Should the UK use more Referendums?

Should the UK use more referendums? 

 Referendums provide a way for the public to have a direct influence on the legislative process. They are a perfect example of direct democracy in modern society, as citizens of the UK vote on the issue, instead of the Members of Parliament (MP's) who are elected by their constituencies.

In the past, Referendums have faced issues such as Scotland's Independence, the use of alternative voting for general elections in the UK and whether there should be a Mayor of London of Greater London Authority.
Unsurprisingly,the large majority of the population are all for the more common use of referendums - people love having their voice heard and being able to get directly involved in politics, which can also be seen by the increase of pressure group membership and the increase in smaller party membership. 
Nonetheless, others should find the regular use of referendums tedious and platitudinous, especially if used every week. This also arises the issue of, of the UK was to have more referendums, how would the country decide what to have a referendum on?
 Would we have a referendum to decide what to have a referendum on? Would we have a referendum to have a referendum to decide whether or not we want a referendum? 

Furthermore, general elections in the UK result in a pretty disappointing turnout, with around 65% in the most recent elections, so how can we assume that referendums would have the same or even lower, turnout? Either way, this isn't representative of the citizens, so decisions may be made as a result of a referendum, but this result does not reflect how the people feel about the issue. 
However, with an increased use of referendums, it may also educate the public and motivate them to become more familiar with the UK Political system and politics in general, so this way actually increase voter turnout. 

As seen with the Scottish Referendum, both sides of the campaign were huge, especially the 'Better Together' campaign. The referendum took around £13.3m to be held, and nonetheless, nothing changed as a result of it. Therefore, this may be seen as a huge waste of money, as nothing changed, despite  £13.3m being spent. 

Referendums can also help make a decision when there is a division in Government, for example, the Conservative Party are internally divided on the issue of EU Membership, so by holding a referendum, it settles inter party disputes.   However, some may see this as Politicians avoiding having to decide on difficult decisions, and avoiding taking responsibility fort them. Nonetheless, no matter the results of a referendum (of which isn't binding) the Government doesn't have to go through with the decision, so ultimately the PM still has to make a decision on the issue on hand.

Words and language of the question may also be biased in a referendum, so the question has to go through many checks to reduce bias as much as possible. The media may also be bias, and attempt to change the public's personal opinion on the topic through 'propaganda' of such. The result of the referendum may also be affected by the party in Government at the time - for example, many blamed that the unsuccessful result of the AV referendum was down to the Liberal Democrats being unpopular, and the Conservatives being too dominate in Parliament. 

Lastly, a constant use of referendums would strengthen our democracy, by allowing the public to speak for themselves, instead of through a single MP.  This highlights the fact that Government should be 'by the people', as well as 'for the people' and 'of the people.' 

To conclude, a use of referendums would continue to strengthen our democracy by including more direct democracy, and may even increase political turnout and interest, but a remaining issue would be how to decide on what issues to have a referendum on, and an increased use of referendums may also increase political apathy. 

Useful Links

I'l be posting some links here that will be helpful for examples and references for our AS Politics Exam


BBC Election Coverage, focusing on Young People in Politics

What Young People care about in Politics

Political participation

In  1987, 64% of people agreed that 'parties are only interested in votes.'

This rose to 75% in 2011. 

In 1983. 85% of those in their 20's/early 30's identified with a particular political party.

In 2012, this had fallen to 66% of the same age group.

Although people are becoming less interested in politics, they are involving themselves in political issues in different ways.

In 1983, only 29% of people reported having signed a petition, compared to 37% now.

Only 10% of people had contacted an MP in 1983, whilst 16% have done so now. 

Age 18-24

45%  said they voted in the last election

61% said they identify with a political party 

45% said its a persons duty to vote 

32% have a great deal / quite a lot of interest in politics 

Age 25-34

48%  said they voted in the last election

65% said they identify with a political party 

57% said its a persons duty to vote 

24% have a great deal / quite a lot of interest in politics 

Age 35-44

67%  said they voted in the last election

71% said they identify with a political party 

57% said its a persons duty to vote 

30% have a great deal / quite a lot of interest in politics 

Age 45 - 54 

75%  said they voted in the last election

68% said they identify with a political party 

61% said its a persons duty to vote 

34% have a great deal / quite a lot of interest in politics 

Age 55-64

84%  said they voted in the last election

73% said they identify with a political party 

70% said its a persons duty to vote 

44% have a great deal / quite a lot of interest in politics 

Age 65+

88%  said they voted in the last election

83% said they identify with a political party 

73% said its a persons duty to vote 

49% have a great deal / quite a lot of interest in politics 

Is the UK truly Democratic? - UK Democracy

Is the UK truly Democratic? - UK Democracy 

Democracy - 'Government of the people, Government by the people and Government for the people,'  is how Abraham Lincoln would define democracy. 

Compared to dictatorships or anarchy, or whatever North Korea is,  a democracy would be the fairest and most logical way in which to run a country - people vote for who they want to take power, and then the person or organisation with the most votes takes power, leading the country and deciding on major decisions - everyone's'  happy! - or so it seems. *Cue dramatic music.* 

If the UK was purely democratic, why do people protest? Why are pressure groups established to affect legislation? Why isn't there 100% turnout at elections? Why are there votes of no confidence in the House of Commons? Why doesn't Ed Milliband like bacon sandwiches? Who knows. 

(Actually, the answers are kind of obvious.) 

On one side, some would say the UK is no where near achieving true democracy. 

Firstly, a true democracy can only be achieved via 100% turnout in the general elections, referendums and initiatives. Our most recent election had a turnout of around 65% - which is obviously not 100%. However, the UK has never had 100% turnout for any political vote, so in a way the UK has never been truly democratic. 

Some countries, such as Australia, have compulsory voting, where everyone, who can vote, must vote in general elections, thus achieving an 100% turnout. However, does this mean Australia is a truly democratic country? Ha! if only it was that easy...

Another important factor of pure democracy is representation - the way the votes are spread out in the election are how the votes should be spread out in Parliament. So, for example, if the Liberal Democrats got 23% of the votes, they should get 23% of the seats - but again, nothing is ever that easy. 

The Lib Dems actually did get 23% of the votes in the 2010 election, but but only actually received around 8% of the seats on the house of Commons, but that's how our First Past to Post system works - oops. 

On the other hand, others would support the fact that the Uk is democratic. 

Firstly, pressure groups are active in our society. Anyone can see this through their protests, petitions and even TV adverts. Pressure groups are vital in a democracy as its other way that the public can have their say, and participate in politics. Pressure groups also allow a disperse of power, as they can easily affect Government legislation, through Insider and Outsider status. 

Secondly, in ways, the first past to post system is representative - the party with the most votes takes power, and its never been a result in which the winning party did not have the majority of the votes. Furthermore, FPTP can produce coalitions, such as 2010 - this, in a way, represented what the people voted for, as no party had a majority, so a coalition was the only choice. ( Well, a minority Government would of been established but they're likely to be unsuccessful.) 

Overall, the UK currently shows strong factors of a democracy in our current society - we vote, the majority party takes power and we protest, However, we're still quite a way away from achieving pure democracy, due to the unrepresentive voting system and the low turnout at elections. 

 Labour red, Conservatives blue, Lid Dems who? - The Election of 5th 2015 

The Liberal Democrats place themselves in the middle of the political spectrum, thus many see as a 'wishy-washy' political party whose ideals won't really change and affect the country much - if they ever came into power. 

Before the Labour party started gaining popularity after being formed in the early 1900's, the Liberal Democrats used to be considered as one of the main political parties, holding power in 1905 to 1922. Since then, although they do play a big part in UK politics, its clear to say that their political influence and power has been declining,  

Nonetheless, Nick Clegg managed to agree to a coalition with David Cameron after the election of 2010 showed no clear majority, The Lib Dems then saw this as a golden opportunity to implement some of their policies they promised in the 2010 election to try and gain some popularity for their party again, one of the main key issues being tuition fees. 

Before the election, they targeted votes towards students and the younger voting generation, winning them over by promising to lower £6,000 a year tuition fees. 

However, later during the term tuition fees were raised to £9,000 a year. 

Many felt that Clegg had lied to them, and although he published an apology video for breaking his promised, it has been remixed into a sort of song, and the Labour Party focused their 2015 political broadcast around 'the incredible shrinking man' showing Nick Clegg physically shrinking during the 5 year coalition,. 

Since then, the Liberal Democrats went from 57 seats to 8 seats in 2015, and Nick Clegg resigning as the leader of the party. Like UKIP, will they ever be able to make a comeback in 2020? 

Ed Milliband predicted to win - The Election of May 5th 2015 

Leading up to the UK general election, the Conservatives and the Labour parties were extremely close in the popularity polls, with Labour reaching forward during the last few days before May 5th, so many newspapers assuming that Ed Milliband would be the next Prime Minister. Following the 'failure' (as some may view it) of the Tori and Lib Dems coalition,this was to be the case, and hypothetically, it was time for Labour to come into power, as the UK often switches between the two leading parties for the seat of Prime Minister. 

Nonetheless, the Conservatives remained victorious, winning a slight majority thus the need for coalition was no more. 

But despite all the predictions of a Labour victory, why did they lose? 

The obvious answer would be they simply did not win enough seats. Following 2005, the Labour party won 349 seats, a clear majority considering they only needed 326 to take the seat of Prime Minster-without the need for a coalition. However, they lost 91 seats in 2010, leaving them with 258. 

A contributing factor would be how Milliband is portrayed in the media. He is often compared to Wallace from Wallace and Gromit, and the media emphasize the fact that he has never been seen eating a sandwich in public (in which he looks like he's actually enjoying it - e.g Ed Milliband and the bacon sandwich pictures.)
However, would you not vote for a party just because their leader hugely resembles a character made of clay? Hopefully not.
The most obvious factor in Labours loss this year is the sudden popularity of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) in Scotland. In previous elections, Labour would usually win the majority of the 59 seats in Scotland, however, this year SNP triumphed 56 of the 59 available seats in Scotland.
If we say Labour did win all the seats in Scotland, it would bring their grand total of seats this year to 291, which is still quite a way off of a majority. Maybe the inability to eat a sandwich in the public eye contributes more to a majority after all. 

'The rise (and fall) of UKIP.' - The Election of May 2015

With  the increased membership of Nigel Farages UK Independence Party, and some hoping for a UKIP and Tory coalition,  a strong Conservative win was not expected. However, on May 6th, it was confirmed that David Cameron would continue to reside in 10 Downing Street for another 5 years.

During early 2015, the supposed 'rise of UKIP' proved a threat to the surrounding parties, Although UKIP only held 1 seat in Clacton, by Douglass Carswell, Converstive and Labour had to ensure their party ties were strong to not lose any seats to the UK Independence Party. Nigel Farage attempted to concentrate his party in certain constituencies, to avoid a large number of votes spread across the county but a low number of seats - which is, ironically what exactly happened when the figures of the election were published the following day. 

Despite over 3,000,000 votes, more than the SNP and Liberal Democrats combined, UKIP dismally only won and held the seat in Clacton. 

 Since then, Mr. Farage publicly announced that hw would be stepping down as the parties leader, just like other party leaders did the following days of the election. However, his application to step down was declined, so now, with no choice of his own, Nigel Farage continues to lead the party- however, will they make a dramatic comeback in 2020?