A plan to let citizens put the hottest issues to an annual referendum passed by the narrowest of margins: Yes won by two votes. The result looks less like a summons to remake the constitution than a chamber split down the middle over who should hold politicians to account.
The argument the floor rated highest was simple and confident: “For a democratic system the public should be able to vote on important decisions.” Other respected Yes voices cast the proposal as a check on parties and special interests, with the brisk challenge: “It works fine in Switzerland why not here?”
No voters defended the machinery already in place. One argued, “No we eject a government to govern, that's what they should do...”, while another urged, “We have a Parliamentary democracy. Don't tinker at the edges.” Their alternative was institutional repair — stronger committees, a reformed Lords and a clearer way to punish governments — rather than another ballot.
The sides were often answering different questions. Yes voters saw a general election as too blunt for citizens whose views vary across issues, insisting that “That variety is incredibly important in healthy discussion and debate”; No voters worried that “An X on a ballot paper doesn't provide” responsibility, and described referendums as crude, divisive instruments vulnerable to misleading claims.
Its constitutional instinct was unmistakable: more direct say, with no settled agreement on what follows when the public has spoken.
12 Opinions
It works fine in Switzerland why not here?
For a democratic system the public should be able to vote on important decisions
Just because it would destroy the over-inflated pompous polling industry and the pompous elite who thinks proles are stupid.
Sounds good to me but will those that are take any notice of those that aren't??
The problem is that most people - including those on this site - probably have a range of opinions across all the topics; they are not 100% hard right or 100% hard left. That variety is incredibly important in healthy discussion and debate. But in a general election, you have one vote, and so might or might not get an MP who reflects your views well. A separate mechanism such as citizen-initiated topics should force discussion that might otherwise be ignored as unacceptable.
We have a Parliamentary democracy. Don't tinker at the edges. Reform the House of Lords, reduce the number of MPs, strengthen and give real teeth to the committees
No we eject a government to govern, that's what they should do... If we need to make those governments more accountable, we need to change the way we eject the government. So that elected governments know that without doubt that if they pee of the majority of voters they're going to get booted
Give citizens a direct vote on issue. Increase democratic legitimacy for major or irreversible decisions. Boost public engagement, debate, and awareness of the issue. Act as a check on politicians, parties, or special interests that may ignore public opinion. Help settle long-running disputes and give decisions stronger finality.
Its been said enough that decision incur responsibility. An X on a ballot paper doesn't provide that.
Referenda are only useful in simple yes/no situstions. They offer no cimplexity, no nuance. The Brexit referendum was dangerously divisive and people voted on false premises and misleading information. They offer a false illusion of " people power" but actually give the power to mass media. They are crude and expensive levers of government which sre then crippled in the implementation. We need more nuance. Not less.