The Mayor of London (1998) was local referendums called for the people of London to vote weather that they want a Mayor or not. Though the turnout for this referendum was low about only 34% of people who could vote, voted, which turn out to be 72% voting yes they want a Mayor of London and 28% saying no o a Mayor of London, but because of the low turnout 66% of people didn’t vote in it which clearly favoured the supporters of the Mayor. The Mayor of London introduced change at a local political level as the Mayor of London has power to deal certain aspects of London like transport and other things. The Mayor of London is elected by the people of London to deal with the day to day running of London, but only on local issues, like how the transport system is ran, how much people mush pay to use the system, the Mayor of London can as so introduces things like the congestion charge and how much that should cost, where it should be in place and that. Also the Mayor of London has taken power away of people that controlled transport for London, and now he controlled it or appoints people he think can do the work, and give London the services possible. This introduces change as it put a elected person in office to ran London day to day business, and to promote London to the world like in win the 2012 Olympic Games.
Both example of referendum have introduces change political as they both change the running of the country as in the Membership of The EU or change how a local area is ran like in the Mayor of London, they both take power away from someone and give it to someone else, being the European Parliament, of the Mayor of London both example have change the country or a local area politically.
- Evaluate the use of Referendum?
The use of referendums can been seen as both good and bad, there are arguments in favour of the use of referendum and arguments against the use of referendum. Some of the arguments in favour of referendums are they are a very real form of direct democracy, they increase political participation, voting does not take place just every five years, referenda can be a check on "elective dictatorships" during a government's 5 years span and referenda provide a clear answer to a question the government might be 'asking'. Some of the arguments against the use of referendums are that referenda are inconsistent with the belief in parliamentary sovereignty, issues might be too complex for a mere yes/no vote or for the public to understand, the regular use of referenda could lead to apathy among the public and there are effective alternatives opinion polls and by-elections.
The arguments in favour of using referendums are that it is the real form of direct democracy as everyone whom the issues in the referendum affects and every one who can vote get a chance to vote, to a chance to voice there opinion the matter in hand, be it local or national issues. Also that referendums increase political participation as every one (who can vote) gets a direct say in the issues in hand, the issues of why the referendum has been called, and if you are against the issues you can vote no and the same as if you are for the issues you can vote yes. Voting does not take place just every five years this can be in favour of referendums as, the government calls the referendum, or local government calls a referendum and if you are against there view you have the chance outside a general election to say no. Referenda can be a check on "elective dictatorships" during a government's 5 years span as if can see if the people are still to favour of the government and still like there view on how the country should be run. Referenda provide a clear answer to a question the government might be 'asking’ as if the government was asking should be apart of the EU or not and could call a referendum to see what the people think, like they did in 1975. Referenda deal with a flaw in the mandate theory as voters can voice an opinion on a major issue. If the government listens to the people, it is likely to be gaining public approval and support, so if a referendum was called and the vote was a no vote them the government should listen to the people and if the government makes the right moves they would gain the support of the people who voted no. Referenda can unite a divided party, as this was show in the Membership of the EU (1975), as the labour party was divided on the issues of Europe, and after the referendum which turn out to be a yes vote unity the labour party on the issues, and that Referenda legitimise important constitutional issues such as devolution, as it allow the people who with be affected to have the say and not the MP’s in parliament who live not where near the affected area, such as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These are all the arguments in favour of the use of referendums.
Thought there are arguments against the use of referendums, should as Referenda are inconsistent with the belief in parliamentary sovereignty, that it takes the supremacy of parliament away as in referendums is it no longer voting on the new law or issues, but the people are (only in referendums). Issues might be too complex for a mere yes/no vote or for the public to understand, as the issues in hand may need more debating on it or more answers to what it is asking. The regular use of referenda could lead to apathy among the public, as if referendums are being used every time a new law is made it may cause people not to vote or not to be brother as they have to keeping voting on referendums. A low turnout can distort results. Only 34% of those who could have voted in the "Do you want a Mayor for London?" actually voted. 72% of these voted 'yes', 28% voted 'no'. But 66% of Londoners failed to vote at all. This low turn out clearly favoured the supporters of the Mayor, voter apathy. The results of a referendum might not be decisive. For Welsh devolution there was a 51/49 split meaning that everyone who voting no have had there vote wasted. Funding differences can affect results as government money can pour into a referendum and the group on the other side may well be not so well financed, meaning that the government can tell more people get more information out to why you should vote yes as they have more money and this could turn out into government propaganda as you are only hearing the government telling you to vote yes why people against it can’t or find it hard to get their voice heard and, referenda might result in "the tyranny of the majority". If the majority votes for it, does the government go ahead with it? What about the wishes of the minority? How are these safeguarded? Which turn out meaning that the government if it makes the wrong move will the less the support of people or not. These are the agreements against the use of referendums.
The uses of referendum are both good and bad as you have to take into account that it is the form of direct democracy if you can vote you got a chance to say yes or no to the government and the issue in hand. However if referendums are being used all the time by the government to see what the people think this could cause voter apathy and end up having very low turn outs. It is a fine line of when and how to use referendums, as if the government gets it write they get what they want and they may even gain more support, but if that get in wrong they could lose the referendum lose support and even a general election. The evolution of referendums is that they should be used but only on the big issues that will effect every person in the country and only a few, big issues like the Membership of the EU, things like that, that effect everyone and everyone should get a say if they should or should not, and not allowing to the MP’s to vote on it. Referendums are a good thing if they are used at the right time on the right issues.
