Since the expenses debate exploded onto the public agenda in May there have been numerous arguments over the summer about how to reconnect people with their elected representatives at a time when the reputation of politicians has rarely been lower. The debates have often been hotter than the weather. It would be fair to say that the Conservatives have responded with a number of bold initiatives, such as offering entire constituencies an opportunity to select their candidate to be PPC for Totnes and mayoral candidate for Bedford. David Cameron has also signed up for a ’leader’s debate‘ which would arguably allow the public greater scrutiny of him than when he speaks in the Commons. However, should they win the next general election the Conservatives could introduce an even more radical proposal, made in their ‘Control Shift’ policy document, to allow the public to call referendums on local issues where 5% of the population sign a petition in support.

On the surface the policy could have merit. Modelled on schemes in Switzerland and the US to ‘trigger’ local referendums, the Conservatives claim that it will deliver local residents a new and enhanced voice and ensure that councils are obliged to react to issues of importance. However, according to analysis published today by the New Local Government Network, the proposal could potentially lead to the suppression of minority rights and for councils to be burdened with unmanageable financial commitments.

Detail of the idea as set out in ‘Control Shift’ is somewhat opaque and for the policy to be realised would take greater scrutiny. To this end, NLGN is instead proposing an alternative model of a ‘Community Proposal’, which would combine new rights for local citizens whilst upholding the legitimacy of locally elected government. It would work by allowing local residents to take a proposition to a full council meeting, assuming the requisite signatures are obtained, where it could be debated and then voted on. Councils would be obliged to put the issue to a vote, but would have the final say.

So why go down this route rather than giving local citizens a unilateral, X-Factor style, public vote? Firstly, we believe that there is a need to protect the natural democratic authority of local government and its councillors who were elected to deliver on a mandate. Local politicians also have to act as an arbiter, representing the interests of all in their communities and protecting areas of spending that often help the most vulnerable but might not have particularly vocal advocates, such as funding for children in care or integrating new migrants. Under a referendum system, would these interests be shouted down by those with a louder voice? Furthermore, if you were to choose the route of decision making by referenda, why should local councils be the only ones mandated? Why not MPs or national government?
 
Moreover, the fuzziness of the Conservative proposal could lead to wealthy, vested interests pouring money into referendum campaigns that might benefit them, but not necessarily the local community. Could we see a situation where local businesses combine to order the council to scrap business rates, thereby leaving a black hole in council finances? Or could a group of residents vote to stop investment in social housing, thereby increasing the number of families waiting to be housed?

The plans could also challenge the recent pronouncement by George Osborne that the Conservatives are now the natural progressive party. Referendums have an inherent tendency to produce a reactive rather than progressive result – think of the US ’propositions’ that have slashed taxes, banned gay marriage and restricted scientific funding. We are not arguing that local people shouldn’t be offered new ways to engage with local politicians, or that some councils shouldn’t do more to respond to local priorities, but our Community Proposal idea would create a better balance between citizens and elected representatives. Direct democracy does have a part to play in our social interaction, but if we begin to go down the route of referendums, can we really be confident that they will represent the majority view?