Politics Comp 1 - (3) Electoral Systems

What is FPTP (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• simple plurality system

• candidate with most votes will be elected - DO NOT have to win by a certain majority

• used in UK General elections, local council elections in England & Wales

• voters cast one vote for their preferred candidate, and the candidate with the largest number of votes in a constituency (seat) will be elected to Parliament as an MP

  • 650 constituencies

  • around 75,000 people per constituency

FPTP Advantages - Speed & Simplicity (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• FPTP is easy to use for votes who only have to select one candidate/party

• results counted quickly and known morning after polling day - gov formed with a swift, orderly transfer of power

  • 1997 Tony Blair arrived at Downing Street as the new PM at 1pm the day after the election

  • 2019, the first constituency result (Newcastle Central) was announced at 23:39 on day of election

• Simple and familiar - public support it

  • 2011 AV referendum where 68% of those who voted voted against changing electoral system on a 42% turnout

• Gov would take longer to form under a more proportional system as it has to follow negotiations between party leaders & coalitions would be more likely

  • After 2007 Scottish Parliament Election, it took 2 weeks for the SNP minority gov to be sworn in after failed coalition talks with the Lib Dems

FPTP Advantages - Strong, Single Party Govs (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• FPTP promotes a two-party system - usually results in clear majority for one party which then has a strong mandate to carry out its policies

• This clear choice makes govs more accountable as their is clear alternative

  • 1980s, this enabled Thatcher to bring about widespread changes to the economy, whilst in 1997 it gave Blair’s gov the mandate to carry out extensive constitutional reforms

• Ken Clarke also argues it forces voters to face up to the fundamental choice decisively

  • 2019 election was focused around Brexit and forced many voters to prioritise Brexit over their other political concerns, with many former Labour voters voting Conservative for the first time

FPTP Advantages - Exclusion of Extremist Parties (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• FPTP leads to exclusion of extremist parties who are less likely to gain success as FPTP required geographically concentrated support

  • 2010 extreme right wing British National Party won 2% of national vote, but didn’t finish higher than 3rd in any constituency

  • 2009 European Parliament elections, which used a proportional Closed Party List system, by contrast, won 6.2% of votes and 2 seats

FPTP Advantages - MP-Constituency Link (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• relatively small size of most FPTP constituencies, and the fact that a single MP is responsible for those who live within the constituency, result in effective representation of local interests and a strong link between the constituency & MP

  • October 2022, 33 Conservative MPs rebelled against Liz Truss’ gov and abstained in a vote on banning fracking, despite gov ordering them to oppose it, including MP Mark Fletcher of Bolsover which had a strong local movement against fracking in the area

• MPs handle correspondence from their constituents and problems their constituents have and hold weekly surgeries

FPTP Disadvantages - Lack of Representation in Constituencies (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• Over half of MPs don’t command a majority of support within their constituency, with more votes cast against a winning candidate than for them and even lower support when turnout is taken into account

  • 2015 general election, Alasdair McDonnell of SDLP won with just 24.5% of the vote in Belfast South and only polled 14.7% of the electorate if the 60% turnout is taken into account

• This weakens the mandate of each MP, leading to many voters feeling unrepresented and MPs lacking legitimacy

FPTP Disadvantages - Lack of Proportionality at the National Level (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• Lack of representation in constituencies= lack of proportionality at national level as votes are not translated into seats accurately - voters feel system lacks legitimacy

  • candidates who come 2nd or 3rd in a constituency with large numbers of voters are not rewarded at all by FPTP

• FPTP exaggerated support of the biggest party (winner’s bonus) - party will often win a lot of marginal seats between the two main parties which usually determines the outcome

  • 2019, Conservative Party won 56% of seats with 43.2% of vote

  • 2005, Labour Party won 54.6% of seats with 35.2% of vote

• Feb 1974 and 1951 elections, the winning party in terms of seats received fewer votes than that of the second biggest party in terms of seats

• FPTP favours parties whose vote in concentrated rather than spread across a large geographical area - harms most minor parties

  • 2019 Liberal Democrats won 11.5% of the vote but just 11/650 seats (1.7% of the seats) If system was fully proportional, they would have won 75 seats

  • 2015 UKIP won 3.9 million votes (12.6% of votes) but just 1MP (0.2% of seats)

  • Contrasts with SNP who benefit from FPTP as their vote is geographically concentrated. In 2015, they won 95% of Scottish Seats with 50% of the vote

• FPTP doesn’t reflect the fact that the share vote for the two major parties has been decreasing for some time

FPTP Disadvantages - Limited Voter Choice (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• Under FPTP, each party puts forward just one candidate - little choice between different strands of main parties which are broad churches

• Voters only get 1 vote so cannot rank preferences like AMS or STV

  • votes for party that don’t win are effectively “wasted”

  • tactical voting - many voters who live in constituencies where preferred party is unlikely to win vote for a diff party to prevent least fave party winning their constituency

    • YouGov data commissioned by the Electoral Reform Society indicated 332% of voters voted tactically in 2019 election

• Votes are of unequal value as vote in a smaller constituencies counts for more than it does in a larger constituency & the difference between safe and marginal seats

  • safe seats - voters have little hope of seeing favoured candidate winning so depressed turnout among certain voters

    • Maidenhead - formerly represented by Theresa May - is a safe seat, with the Conservatives winning over 60% of the vote in 2017

  • marginal seats - votes matter more, leading to high turnout. More campaign focus by parties on these constituencies

    • Thanet South, Kent, has been won by the winning party at every General Election since its creation

    • number of marginal seats have been decreasing

FPTP Disadvantages - Ineffective Choosing of Govs (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• Single party govs are negative as they do not command a majority of votes across the country and have major power in parliament - huge changes being initiated by govs with limited legitimacy

• FTP has failed to deliver single party, majority govs, with a coalition in 2010 and a minority gov in 2017

Why is FPTP used in UK Parliament Elections? (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• FPTP has survived because it suits interests of two main parties who have monopolised gov since WW2

• Labour offered a referendum in their 1997 election manifesto but had no incentive to deliver after winning a large independent majority under the current system

• 2011 AV referendum was only agreed to by Conservatives after Lib Dems insisted on it in coalition negotiations

What is AMS? (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• Additional Member System

• voters have two votes - one for a constituency representative elected using FPTP & second for a ‘party list’ in order to elect an ‘additional’ representative

• uses multi-member regional constituencies and a party’s list of candidates is published before election

• after FPTP style voting for constituency reps have been counted, additional members are added proportionally based on proportion of voting support for each party so parliament more closely matches how country voted

• additional members added to regional constituencies to match how the constituencies voted, and may increase a party’s representation in the area if they had a lot of support but couldn’t win against safe seats

• fewer list members that constituency representatives and they are hence known as ‘additional’ or ‘top up’ members

  • In Scottish parliament, 73 of the 129 members are elected in single-member constituencies, with remain 56 being filled by list members

• AMS used in elections to Scottish parliament, Welsh Assembly and Greater London Assembly (GLA)

AMS Advantages - Link and proportional (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• ‘top up’ party list element introduces proportionality that corrects the disproportionality of FPTP - leads to a highly proportional system overall

  • 1999 Scottish Parliament election, Conservative party won 0 constituency MPs despite getting 15.6% of vote, but won 18 additional member seats in order to correct this, leading to them receiving 14% of seats overall

  • this is compared to the 1997 UK Parliament election where Conservative party received 17.5% of vote but 0 seats

• constituency element ensures strong MP-constituency link remains

AMS Advantages - Choice (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• voters have wider choice than under FPTP - can vote for a ‘split ticket’ - voting one party for a representative and another for their top-up vote

  • 2021 Scottish parliament election, Greens won 1.29% of constituency votes but 8.12% of top-up votes and got 8 seats.

  • Green party intentionally stands few constituency candidates to benefit from the top-up element

  • votes less likely than FPTP to be wasted

AMS Disadvantages (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• creates two different types of members - some with constituency responsibilities and some without

• smaller assemblies sometimes have too few seats for the top up elements to correct constituency element effectively and represent smaller parties - results in less representative system

  • 2021 Senedd election, the Green Party won 1.6% of constituency vote and 4.4% of top up votes but no seats

• closed list system is used, meaning the party leadership ranks candidates on list - can use this power to limit chances of dissident members of party being elected, giving the party a greater amount of power and making it harder for parties to be broad churches

  • on other hand this could be seen as an advantage because parties can ensure good direct representation of disadvantages groups such as women & ethnic minorities (zipping is often used where lists alternate between male and female)

• AMS more likely to lead to minority & coalition govs which can be seen as weak

  • in the six Scottish govs since devolution, 3 have been coalition govs, whilst 2 have been minority govs

Why is AMS used? (3.1 Different electoral systems)

• used in elections to Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Greater London Assembly (GLA)

• chosen as a compromise that would result in a broadly representative parliament but not involve the radical change of STV, which the Lib Dems advocated for, and maintain local representation

• Labour expected AMS would enable it to play a part in gov in Scotland and this proved correct until 2007

• After AMS has been agreed for Scotland, it was decided to use the same system for Wales where support for devolution was much weaker and in the GLA

What is STV? (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• Single Transferable Vote

• STV divides country into multi-member constituencies - in case of NI Assembly there are 18 each returning 5 members

• voters number their choice of candidate in order of preference

• candidates require certain quota to be elected which is calculated through the Droop formula (dividing total votes cast by the number of seats contested in constituency plus 1)

• if no candidate reaches quota on first round of voting then candidate with lowest votes is eliminated and second preference of voters supporting them are redistributed

• STV is used in elections for Northern Ireland Assembly and Scottish councils

Advantages of STV (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• STV highly proportional system - very close correlation between votes & seats

• voter choice is very high - voters choose between candidates standing for same party, as well as between candidates from diff parties - rank candidates preferentially giving them multiple votes

• in Northern Ireland, has created power-sharing govs which allows reps of two rival communities to work together, helping end 30 years of Troubles - these govs always have majority support

  • Same in Scottish Local Elections where after the 2022 elections, 94% of councils had no overall control. In 2003, when Scottish Local Elections still used FPTP, only 38% of councils had no overall support

Disadvantages of STV (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• in large, multi member constituencies, the member-constituency link may be weak

  • in NI Assembly elections there are 5 members representing each constituency

• power sharing govs may bring rival groups together but they are still prone to conflict

  • NI executive have been suspended 5 times since 1998 and STV did not help the more centrist parties long term. DUP and Sinn Fein now dominate, replacing the UUC and SDLP since 2007. Voting across community lines remains rare

• counting votes is slow and results are difficult to understand

• can lead to donkey voting

  • 2019 NI local election, in District Electoral Areas where there were two candidates running for same party, the candidate whose surname was first alphabetically was elected 85% of time compared to second candidate on ballot paper who was elected only 54% of the time

What is SV? (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• Supplementary Vote

• used in elections for London Mayor and other elected mayors, Police and Crime Commissioners in England & Wales

• HAS BEEN SCRAPPED

• each voter allowed a first and second preference vote

• any candidate who receives more than 50% of first preference vote selected automatically

• if this doesn’t occur then all candidates except top two are eliminated and second preference votes for the two candidates are added to produce overall winner

Advantages of SV (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• ensures broad support for the winner

  • Sadiq Khan has largest personal mandate of any elected politicians in British history

  • simple and straightforward to use

  • gives voters greater choice than FPTP as they can indicate a second preference and chose their desired candidate whilst also choosing between the two candidates most likely to win

  • has allowed some independent candidates to win

    • 12 out of 40 elected police and crime commissioners were independents in 2012 contest

Disadvantages of SV (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• winner doesn’t need to get an absolute majority of votes cast

• to have influence over the outcome. voters need to be able to identify the top two candidates which isn’t always clear, with the exception of London

• least unpopular candidates more likely to win, rather than the most popular

• if SV was used for the constituencies in UK Parliament elections, the problem would still remain of voters for candidates that don’t win being wasted, though to a lesser extent than FPTP

Why was SV used for elected mayors? (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• both SV and AV were considered, but SV was chosen partly because it was simpler to use

• was preferred as only top two candidates after first preference had been counted would make it into the final round - meant candidates with little positive support would be less likely to win merely because they were a ‘lowest common denominator’ second or third choice - in this way, the winner would have a clear mandate

Comparison - Voter Choice (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• voter choice = highest in STV, lowest in FPTP, with AMS somewhere in middle

• ability of voters to vote more than once and indicate different preferences in both STV and AMS leads to greatr voter choice than in FPTP

• STV and AMS means fewer votes wasted and less tactical voting

• STV - voters can choose between candidates of the same party - leads to very high voter choice

• voter choice can be seen as being at the expense of simplicity and ease of use for voters

  • HOWEVER 2007 Scotland, 146,000 ballots were incorrectly completed

Comparison - Representation & Proportionality (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• STV = most proportional system

• FPTP = least proportional

• AMS = more proportional than FPTP but less than STV

  • on average, FPTP deviates over 20% from the mean, compared to 11% for AMS in Scotland, 15% for AMS in Wales and 7% for STV in Northern Ireland

• Droop Formula and lack of single member constituencies ensures STV is highly proportional. Corrective top up element of AMS ensures also very proportional, though is less proportional for smaller parties and in systems like Wales & Gla where there are few members elected

• key criticism of FPTP is its disproportionality

• UK Parliament elections have highest turnout of all systems, though this because they are most important & high profile elections

  • 2024 UK Parliament election - 59.7% turnout

  • 2019 UK Parliament election - 67.3% turnout

  • 2021 Scottish Parliament election - 63.5% turnout

  • 2021 Welsh Parliament election - 46.6% turnout

  • 2022 Northern Irish Assembly election - 63.6% turnout

Comparison - Link between Representative & Represented (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• FPTP = strongest link

  • In FPTP, all members are constituency reps so can be seen as having strong link to their constituency

• AMS = strong link

  • not all members are constituency reps, leading to larger constituencies and a slightly weaker link

• STV = weakest link

  • due to multi-member constituencies which are too large for their representatives to know well

  • on other hand, the absence of safe seats under STV makes candidates work harder for votes so they have to address concerns across their constituency whilst FPTP encourages parties to focus on key marginal seats at expense of others

Comparison - Type of Government & Politics (3.1 Different Electoral Systems)

• STV designed to result in power-sharing coalition govs - been effective in NI been frequently suspended

• FPTP usually results in strong majority single party govs that can carry out their election manifestos with little need for cooperation and a very conflictual political system

  • this strong gov shouldn’t be seen as benefit as can create ‘elected dictatorship’ for a gov that lacks legitimacy

• contrasts with AMS - resulted in more coalition & minority govs - take longer to form than in FPTP but have been largely stable

• negotiations between political parties which remain rare at Westminster are often conducted in Edinburgh & Belfast

  • SNP had to win support of other parties to pass legislation. Feb 2011, to win support for the budget, the administration had to make concessions to the Lib Dems & Conservatives. Agreed to measures to increase youth employment & training in response to claims budget didn’t do enough to promote economic recovery

  • extent of consensual politics shouldn’t be overstated

    • Scotland - has been consistent conflict between parties on independence

• votes take longer to count under STV, delaying gov formation more than in AMS and FPTP

How would the 2019 general election have been different under Party List? (3.3 Electoral Systems Analysis)

Party List (Completely Proportional System)

• Conservatives would have received 288 seats instead of 365

• Labour would have received 216 seats instead of 202

• SNP would have received 70 seats instead of 11

• The Brexit Party would have received 11 seats instead of 0

• The Green Party would have gotten 12 seats instead of 1

How would the 2019 general election have been different under AMS? (3.3 Electoral Systems Analysis)

AMS

• The Electoral Reform Society calculated this:

• The Conservatives would received gotten 284 seats instead of 365

• Labour would have received 26 seats instead of 202

• SNP would have received 26 seats instead of 48

• Lib Dems would have received 79 seats instead of 11

• The Green Party would have received 38 seats instead of 1

How would the 2019 general election have been different under STV? (3.3 Electoral Systems Analysis)

STV

• The Electoral Reform Society calculated this:

• The Conservatives would have won 312 seats instead of 365

• Labour would have gotten 221 seats instead of 202

• SNP would have gotten 30 seats instead of 48

• Lib Dems would have gotten 59 seats instead of 11

• The Brexit Party would have gotten 3 seats instead of 0

• The Green Party would have gotten 2 seats instead of 1

Gov type - Coalition (3.3 Electoral Systems Analysis)

• Proportional systems such as STV & AMS have increased number of coalition governments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

• FPTP more often results in a single party govs forming

  • AMS voting system brought about a Scottish Labour-Lib Dem coalition in Scotland in 1999 & 2003 - removed tuition fees for uni students, introduced free nursing care for elderly people, which did not exist in England

Gov type - Minority (3.3 Electoral System Analysis)

• Proportional systems - Scotland, NI & Wales have encouraged more negotiations between political parties.

• If a minority gov forms (has on several occasions in Scotland & Wales) then gov needs support of other parties to pass legislation & policies.

  • AMS led to an SNP minority gov from 2007-2011, in the most recent 2016 election and there has been a Labour minority government from 2011-2016 in Wales.

Voter choice (3.3 Electoral System Analysis)

• Proportional systems such as AMS and STV give more choice to voters than FPTP where voters have one vote for one candidate.

  • AMS gives voters two votes, one for their constituency member and one for a party’s list candidates.

  • STV gives voters a preferential vote on a number of candidates, including multiple candidates from the same party.

Party representation (3.3 Electoral System Analysis)

• Proportional electoral systems better represent smaller parties and are not affected by how the votes have been distributed.

  • In FPTP parties are less successful if their vote is thinly spread rather than concentrated in specific areas.

Where is FPTP used and why? (3.3 Electoral Systems Analysis)

• used for UK general elections because simple, easy for voters to use and often produces a strong gov

• suits larger parties so remains the system used

  • Labour & Conservatives benefit from the voting system -changing it would likely harm their election success

  • The AV referendum in 2011, which voted against changing the system, suggests there is limited popular support to move away from FPTP

Where is STV used and why? (3.3 Electoral Systems Analysis)

• used in NI because proportional so will ensure many different parties are represented

  • STV prevents one party dominating in NI Assembly and ensures gov which forms shares power from numerous parties

  • important in NI where there has traditionally been a conflict between nationalist and unionist communities

Where is AMS used and why? (3.3 Electoral Systems Analysis)

• AMS is used in Scotland, Wales and London Assemblies.

  • used because it has representative results and is more proportional than FPTP, without as radical a change as STV

Where is SV used and why? (3.3 Electoral Systems Analysis)

• SV WAS used for electing Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners - changed by the Elections Act 2022

• used because was simple

• By only enabling two candidates through to the final round, it means that candidates need a large amount of positive support and a clear mandate to win

What is a referendum? (3.2 Referendums)

• vote on a specific issue which asks citizens to make a decision through a yes or no response

• an example of direct democracy within a representative system

• they are called at the discretion of the gov

• results don’t have legal force and has to be approved by parliament which has legal sovereignty

  • in EU referendums, it is purely advisory with Parliament having to take action following it to implement the result

  • in other instances like AV referendum, the law passed to instigate the referendum includes provisions for the result’s immediate implementation following the referendum

2011 Alternative Vote Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

• ‘Should the alternative vote replace the first-past-the-post for elections to the House of Commons"?

• 68% No vote

• 42.2% turnout

2016 Brexit Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

• ‘Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?’

• 52% Leave vote on a 72.2% turnout

1997 Scottish Devolution Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

• ‘Should there be a Scottish Parliament'?’ and ‘Should it have tax-varying powers?’

• 74% Yes vote and a 63.5% Yes vote respectively

• 60.4% turnout

1997 Welsh Devolution Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

• ‘Should there be a Welsh Assembly?’

• 50.3% Yes vote

• 50.1% turnout

1998 Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

• ‘Do you support the Good Friday Agreement?’

• 71% Yes vote

• 81% turnout

2011 Welsh Further Devolution Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

• ‘Should the Welsh Assembly have primary legislative powers?’

• 63.5% yes vote

• 35.6% turnout

2014 Scottish Independence Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

• ‘Should Scotland become an independent country?’

• 55.3% No

• 84.6% turnout

Local Referendums (3.2 Referendums)

• have also been many local referendums held across UK on a range of issues, from council tax to local representation to congestion charges

  • 2012 referendums were held in England’s 11 largest cities to determine whether to introduce directly elected mayors to replace council leaders. 9/11 received No votes

1998 Greater London Authority Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

• ‘Are you in favour of the Government’s proposals for a Greater London Authority, made up of an elected mayor and a seperately elected assembly?’

• 72% yes

• 34.6% turnout

2004 North East of England Regional Assembly Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

• ‘Should their be an elected assembly for the North East region?’

• 78% No vote

• 47.7% turnout

2005 Edinburgh Congestion Charge Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

• ‘The leaflet enclosed with this ballot gives information on the Council’s transport proposals for Edinburgh. The Council’s ‘preferred’ strategy includes congestion charging and increased transport investment funded by it. Do you support the council’s ‘preferred’ strategy?

• 74.4% No

• 61.7% turnout

2012 Birmingham Directly Elected Mayor Referendums (3.2 Referendums)

• ‘How would you like Birmingham to be run? By a leader who is elected councillor chosen by a vote of the other elected councillors. This is how the council is run now. Or By a mayor who is elected by voters. This would be a change from how the council is run now.’

• 58% No vote

• 27.6% turnout

2012 Bristol Directly Elected Mayor Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

• ‘How would you like Bristol to be run? By a leader who is an elected councillor chosen by a vote of the other elected councillors. This is how the council is run now. Or by a mayor who is elected by voters. This would be a change from how the council is run now.’

• 53.3% Yes vote

• 24.1% turnout

2011 Alternative Vote Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

• held May 2011 after it was included as a provision in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition agreement

• Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru & smaller parties - campaigned yes

• Most Labour MPs supported ‘No’ campaign as well as Conservative Party and DUP

  • majority of press supported ‘No’ campaign whilst The Guardian, Daily Mirror, Financial Times and The Independent supported the ‘Yes’ campaign

• Result was 68& No vote on a 42.2% turnout

• The ‘Yes’ campaign argued they were representing the British public, whilst the ‘No’ campaign used the unpopularity of the Lib Dems, which is why the rejection of AV can be seen as in part a protest vote against them

  • 2010 election - Lib Dems gained a lot of support due to their policy of scrapping uni tuition fees. After going into gov with Conservatives, though, they ended up agreeing to increase tuition fees instead causing a public outcry and loss of support

  • Loss of AV in the referendum after this can be seen as a protest vote against them rather than a vote on the issue itself

2014 Scottish Independence Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

• held in Scotland only in September 2014 following The Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 which followed an agreement between the Scottish and UK Governments

  • all EU or Commonwealth citizens residing in Scotland age 16+ could vote

• ‘Yes Scotland’ backed by SNP and Scottish Greens was campaign organisation backing independence

• ‘Better Together’ backed by The Conservative Party, Labour Party & Lib Dems was campaign organisation supporting Scotland remaining in the UK

• 55.3% No vote

• 84.6% turnout

• Key issue in campaign were further devolution, what currency Scotland would use, EU membership, Trident and North Sea Oil

• Polling reveals that retaining the pound was the key factor for those who voted ’No’ whilst disaffection with Westminster politics was the deciding factor in those who voted ‘Yes’

2016 Brexit Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

• United Kingdom European Union Membership Referendum was held across UK and in Gibraltar in June 2016 after Conservative Party had made holding it a manifesto pledge in the 2015 election

• referendum was called in response to the growing popularity of UKIP and Nigel Farage - part of growing pressure for a ref since late 2000s

  • The Brexit supporting UKIP won 26.6% of vote - largest party in 2014 European Parliament election

• The Remain campaign, led by ‘Britain Stronger in Europe’ was backed by PM David Cameron and majority of the Labour Party, Conservative Party, SNP and Lib Dems. The Leave campaign, led by ‘Vote Leave’ was fronted by Conservative MPs Borish Johnson and Michael Gove and backed by UKIP, with Farage playing a prominent role. Dominic Cummings was a key in running the campaign

  • each campaign was given right to spend up to £7 million and given £600,000 in public funds

  • 76% of MPs supported remain

• result was surprising and not predicted by opinion polls with a 52% Leave vote on a 72.2% turnout

• key issues in campaign were immigration, national sov, the economy and the cost of membership payments to EU

  • campaign slogan ‘Take back Control’ was important to the Leave Campaign’s victory

The Aftermath of the Brexit Referendum (3.2 Referendum)

• Cameron resigned as PM and was replaced by Theresa May. The result led to Conservative Party shifting significantly to the right. with those who supported Brexit gaining control as seen in Boris Johnson becoming party leader and PM in June 2019

• Brexit defined UK politics for the following 4 years before the COVID pandemic, with a strong second referendum movement and difficulty gaining a Brexit deal through Parliament

  • eventually resolved by the 2019 General Election which the Conservative Party won conclusively

  • put an end to the Second Referendum campaign which had been supported by Lib Dems and Labour Party and enabled Johnson to pass his Hard Brexit deal

How are Referendums Regulated? (3.2 Referedums)

• Since the 2000 Political Parties, Elections & Referendums Act, conduct of refs has been regulated by Electoral Commission

• This independent body is responsible for checking the working of ref questions, to ensure they are as objective as possible

  • in 2016 - gov had originally proposed to ask: ‘Should the UK remain a member of the EU?’. However, Electoral Commission considered it insufficiently neutral and insisted the ballot paper should present two options ‘Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?’

• The Commission also manages campaign expenditure, registers group or individuals who spend more than £10,00 and designates one approved ‘lead campaign organisation’ on each side

  • in EU Ref, these two groups were 'Vote Leave’ and Britain Stronger in Europe’. This designation entitled them to receive a predetermined amount of public

• also produce a report following the ref on the campaign and spending

Reasons for a ref - Legitimacy (3.2 Referendums)

• to give legitimacy to key constitutional changes & major gov initiatives

• Since Blair, has become accepted practice to secure demonstration of public support before possibly irreversibly constitutional changes

  • refs give constitutional changes legitimacy and ensure they’re unlikely to be reversed

• Local referendums on directly elected mayors are more to give legitimacy to gov initiatives

  • little public pressure/support for directly elected mayors and further devolution in England, with the public not really caring, reflected in the low turnouts in these referendums

Reasons for a ref - Party Motivations (3.2 Referendums)

• Refs have sometimes been held when a gov faces serious internal disagreement.

• By handling the decision to the people and insisting colleagues have to rally behind the popular verdict, the gov can maintain its unity

  • 1975 ref on EEC membership and the 2016 Brexit ref. In both of these, Collective Ministerial Responsibility (CMR) was suspended, allowing ministers to publicly oppose gov policy

• 2016 Brexit ref was also held in part due to the growing pressure on the Conservative Party from UKIP, which was threatening it electorally by taking away its voters

  • pledging to hold the ref in the 2015 election campaign enabled the Conservatives to maintain the support of many important voters

Reasons for a ref - As a result of a deal between political parties (3.2 Referendums)

• Cameron agreed to hold a vote on changing the electoral system for Westminster (AV referendum)

• this is because it was a demand of the Lib Dems for agreeing to the May 2010 coalition agreement

Why have referendums been held? - Due to Pressure from Public & Parliament (3.2 Referendums)

• Cameron initially didn’t want to hold an in/out EU referendum, joining forces with the Lib Dems and Labour in October 2011 to defeat Conservative backbenchers who were pressing to a referendum

• He changed his mind in Jan 2013 as public demand refused to go away, he began to fear the possible loss of Conservative votes to UKIP if he didn’t concede

  • by announcing he would hold a red if re-elected in 2015, he took the issue off of the agenda in the ensuing GE and after the election he had to make good on his promise

• The 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum was held in large part due to the growing popularity of the SNP and polling showing significant support for independence among the Scottish population

The Impact of Referendums on UK Political Life (3.2 Referendums)

• form of direct democracy, which conflicts with Parliamentary Sovereignty and representative democracy

  • can be seen in EU ref, where vast majority of Parliament support Remain, whilst majority of electorate voted to leave - complications in the passage of Brexit though parliament following the vote

• Recent ref have high turnouts, reflecting how they have engaged the population in politics when there is increasing dissatisfaction with the political class in Westminster

• The Scottish Independence Referendum & Brexit Referendums in particular have been deeply divisive and both profoundly changed and defined the normal politics of representative democracy in the UK

Arguments in Favour of Referendum (3.2 Referendums)

Arguments Against Referendum (3.2 Referendums)