What's all this about the 2011 Referendum?

What was really decided then?

When changing our system to a more proportional system is debated you might hear that the matter was decided in the 2011 referendum when the UK public ‘rejected the idea of PR’

This isn’t true for one very good reason - PR wasn’t even the question on the voting slip.

I might have more to say on referendums in general in another post, but on a general point, they offer a Binary Choice to voters - That’s to say, there are only two options. It’s not possible to vote for what isn’t there.

Here is a reproduction of the ballot that day

That’s a straight choice between First Past the Post and the Alternative Vote.

And neither of these are Proportional Systems.

Some might argue that it was a referendum on changing the system - but that wasn’t the question asked.

If the last part of that question had been ‘Should this be changed to a different system’ then that argument could be sustained. The campaign then would have been different, and had that led to a different result, then further conversations would have been needed.

There is an interesting comparison to be made between the 2011 referendum and the 2016 referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union.

Referendums are usually a choice between the ‘status quo’ and a change, and both 2011 and 2016 had ‘staying the same’ as one of the two options. The change offered is where the two referendums differed. In 2016 the change remained open while in 2011 it was tightly drawn. Not only was just one possible change from FPTP on offer, it wasn’t the change that most campaigners for change wanted.

But leaving the European Union was the alternative in 2016, rather disguised as a simple option. All the debate that followed for the next three years betrayed this falsehood. ‘Brexit’ as an option was many possibilities disguised as one. Even now, many people who supported leaving the EU are unhappy with what they got.

This difference between the way the questions were phrased was not insignificant in the result. Let one option be worded so that people can imagine its the change that they want, and it will become the more attractive option, catching all of people’s ideas of what might be possible and leaving the campaigners for the change option a free hand to say what they want.

Restrict the alternative to change as one way forward, and that alternative is effectively put ‘on trial’.

Liberal Democrats these days are a fairly united bunch on most policy areas, but there is still a division between those who thought the coalition was brave and justified and those who thought it was foolhardy. I belong to the former group, but it can’t be avoided that mistakes were made, and one of these was the way the offer of the 2011 referendum was grabbed without reading the small print.

Had I been at the negotiating table I’d have pushed to STV to be used on a trial basis for one round of local elections - That’s to say, over 4 years. Then a more informed referendum could have been held on its continuation and an extension of its use for for parliamentary elections.

So, no, the 2011 referendum and its result should not be used as a block on discussing any reform in the future. The question put was designed by opponents to any change and ‘PR’ was not on offer.

Today, the raising of the 2011 result isn’t the argument used by proponents of the Status Quo. Politicians, especially in the larger two parties, will say that this issue of reform is never raised with them by constituents. I’m not convinced by this because I’m sure all MPs are approached on a whole range of subjects.

However those of us who propose changing the system have to contend with a truth; The list of concerns of most people are topped by job and home security, and putting food on the table. Electoral Reform would be someway down the list of their priorities because its not immediately obvious how it effects their top issues.

But it does! And that’s a question I’ll return to in a future post, where I’ll explore how the method of choosing our government impacts the quality of governance itself.

Many more discussion pieces to come

Subscribe for free to keep up with new stuff

Return to the Menu Page