, his job is assured. The controversy has split the country and politicians will argue about it for decades. Before long, the issue went to the Supreme Court as claimants argued that the Referendum was consultative only. We still await an answer. But in the meantime, the Court is believed to be seeking the advice of the Consultation Institute – at least that’s one organisation which can be relied upon to know what best practice should be ……

And then I must have woken up.

May you be spared such nightmares and enjoy a Happy Christmas – or its alternatives – and a prosperous New Year.

TRIGGER POINTS

• There’s always a danger that when people are asked a question, they provide an answer to a different one …
• Public consultations are vulnerable to such confusions and it takes skill to focus those exercises on the matters that can genuinely be influenced.
• The Institute offers training, advice and guidance on such skills – but not until Next Year!

This is the 311th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement.