This idea that unions could only strike on a 50% turnout is hugely hypocritical, isn't it?

[edamsavestheday]

David Cameron says he's going to include legislation in his manifesto to ban strikes if turnout is below a set figure - maybe 50%.

Funny how he never mentions that turnout in many elections is well below 50%. His pet project of Police and Crime Commissioners in 2012 saw people given huge powers over the police, law and order, on a 15% turnout.

Local elections average 42% - and just 31% in 2012. Boris, I believe, was elected Mayor of London with sweeping powers on 38% turnout.

So, is Cameron planning a major programme to find out why people don't turn out, and reform politics to encourage more people out? Is he planning to abolish all PCCs and councils? Of course not.

Just checked and only 10m people voted Tory - that's under one in six of the whole population, and an even smaller percentage of those registered to vote.

There is a very basic difference between an election held to select a candidate for a post, and a vote/referendum on a course of action.

Strike votes are comparable to referenda (for which there quorum, if any, is set when the question is set) or votes in the House, where there is a quorum.

There is zero read-across to electing representatives, whether by FPTP or any of the many PR systems.

oh come on, I believe not a single MP got more than 50% of votes from registered electors and you don't think it's hypocritical?

Electing an MP IS setting a course of action, governments claim a mandate to take all sorts of actions e.g. cut public spending, go ahead with Trident, cut the army by 20,000 (1/5th...). Only difference is it's a very wide remit indeed.

I can hear the publich sector strike march going past my (non public sector office_ window now - brilliant - get up stand up....YEEESSSS!!!

Telsa, I've now got an earworm 'get up, stand up, for your rights...'

I agree. People know, whether it is an election or a strike call, that something is going to happen at the end of the process. If they choose not to take part in the process, then they accept the result that the majority of those who did bother to take part in it, chose.

Whether that's a strike or a Tory government - if you don't want it, vote against it.

If you can't be bothered to vote, you'll get who or what the others vote for.

Must say I disagree AMum - striking is surely what you do when you feel passionately about something? If you can't be bothered to vote, you can't be that passionate can you?

Having said that they were talking about changing the way people could vote back to a workplace scenario rather than postal voting, which makes sense.

AuntieStella

Strike votes are comparable to referenda (for which there quorum, if any, is set when the question is set) or votes in the House, where there is a quorum

The quorum in the HoC is 40 MPs (the speaker counts as one of the 40). Huge legislative changes could be enacted by 6% of serving MPs. In the HoL it's 30. It's hugely hypocritical to impose limits on union ballots.

So we agree. Perhaps unions could agree with the concept of a quorum, and set it at same %age as that required in the House at the time of the vote?

Excellent points, Hamma and Auntie.