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 / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 1-5 December 2025

The House of Commons enters the final two days of its Budget debate, culminating in votes on the Budget motions and presentation of the Finance Bill. The Treasury Committee hears from the OBR, IFS and Resolution Foundation. Peers also devote a full day’s debate to the Budget. The Foreign, Education and Wales Secretaries and Cabinet Office ministers face oral questions from MPs. In the Lords the assisted dying bill continues in Committee. The Sentencing Bill and Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill receive further Lords scrutiny. The Hillsborough Law begins clause-by-clause scrutiny in the Commons. West Midlands Police face Select Committee questions about their handling of the football match between Aston Villa and Maccabi Tel Aviv.

News / 101 resolutions and a Finance Bill. How the Budget becomes law - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 117

It’s Budget week, so we look at what happens after the Chancellor sits down and how the days announcements are converted into the Finance Bill. We speak to Lord Ricketts, Chair of the European Affairs Committee, about whether Parliament is prepared to scrutinise the “dynamic alignment” with EU laws that may emerge from the Government’s reset with Brussels. And we explore the latest twists in the assisted dying bill story, where a marathon battle is looming in the New Year after the Government allocated 10 additional Friday sittings for its scrutiny. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Publications / Budget 2025: Letter to Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds MP calling for an ‘Amendment of the Law’ motion

The form of the first Ways and Means motion tabled after the Budget – either an Amendment of the Law motion or an Income Tax (Charge) motion – determines how much scope MPs have to propose amendments when the Budget is translated into the Finance Bill. An Amendment of the Law motion provides broader scope for amendment and was standard practice until it was unilaterally dropped by the then Government in 2017. We have written to the Chief Whip urging the restoration of this procedural practice so that MPs can properly fulfil their constitutional responsibility to scrutinise the nation’s finances and ensure that consideration of the Finance Bill is a genuinely political debate, not merely a technical exercise.

News / Is the House of Lords going slow on the assisted dying bill? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 116

In this episode we look at the latest Covid Inquiry report addressing the lack of parliamentary scrutiny during the pandemic and the need for a better system for emergency law-making. With the Budget approaching, we explore how the Commons Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP, might discipline ministers who announce policies outside Parliament and why a little-known motion could restrict debate on the Finance Bill. Sir David Beamish assesses whether the flood of amendments to the assisted dying bill risks a filibuster and raises constitutional questions. Finally, we hear from Marsha de Cordova MP and Sandro Gozi MEP on their work to reset UK–EU relations through the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Blog / The assisted dying bill: Is the number of Lords amendments a parliamentary record?

The assisted dying bill has attracted an extraordinary number of amendments in the House of Lords, prompting questions about whether the volume is unprecedented. This blog examines how its amendment count compares with other bills in the current Session, and what the historical data shows about previous amendment-heavy legislation.