Some referendums split a chamber; this one closed it ranks. With 128 of 160 voters siding no against a proposal to void the votes of the unemployed, the floor's energy went almost entirely into demolishing the idea rather than debating it, and the single Yes opinion on the page — "you are a burden on society and your vote is irrelevant" — drew barely a fraction of the respect its opponents earned.
The No case, echoed across ten separate opinions, ran on two tracks: principle and practicality. On principle, voters invoked universal suffrage flatly — "in democracy every citizen has one vote, regardless of his/her status" — and pointed to the obvious casualties of any such rule: "retirees, students, the sick and disabled, stay at home mums." On practicality, the floor's most-respected line asked who would even police it: "how will you prove you have a 'job'... Tiktok influencer? Crypto baron? Dividend income? Landlord income?"
There was no real Yes rebuttal to weigh against this, only the single terse assertion about contribution and burden, which went largely unengaged — the two sides never really met, because the winning argument was less "here is a better system" than "this system is already fine and your idea collapses on contact with reality." One voter even proposed the opposite fix, floating compulsory voting "as in Australia," a sign the chamber's appetite ran toward expanding the franchise, not narrowing it.
The question taps a recurring undercurrent in British politics — census-era arguments about "contribution," property franchises long since abolished, and modern echoes in debates over benefits conditionality and who counts as a stakeholder in the nation. But unlike those live fights over tax and welfare, this one found no mainstream foothold, and the floor treated it accordingly.
As one non-voter observed, watching the numbers pile up, this looked less like a referendum than "an immediate consensus."
12 Opinions
It's not hard to envisage situations where people might not be in work, but are fully informed and able to participate constructively in the democratic process. Two examples are retired - who bring a wealth of life experience and context, and carers or full-time parents - who bring real world experience of day to day life. Of course, there will always be the skivers and layabouts to undermine democracy. But, being selective about which citizens can vote is a slippery slope.
How would this even work logistically? How would one decide who no longer 'contributes enough' (whatever that means), and over what time period? Does a low paid person contribute more than a CEO because a greater % of their overall income is taxed? Should we allocate votes by hours volunteered/ caring as these are valuable untaxed contributions? Or just return to votes by property
There are several groups of people who legitimately do not work - retired, students, those with independent means. There is no valid argument which denies these groups a vote. In my opinion a more relevant question would be to suggest that there is a legal requirement to vote as in Australia
Im completely opposite to this. I believe everyone should vote by law. One thing though, one of the boxes should be non of the above so that is your option out.
I have a friend who is in her mid-20s. She has no employment history. She is a full time student. The reason she is yet to hold a job is due to a surgery that the NHS has pushed back again and again, to the point where she has been waiting for it for four years now. My father ran a business that went under. He was unemployed for two years, despite applying for every job he was qualified for.
Who writes these? Let's just cut off retirees, students, the sick and disabled, stay at home mums. Next it will be low iq, blacks, jews and probably you
No because how will you prove you have a "job". Nit everyone has a pay slip with a tax record. Tiktok influencer? Crypto baron? Dividend income? Landlord income? Cash in hand? Carer?
Universal suffrage means exactly that - universal. People's worth does not solely derive from having a job. What if they're volunteering, or a student, or a carer? What a nasty, mean-spirited idea. This would only marginalise people further.
No, what next: IQ tests, paid tax threshold or exam from current political and economical situation? In democracy every citizen has one vote, regardless of his/her status.
If you dont contribute in anyway, then yes. You are a burden on society and your vote is irrelevant.