Refereeing the referendum
SO THE dust settles on yesterday’s day of drama. The culprits, depending on your point of view, are: Peter Hain (for insisting on issuing Labour’s joint statement), Rhodri (for going along with it/obfuscating at FMQs/backing down later on/agreeing a joint statement with Ieuan Wyn Jones of a different tone), the Labour Group (by getting somewhat over-excited), the “senior Plaid source” who warned of the existential threat to the coalition (for ratcheting up the tension) and Labour MPs (not sure why, but they usually get the blame at times like this).
But perhaps there is another culprit: the system itself. After all, if you place the decision about when and whether to hold a referendum on an important constitutional issue in the hands of a group of politicians, should you be surprised when they attempt to manipulate it to suit their desired political objectives? In Labour’s case, that might mean delaying the entire vote beyond the point where they can control it (and hence bear responsibility for it) or merely putting distance between it and the General Election. In Plaid’s case, it might mean the exact opposite: to make the referendum part of the General Election wallpaper, or simply to get it on the books ASAP. And that’s before we try and deduce the motives of the opposition parties.
Either way, the principle of consulting the people on their system of governance is obviously being subverted to the political and electoral objectives of the parties involved. Anoraks will roll their eyes in wearied exasperation at the next point, but that is a result of the lack of clarity in the British constitution about when the use of a referendum is warranted, and how it should be triggered.
That in turn is a product of the novelty of the referendum itself in our political culture. Up until 1997 only four referenda had been held in the UK (above the local level), two of which were the 1979 plebiscites in Wales and Scotland. While the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act of 2000 established a number of rules for the conduct of referendum campaigns, it left unresolved the issue of how they should be triggered, and in what circumstances. One option would be to incorporate the use of such votes into a future written constitution (a la the Republic of Ireland), another would be to permit a trigger mechanism beyond the sole control of the parties, such as the Popular Initiative mechanism favoured in Switzerland and a number of US states. Still another, as suggested by the Constitution Unit’s Nairne Commission, would be to establish a Referendum Commission.
To the parties, all these options have drawbacks. The Conservatives have committed themselves to automatic referenda on any future EU treaties, but will presumably want to retain latitude on timing. A popular trigger mechanism will strike some as abhorrent, potentially forcing a vote at the worst time. And I don’t suppose there’s much support in the parties for an independent commission to decide on such matters.
But that is surely the point. For referenda to work as they should, they ought to be removed from party political manipulation, otherwise we may as well go back to the old way of asserting that the voters’ consent through a General Election is sufficient. If not, and if we believe that voters should be explicitly consulted, that is an assertion that this should be done above and beyond the normal flow of politics. And in that case, they should be treated more seriously than they were yesterday.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
Excellent contribution as usual, Adam. All political parties and politicians have historically used referenduns for their own purposes. It is one of the reasons why traditionally British politicians have always been suspicious of the device. In the 19th Century it was associated with Napoleonic dictatorship either in the form of Napoleon I or Napoleon III. In the 20th Century it was the preferred method of dictators to confirm that the people supported their actions.
For many supporters of a’ ‘yes’ vote the referendum is already in the bag and any attempt to delay it is seen as part of a plot to derail devolution. They would argue that all that needs to happen is for voters to be asked the simple question of whether they wish to move from Part 3 to part 4 or do you wish Wales to have the same powers as Scotland. Yet questions framed on the above lines are fraught with danger. How many people would even know what Part 4 entailed for a start? What happens if the White Paper suggests revenue raising powers for Scotland. Should Welsh voters be asked if Wales should have the same powers? It is far more complex than many enthusiastic yes supporters realise.
It could also be argued that Plaid supporters of a yes vote are also being disgenuous in their support for Part 4 of the 2006 Act. This isn’t their preferred option for the future of Wales. That option is obviously complete independence. It be could be argued that since Salmond wants the Scottish people to be given the chance to decide on independence, why isn’t Plaid making the same argument in Wales?
As someone who lived through both the 1979 and 1997 referendums, I just would not like to predict the result of any referendum if it was held in the near future. I know the Western Mail today has highlighted the You Gov poll which shows a large majority for ‘yes’. But can anyone take a poll seriously that suggests a 93% yes vote in Cardiff and a no vote in North Wales?
In 1979 and 1997 all the polls were suggesting that the yes vote would win by a large majority. In 1997 the key factor in the successful yes vote was the support given by enough traditional Labour voters for the policy of newly elected Labour government. The fact that the Tories were opposed was an added bonus. Politicians such as Peter Hain and Huw Irranca-Davies are committed to devolution. They are genuinely worried about the timing of any referendum because of the fear that if held at the wrong time it could set back devolution by a generation. In 1997 the Labour Party focus groups were telling a very different story to the opinion polls.
I just don’t get the feeling that outside the political elite there is any great interest in a referendum. Yesterday, Assembly politicians from all sides also didn’t exactly inspire confidence. A great deal of work has to be carried out in my opinion before anyone can be certain of result in any referendum. Rather than arguing about the timing the real work should be to set out the case in concrete practical terms of how lawmaking would improve Welsh society.
Why would a ‘no’ vote set back devolution a generation if the LCO system works as well as Peter Hain claims?
Adam.
Interesting quote from Jim Murphy in the Glasgow Herald before the launch of the new Scottish White Paper. “When the Scottish Parliament says it wants more money,it doesn’t look in the mirror;it looks to London. We need to change that system whereby they take respoinsibility. In future if the Scottish government wants to spend more money it is going to have to raise it itself and that is a really strong change in the way devolution is organised.’
The problem with a referendum centredon the flawed 2006 Act and the Jones -Parry Commission is that the debate regarding devolution in the UK is moving on because of events in Scotland. It is clear that the government is suggesting that Scotland has some form of revenue raising powers after the UK election. Even the Tories have nothing to lose by supporting this. This would mean that any new initiatives by the Scottish Parliament would have to be costed because they would involve increased taxes for those who benefit namely the Scots. It is easy to introduce free care which now costs 70% more than predicted if the bulk of the money comes from South of the border. Exactly the same argument should apply to Wales. As Paul Griffiths argues this week in a very interesting contribution to the debate full law making powers would stop people hiding behind the claim that they lack the power to do anything. By the same token you can’t have real accountabilty if you do not have some form of tax raising powers in my opinion. Although Tony Blair was criticised at the time for comparing the new Scottish Parliament to a community council;what he was really saying was ‘what’s the fuss about tax raising powers when every community council can raise taxes from its residents.’ You really can’t ,once full law making powers are introduced, have a situation where I pay a tax directly of £50 a year to Maesteg Town Council but nothing to the Assembly. Only few weeks ago an Assembly Committee argued that sport and culture should become statutory functions of local government. Perhaps they might have thought twice if such a policy involved a tax increase to finance it.Mature political institutions as the Richard Commission recognised are also tax raising institutions.
Jeff Jones,
Why are you discussing the developments in Scots devolution in relation to the proposed referendum? current Scottish style powers are not on the table, let alone any tax varying powers or Independence, which may or may not pass to Edinburgh. discussing the 2 issues together in this way simply confuses the matter.
I wouldn’t object to paying tax to the Assembly, provided that it is instead of (rather than in addition to) the tax currently paid to the tresury in London.
Like everything else in devolution it boils down the fact that there are fewer AM’s than MP’s and they are far closer to home – this makes them more accountable, or to put in more colourfully “we can keep our eye on the b*****s!”. For this reason I believe they would be more careful with our money.