For referendums, I think they should all be advisory but at the following election (with could potentially be triggered by the referendum), parties should represent their response to the result in their manifestos. So something like: because people voted X in the referendum, we will do A, B and C. So any implementation has to have a democratic mandate.
Pretty much every referendum we’ve had has been about constitutional change - change which is assumed to be more permanent than the four-to-five year political cycle, and which alters the “rules of the game” of politics. We haven’t had referenda about obvious party political issues like the rate of income tax, or whether to nationalise or privatise a particular industry. I think this is reasonable.
For referendums, I think they should all be advisory but at the following election (with could potentially be triggered by the referendum), parties should represent their response to the result in their manifestos. So something like: because people voted X in the referendum, we will do A, B and C. So any implementation has to have a democratic mandate.
Pretty much every referendum we’ve had has been about constitutional change - change which is assumed to be more permanent than the four-to-five year political cycle, and which alters the “rules of the game” of politics. We haven’t had referenda about obvious party political issues like the rate of income tax, or whether to nationalise or privatise a particular industry. I think this is reasonable.
Is there a conspiracy against 2 Matts YT video subscriptions? Is cut and thrust wit suspected contagious now? If so, bring on the pandemic!