They voted against a > $2000 basic income , not necessarily against the idea itself. I think the results might have been different if the organizers had been a bit more reasonable.
Economically speaking, we're years too far behind to start introducing universal basic incomes. As an idea, it simply wouldn't work from an economic standpoint unless we were to drastically reduce the cost of living first. Jobseeker's Allowance for example is £57.90 per week or £3,010.80 per year, and is already something that the British government have aimed to cut immensely, despite Jobseekers Allowance costing the Department of Work and Pensions £3.065 billion during the 2014/15 financial year, and that figure is based on about 750,000 welfare claimants who may or may not necessarily be claiming JSA. Now, imagine paying the equivalent of a full time worker [being paid the current UK living wage of £8.25 (which is a voluntary wage set by the Living Wage Foundation based on the cost of living in the UK, and is not to be confused with the legally enforced National Living Wage of £7.20, which is the government's attempt to rebrand the National Minimum Wage for 25+ workers.)](http://www.livingwage.org.uk/news/new-uk-living-wage-rate-has-been-announced). A worker being paid £8.25 per hour for 52 weeks is then earning £16,087.50 a year. Now imagine all 64.1 million (according to World Bank statistics circa 2013) being paid this wage unconditionally. It would cost the country: £1,031,208,750,000.00. Good fucking luck financing a universal basic income.
This is interesting. I'd expect it to be much higher -- it's a lot easier to get people to vote on straight referenda that don't involve personalities and clashing ideals. Only half the country could muster the energy to vote on a simple, binary question.Turnout is expected to be average at about 46%.
The Swiss have referendums like this every few months. That's why the turnout is usually low, especially when there is little uncertainty like this time.