CLEMENT ATTLEE once condemned referendums as “the instrument of Nazism and fascism.” What would he make of Tony Blair? Before New Labour came to power, Britain had only held four referendums in its entire history. But in
CLEMENT ATTLEE once condemned referendums as “the instrument of Nazism and fascism.” What would he make of Tony Blair? Before New Labour came to power, Britain had only held four referendums in its entire history. But in just over a year the Blair government has held another four referendums—on setting up Scottish and Welsh assemblies, on establishing a mayor for London, and to approve the Northern Ireland peace agreement. In the pipeline are further referendums on changes to the voting system, English regional assemblies, city mayors and a single European currency.
Parliamentary elections are governed by the Representation of the People Acts. But rule by referendum is unregulated—the government can make up its own rules. On July 21st an unlikely group of constitutional reformers got together to try to put this right. Appearing on the same platform were Liam Fox, the Tories' constitutional spokesman; Martin Bell, the newly-married, white-suited scourge of sleazy Tories; Charter 88, a leftish ginger group for constitutional reform; as well as the Electoral Reform Society and the Constitution Unit, a think-tank. Their common cause? A new electoral commission to set rules for referendums.
Any such electoral commission would have to grapple with a number of tricky issues. They include:
• Subject matter: In theory, referendums are held on constitutional issues. But which ones? There were no referendums on the Maastricht or Amsterdam treaties, nor is one planned for changes to the House of Lords. In practice, prime ministers have often used referendums to force through controversial policies or to limit the risk of party splits.
• Timing: At present, referendums can be held either before or after detailed policies have been agreed. The 1979 referendums on Scottish and Welsh assemblies, for example, took place after Parliament had debated a bill to set them up. This clarified the choice for voters.
Mr Blair, however, cited “principled, tactical reasons” for holding last year's referendum on Wales and Scotland, before passing the relevant legislation. That probably made a Yes vote more likely, since the debate could be kept to pleasant generalities, without needing to deal with too many troublesome practicalities, either in Parliament or during the referendum campaign itself.
• Wording the question: The way people vote is affected by the way a question is worded. Before the 1975 European referendum, NOP, a polling company, tested seven ways of phrasing the same question. They found that the Yes vote varied by 16 percentage points depending on how the question was asked.
• Funding: Money matters, and some think it distorts campaigns unfairly. In last year's Welsh referendum, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Welsh TUC and the government all campaigned for a Yes vote. A separate, official Yes campaign was funded handsomely by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and others, and spent around £150,000.
The No campaign—which came within a whisker of winning—was not backed by any major political party. Instead, it was started by an ordinary citizen from Rhondda, Carys Pugh, with £4,786 of her savings, and propped up by Robert Hodge, a financier, with around £80,000. With another £100,000, thinks Mrs Pugh, the No campaign would have won.
• Thresholds: The government decides how many votes are needed to win a referendum. These can vary. Consider the two sets of referendums for Scottish and Welsh assemblies. In 1979, 40% of the electorate as well as half the vote was needed to set up assemblies. In 1997, only a simple majority of the vote was required. The thresholds were crucial in both referendums. On 1997 rules, a Scottish assembly would have been established in 1979. On 1979 rules, a Welsh assembly would not have been approved in 1997.
Mr Fox and his new friends are all focused on the next likely referendum. The government has established a commission to consider changes to the voting system for general elections. A referendum to consider replacing first-past-the-post with some form of proportional representation is possible as early as next year. But motives vary. The Tories oppose PR, and hope that fairer referendum rules will help to block it. Charter 88, on the other hand, favours PR, and wants a fair referendum to ensure that any changes are accepted as legitimate.
And the government? Before the general election, the Constitution Unit and the Electoral Reform Society set up an independent commission on conducting referendums. The Labour Party told the commission that it supported a generic Referendum Act, an electoral commission and independent formulation of questions. But the Home Office now says it sees no immediate need for change. Strange that, with so many tricky referendums in the offing.