Parliamentary democracy or referendums? Public attitudes to decision-making

Blog

Parliamentary democracy or referendums? Public attitudes to decision-making

26 Apr 2017

After four referendums in six years – two UK-wide and one each in Scotland and Wales – our latest annual Audit of Political Engagement shows that the public exhibit declining support for more of this method of decision-making to determine important questions.

,
Director , Hansard Society

Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox

Share this and support our work

Support for more referendums on important questions

A clear majority – three in five British adults (61%) – agree that important questions should be determined by referendums more often than today. However, this is significantly below the level of support for referendums recorded in Audits prior to the EU poll last June. In Audit 9 (2012) and 13 (2016) support for referendums stood at 76% and 72% respectively. Interestingly, support for more referendums among Scots has declined to 55%, a drop of 19 percentage points from the 74% recorded in the last Audit published in 2016.

Support for more referendums is now lowest in Scotland compared to other parts of Britain, indicating perhaps a level of ‘referendum fatigue’ following two referendums in less than two years and with the Scottish government talking of a third when the EU result had barely been counted. Those who are strong supporters of UKIP are most likely to support the use of referendums to determine important questions. Nearly nine in 10 (88%) UKIP supporters do so. In contrast, the supporters of the most avowedly pro-EU party, the Liberal Democrats, are least likely to support the use of referendums as a decision-making mechanism; only four in 10 (42%) of their supporters do so.

The views of Labour and Conservative supporters are broadly identical; 59% of them support greater use of referendums to decide important questions. In contrast, those who say that they do not support a political party are more likely than either party’s supporters to favour referendums; nearly seven in 10 (69%) would like to see greater use of referendums in the future. Unsurprisingly, three-quarters (74%) of ‘leave’ voters support greater use of referendums in the future; just under half (47%) of ‘remainers’ agree.

The best way to make a decision?

In the aftermath of the EU referendum, when questions were raised about how government and Parliament would take the decision forward, we decided to test public attitudes to a range of decision-making mechanisms across several different policy scenarios.

We asked which mechanism people thought would work best to produce a decision in Britain’s best interest: government taking a decision without a vote in Parliament; a parliamentary vote; local government deciding for their own area; or the public deciding through, for example, a referendum. Each option was put across five different policy areas, covering national and local issues, constitutional and ethical matters:

the method for electing MPs – a national, constitutional question – like that posed in the 2011 AV referendum;
a financial matter in relation to the NHS - a key national policy area with local delivery implications;
‘fracking’, a controversial environmental issue with important local ramifications;
assisted dying - a moral or conscience issue where citizens might arguably have stronger personal views or indeed knowledge than they might, for example, have on constitutional questions; and
our future relationship with the EU, the subject of the recent nation-wide referendum.

Overall, public opinion was split; no decision-making mechanism attracted majority support for any of the policy scenarios. However, overall, decisions by the public, through a referendum, were the most popular. The option that was closest to attracting a majority was a referendum to choose the method for electing MPs, which was supported by 47% of the public.On the constitutional (election of MPs and EU future) and ethical questions (assisted dying), four in 10 of the public selected themselves – the public via something like a referendum – as the best way to take a decision in the country’s interest, significantly ahead of the decision being taken by government or Parliament.

Only in relation to deciding how much money the government should spend in a policy area like the NHS did the public think that Parliament would be better placed to decide than citizens through a referendum or similar mechanism. And almost as many people thought that local government should decide as thought the public should do so.

And while a decision by the public was still the most popular option to address the difficult issue of fracking, here support was lower than in relation to the constitutional and ethical questions. Only three in 10 opted for a decision by the public, and it was on this question that a decision by local government attracted the most support compared to others.

Young people apart, those who voted ‘remain’ are less likely to think that important questions should be determined by referendums and more likely to select a vote in Parliament as the best way to make a decision across all the scenarios we tested.

Conversely, older people apart, those who voted ‘leave’ are more likely to think that the public should decide, for example through a referendum.

Referendums and Parliament

But if events following the referendum have demonstrated anything, it is the indispensable role of Parliament, with the Supreme Court confirming the need for a parliamentary vote to trigger our exit under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union.

The referendum result triggered the exit process but there is still a need for decisions to be made by our representatives as we seek to navigate the complex political and policy landscape created by the Brexit vote. Whereas more direct forms of democracy tend to entrench views and attitudes and give a megaphone to those prepared to shout the loudest, parliamentary democracy can mediate between and balance competing interests. If there were to be another referendum in the next few years, much greater thought must be given to the interface that any decision thus taken would have with Parliament.

Cite this

Fox, R. (2017), Parliamentary democracy or referendums? Public attitudes to decision-making, (Hansard Society: London)

Latest / Highlights

News / Who really sets MPs’ pay – And why you might be wrong about it. A conversation with Richard Lloyd, chair of IPSA - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 126

What are MPs actually paid and what does the public fund to help them do their job? In this conversation with Richard Lloyd, chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) we explore the delicate balance between supporting MPs to do their jobs effectively and enforcing strict standards on the use of public money. We discuss how IPSA has shifted from a rule-heavy “traffic cop” to a principles-based regulator, why compliance is now very high, and the security risks and pressures facing MPs‘ offices as workloads rise and abuse becomes more common. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | ACAST | YouTube | Other apps | RSS

News / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 19-23 January 2026

Labour MPs may stage a backbench rebellion in the Commons over amendments to the Hillsborough Law (the Public Office (Accountability) Bill). MPs will also debate changes to four other bills. The Foreign Secretary faces departmental questions, including on Iran and Greenland, while Cabinet Office Ministers will be quizzed on digital ID and relations with the EU. In the Lords, six new Peers will be introduced, including former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies and Iceland boss Richard Walker. Peers will examine seven bills and spend a seventh Friday in Committee on the assisted dying bill. Select Committees will hear from former Defence Secretaries Sir Ben Wallace and Sir Grant Shapps, Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey, the German Ambassador, Attorney General Lord Hermer KC, and former head of the National Farmers’ Union Baroness (Minette) Batters.

News / Kemi’s pre-emptive strike on Robert Jenrick - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 125

In a dramatic day at Westminster Kemi Badenoch sacked Robert Jenrick and suspended him from the Conservative Whip before his defection to Reform UK. We explore what it says about Conservative discipline, Reform’s recruitment drive, and whether others may follow. We then examine rows over the Hillsborough Law and proposed national security exemptions, plus procedural drama in the House of Lords over the Chagos deal. Bob Blackman MP also joins us to discuss Backbench Business Committee reforms, before we assess whether the assisted dying bill is being talked out.

News / Growing the Greens: Ellie Chowns MP on Parliament, polling and Zack Polanski - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 124

What is it like to be part of a small but growing parliamentary party? We talk with the leader of the Green Party group at Westminster, Ellie Chowns, about the challenges of operating with limited numbers, the practical realities of parliamentary life, and how institutional structures shape the influence of smaller parties. We discuss our political culture, the Greens’ approach to leadership, internal decision-making, and the party’s longer-term ambitions for electoral and parliamentary reform and a more representative system.

News / Are UK elections under threat? A conversation with the chair of the Electoral Commission, John Pullinger - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 123

With the Government investigating allegations of foreign influence in British politics, we are joined by John Pullinger, Chair of the Electoral Commission, to take stock of the health and resilience of the UK’s electoral system. Our discussion ranges widely over the pressures facing elections and campaigning today, and what issues Parliament may need to grapple with in a future elections bill.