The Prime Minister's comment, on this morning's Today Programme, that there should be a referendum on House of Lords reform depressed me greatly. All three main political parties support reform and a recent YouGov/Unlock Democracy Poll found that 69% of voters support them in that. Whether to reform is not controversial, the only question is "how?". Personally I don't support a fully-elected upper chamber where the need to be elected/re-elected is a distraction from the real work of the Lords. But I'm not an expert, and I'm assuming those that are will come up with the best solution and implement it. I vote for politicians to consider advice and take decisions. This perpetual passing back to the electorate of controversial decisions is cowardly!
The failure of the recent Alternative Vote referendum demonstrates adequately why, in most cases, difficult political decisions should be taken by the politicians we elect to make them. Inevitably with referenda complicated questions are boiled-down to a simplistic one choice versus another. This is then accompanied by horrifically complicated election literature, like the 12 page leaflet produced by the Electoral Commission which frightens even the most dedicated of voter. The Australian Republic referendum in 1999 adequately demonstrates how a strong support for change can get lost in the detail and convert to a weak and uncertain result. The more you pester people to make a choice; the more likely they are to opt for the status quo.
Referenda are also quite easily manipulated. By not putting out enough information, or ignoring that a poll is taking place people are likely to not bother to vote, or stick with the current situation. By scheduling the AV referendum on the same day as local elections any recommendations from trusted politicians was lost in the noise. In Ontario and British Colombia in Canada electoral reform was similarly defeated in 2007 and 2009 by more familiar elections taking place on the same day, and the main party leaders simply ignoring the referendum.
This desire to consult/need to share the blame also leads to a rather pernicious pressure on communities to "volunteer" for change they may not agree with. Voluntarism isn't a bad idea, indeed it built much of the early American social society with volunteers seeing needs and filling them. Much of the Big Society is underpinned by voluntarism and the idea that we should willing do things for the greater good. The key principle of voluntarism though is that you can't be volunteered by someone else. This is compulsion or perhaps coercion.
The government needs to find a new permanent underground home for the nuclear waste currently stored at Sellafield. Nervous of imposing a solution, the government has chosen voluntarism and appealed for councils to put themselves forward. Inevitably only two have done so, with one being Copeland the home of Sellafield. It's relatively easy to see why a council would volunteer to host this kind of industry; it will generate many local jobs, and particularly at the moment that's attractive. Council officers will have taken expert advice and will be assured that the whole scheme is safe. However the core principle of voluntarism is that it is not the politicians who will decide but the people, who lack research officers and expert advisors.
In order for Copeland, or one of the other boroughs, to host the waste facility a referendum of local people will need to vote "yes". This should be a good thing, we should all have input into major decisions that affect us, but people make decisions based on evidence or emotions and in the absence of much opinion it will be an emotive choice. As we've discussed people are naturally cautious and it's safe to assume that the easier choice of "no" will be strong. There will be a welter of newsletter, information leaflets and consultation events arranged. However there is already argument in Cumbria over the facts. An expert Professor Smythe, who has worked both at the geology faculty of Glasgow University and on the government's first study on the storage of this waste, argues that the geology of Cumbria is unsuitable to bury waste. The geological expert from the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency contests this. Who is the public to believe? How can we be expected to make a decision so controversial on the basis of a few pamphlets?
Politicians are often accused of a decide, announce, defend method of consultation with the public. By perpetually deferring all of the difficult decisions they are stuck in a much worse methodology of 'list options and retreat'. I already made my choice at the ballot box. By all means ask my opinion, but don't expect me to do the politicians job for him.