Left: Susanna Reid, "65% of your own constituents in Makerfield voted to leave the EU. Have you let them down or are you telling them they made the wrong decision?" Right: In Beth Rigby's recent focus group from Makerfield, Leave voters said they want to rejoin the EU Brexiter 1, "I voted to leave.. Much younger then.. Didn't understand it.. Dad told me to vote for Leave.. It's harder now.. Maybe it would be better if we went back" Brexiter 2, "Everything seemed better when we were in Europe, it just did" Brexiter 3, "I think we were over-promised things.. I think we would be much better as part of an EU.. Than on our own" My view: Susanna Reid's question assumes that because an estimated 65% of Makerfield voted Leave in 2016, those voters must still support Brexit today. But Beth Rigby's focus group tells a rather different story. Here are people who actually voted Leave, openly acknowledging that they were influenced by others, didn't fully understand the consequences, or believed promises that haven't materialised. And that distinction matters. Changing your mind after ten years of lived experience isn't an admission of stupidity. It's an acknowledgement that new evidence deserves consideration. What's particularly interesting is that this isn't simply a handful of dissatisfied voters. A More in Common poll found that 45% of Makerfield residents would now vote to rejoin the EU, compared with 38% who would stay outside. Of course, not every Leave voter has changed their mind. But neither should politicians or journalists assume that a vote cast in 2016 represents an unchanging opinion in 2026. The question shouldn't be whether Andy Burnham is betraying the voters of Makerfield by reconsidering Brexit. It should be whether politicians are listening to what those voters are telling them today, rather than assuming they must believe exactly what they believed a decade ago. Democracy isn't about freezing public opinion in time. It's about allowing people to reconsider decisions when the evidence changes.