Should the UK use more referendums?

Should the UK use more referendums?

In September of 2014 the people of Scotland voted as part of a referendum to decide the future of their nation, the referendum allowed the Scottish people decide their fate, everyone who voted had their voice heard. Now although referendums are extremely democratic are they always the best way of making a decision?

To begin with lets investigate the downsides of holding an increased amount of referendums. One downside is the high cost of holding one, for example many political parties campaign and advertise their point of view, this alone costs thousands of pounds. The Scottish referendum alone cost an estimated £13.3 million pounds, costs this high could have serious negative side effects if the government constantly introduces referendums. Secondly they have to compact complicated political and social matters into one short question, this issue can often leave voters unaware of the full picture and cause them to make the wrong decision all due to over simplification. Furthermore the wording and language used could be biased, this could purposely influence the voters choice on the question at hand. There has been evidence of this happening recently with David Cameron agreeing to change the wording on the 'In or Out EU Referendum' as many believed it favoured a pro-EU decision. Thirdly the constant use of referendums by the British Government would undermine the role of MP's, the whole reason for us electing MP's is so that they can represent us in the houses of Parliament. Therefore the use of referendums would make us ask the question what role does the MP now play, along with this it may also undermine the UKs parliamentary sovereignty as the power would be taken away from parliament and in turn given to the people. Finally the constant use of referendums could provoke a low voter turnout, this in turn makes the use of a referendum pointless due to the fact that only a small percentage of the people are having their say, therefore not reflecting the interests of the majority. This point links back to the high costs, high expenses linked with a low voter turnout will turn many against the idea of increasing the number of referendums.

Alternatively there are positive aspects of the UK using more referendums. The UK sees itself as a democratic beacon and increasing the use of referendums would only help reinforce this, referendums are seen as a strong form of 'Direct Democracy' this is due to the people having a greater say in the governments decision making. Linked to this, Political participation which has been on the decline in recent years could see an increase upon the use of referendums. Furthermore if the referendum is in relation to a new piece of legislation once passed the new law would have greater legitimacy as the majority approved its passing. Despite referendums giving the people a direct say it also increases government consultation with the public, generally the only other time this would happen is when a general election is due , the increased communication could increase government-public relations.

Overall I personally think there is strong evidence suggesting that the UK should not use more referendums, the extremely high costs combined with the risk of decreasing voter turnout even more is not worth the small democratic boost. As much as I would love to see the UK be a true democracy, I feel that referendums is that the correct away to go about such a task. They should have a restricted use and should be only implemented on issues whereby a people future is directly affected such as an independence referendum. Over use will bore voters, cause over spending and could lead to the wrong decisions be made in the long term.

Is the UK truly democratic?

Is the UK Truly Democratic

When many people are asked about the way in which the UK is run the majority suggest that a form of democracy is the best way of describing it, however how true really is this statement, is the UK really a true democracy? 

To begin with an example of true democracy would be what is called 'Direct Democracy' this is where by the people are given an extremely large amount of power and regular chances to participate in the signing or dismissal of legislation. One example of this 'Direct Democracy' would be Switzerland, this central European nation gives it populous the chance to vote on any piece of legislation if they so choose. Yet, how does this stack up against the UK? Instead of us directly voting on legislature we instead choose and entrust elected officials to carry out this role for us. For example in the UK we vote for a political party which then puts forward a MP to represent us in Parliament. So overall does the UK's form of democracy make the nation truly democratic, no not really, the fact that each individuals voice is not heard proves that it is not a true democracy, however this system does seem to be some what efficient so it could be argued that a true democracy is not always necessary.

Secondly, there is another key aspect of the UK that must be considered, the Monarchy. The United Kingdom still has a constitutional monarch who is seen as the head of state when on overseas visits and ceremonial visits. Monarchies ruled with a autocratic grip, only the monarchs decisions would matter and only their voices would be heard, however in the modern day the Queens power is very limited. She has the right to be consulted and to advise and warn MP's, yet the Queen also wields the power to declare war and peace and due to this being a largely autocratic aspect it proves that democracy whilst still dominant could be overruled by the monarch in power. Overall for this section the UK could be described as being held back by the chains of autocracy due to its monarch stricken past, however it is unlikely the monarchs would ever regain full control therefore the legitimacy of democracy still stands.

Finally the UK uses the First Past the Post system when voting, although this system allows for the transfer of power from one party to the next easier, combined with the reduced chance of extremism, it is seen as less democratic when compared to Proportional Representation. With Proportional Representation a party wins seats depending on the amount of votes they gain, therefore smaller parties are given a fair chance in winning seats, this system is extremely democratic as each party is treated fairly. Despite this being fact the system has some serious faults, the most major being the appearance of dozens of small parties, therefore making it extremely difficult to come to an agreement. 

With all of this taken into consideration it seems that the UK is not the most democratic nation in the world, but is not due to a corrupt government, this is due to the UK taking the best bits from democratic systems and applying them to a 21st century government. Some are removed and added to make the system work better and others are kept for the matter of tradition and culture.

What happened in the most recent UK election?

The 2015 General Election

The 2015 General election will always be remembered as the election that forever shifted the British political scene. It saw the fall of one of the UK's largest parties and gave rise to Scottish Nationalism in the North, it also revealed that the people of the United Kingdom would to some extent back a far-right party(UKIP). The election itself was held on the 7th May and held the nation in suspense as the neck to neck polls left us with no real clear idea of who would win.

The Conservative Party- The polls just couldn't nail it, for a long while the Tories and Labour were neck and neck, but the conservatives gained the upper hand in end. Unlike the election of 2010 the Conservative Party did not need to form a coalition with another Party in order to achieve a majority in Parliament, in this election the Conservatives won 331 seats and narrowly gained the majority in parliament. This was most likely achieved by appealing to a wider audience as their manifesto managed to grab the attention of potential voters and seemed to have the best policies when it came to defence as well as the economy.

The Labour Party-  The labour party seemed to have had the greater support when the polls came about , however a stark defeat in Scotland led to their downfall. There are many reasons and speculations as to why the Labour Party lost the election in 2015, one of these is the persona and character of Ed Miliband. Ed Miliband beat his brother David Miliband to become the head of the Labour Party in 2010, its from here that the problem began. Ed was renown not for his policies or memorable speeches but for his array of answers when questioned, furthermore photos emerged showing him awkwardly eating a bacon sandwich which only further damaged his figure. Many also felt that when pitted against rival David Cameron, Ed Miliband did not seem to fit the image of Prime Minister. Labours biggest downfall was its loss of almost all its seats in Scotland, this led labour to only get 1.5% more votes than they did in 2010, which in all fairness is greater than the conservative gain of 0.5%. Overall the election saw Labour lose 26 seats at the hands of the SNP.

The Scottish National Party- The Scottish National party swept over Scotland like a wave, washing out labour from all but one of its previously held constituencies. The SNP gained 50 seats in this years election, showing that although Scotland said no to its independence its people want more power for Scotland as well more Scottish say in British law. The leader of the SNP Nicola Sturgeon was over joyed with the unexpected turn out, she also was seen as a tougher figure when compared to Ed Miliband, she also saw dozens of SNP MPs take to the house of Commons. The SNP won a 50% share of the vote in Scotland, Labour won just 24.3%, these results could reveal that Scotland is not finished with its search for independence and are now seeking greater power for Scotland.

United Kingdom Independence Party- UKIP led by Nigel Farage originally came across as a far-right party only exploiting xenophobia, yet this once small party has boomed in size and support. UKIP gained close to four million votes, almost double that of the SNP, however they were still cut down to only 1 seat, and almost lost their Party leader Nigel Farage. UKIP focused on the UKs withdrawal from Europe and its tightening of the borders, however despite many supporting these policies it was not enough for them to gain a sinlge seat, even Nigel Farages seat in South Thanet was lost.

The Liberal Democrats-  The Lib Dems led by Nick Clegg had the worse possible outcome when put up against the 5 major parties. First of all, every single one of its seats in Scotland was removed, just like Labour, the party had failed to appeal to the Scottish public and decisively lost a large percentage of its support. Since 2010 all previously mentioned parties have grown when it comes to the percentage of the vote, however the Liberal Democrats lost 15.2% of its voters, this dramatic loss lead to the Liberal Democrats only receiving 7.9% of the vote, which is less than UKIP. These poor results caused Nick Clegg to step down as the Lib Dem leader as the parties survival hangs by a thread.