Hypocrisy and ridiculous consequences: The Tory plan to impose turnout thresholds on trade union ballots

[ttosca]

avid Cameron has stated that he is considering plans to plough ahead with Boris Johnson's ridiculously hypocritical idea of banning strikes unless 50% of trade union members participate in the strike ballot.

Boris Johnson's hypocrisy

It's not difficult to demonstrate exactly how hypocritical this kind of turnout requirement would be. We only need to look at the 38% turnout in the 2012 London mayoral election which saw Boris Johnson re-elected as mayor of London*, to see that Tories like Boris Johnson have absolutely no objection to sub-50% turnouts when the results suit them. The fact that Boris Johnson even accepted the job as mayor of London after such a poor turnout clearly demonstrates that he's only bothered turnout thresholds if he can cynically use them as a way of disempowering his political opponents.

More Tory hypocrisy

There are countless other political examples of low turnouts, in which Tory politicians have happily taken up their positions without a hint of concern over sub-50% turnouts.
PCC elections

The most shocking example of ridiculously low turnouts in UK politics has to be the farcical 2012 PCC election, which featured the lowest turnouts in British electoral history. Not a single region managed better than a 20% turnout, and several PCCs were elected with first preference backing from less than 5% of the eligible electorate. Four of the eight PCCs who accepted their jobs despite being backed by less than 5% of the electorate were Tories (Nick Alston, Essex 3.91%, Graham Bright, Cambridgeshire 3.96%, Matthew Grove, Humberside 4.21%, Richard Rhodes, Cumbria 4.54%).

It would be an absolute travesty for the Tories to impose an arbitrary 50% turnout threshold on trade union ballots, yet allow a load of their fellow Tories to sit in highly paid taxpayer funded jobs after fewer than 5% of people even bothered to vote for them.

Local elections

Since the 1980s the average turnout at local elections has rarely scraped above 45%, and in the last set of local elections in 2013 the turnout was just 31%. These appallingly low turnouts mean that if a 50% turnout threshold were applied to local elections, the vast majority of local councilors would find themselves out of their jobs, including several thousand Tory councilors.

If the Tories are happy to have thousands of Tory councilors across the country elected on less than 50% turnouts, it would be a display of grotesque hypocrisy were they to apply 50% turnout thresholds to trade union ballots.

Cont'd...

anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/tory-trade-union-turnout-boris.html

[Isitmebut]

We seem to have gone off subject - I'd be interested what the non reformers say to this post, which I'm repeating.


Re Trade Union Reform, here all the points I want to make, as although I do not believe with the current state of the UK’s finances would allow the UK to go back to the bad old (post IMF debt bailout) 1970’s I remember all too well – there is a TREND here, that I would find disturbing WITHOUT trade union reforms – that would not just benefit the country as a whole, but those the trade unions represent.

There is no doubt, as I’ve mentioned earlier, that the Trade Union’s have far more control over the parliamentary Labour Party than they have for decades, especially financially, which is CLEARLY shaping their current policies – as their appointee, Mr Miliband (who initially resisted), now see’s those policies as the path of least residence to shore up their own vote, including the new more leftie Lib Dems – ahead of the 2015 General Election where they only need 35% of the vote for a large majority in parliament.

Furthermore, for a Labour Party far more comfortable attacking/over taxing the Private Sector, than building it up further to increase tax receipts and jobs, there seems to be other moves to increase the Trade Union influence over parliament, which is not healthy considering the financially compromised UK’s need more than ever, for the Private Sector’s points of views to be understood by our MP law makers.

This post below, looks at Labour’s current attempts to weaken the Private Sector’s/Business ‘influence’ which may not be a bad idea in general, it comes across as yet another ‘plot’ by a Labour Party currently receiving around 90% of their funding from Trade Unions and a shadow cabinet, where AT LEAST 80% have their offices funded by unions, including Ed Miliband at over 6-figures in total, I understand.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2045534-Labour-to-ban-external-working-MP-s

As we saw in the late 1970’s with the ‘Winter of Discontent’, an emboldened Trade Union movement and a weakened Labour government can create a crisis this country with close to £1,500,000,000,000 (£1.5 trillion) National Debt by 2015 can NOT afford.
www.spectator.co.uk/features/3665728/we-came-close-to-losing-our-democracy-in-1979/

Public Sector trade unions were mainly kept in their box due to the sheer weight of money Labour threw at the unreformed Public Sector over 13-years, which to my mind was why ‘more of the same’ was their 2010 manifesto.

Trade Union reforms built on a 50% vote is the LEAST democratic safeguard(s) the British public should insist on from the Coalition before the next General Election. IMO.

[Isitmebut]

Thegambler …. What Labour clearly did not understand, is that it was the QUALITY of any regulation that is important, not the QUANTITY – hence the Conservatives and business were constantly requesting Labour reverse the piles of useless red-tape regulation, costing the Private Sector many £billions and stifling Private Sector growth.

The financial regulator the FSA, formed by Brown in his new regulatory tripartite was next to useless monitoring what it should have been looking at; excessive balance sheet growth and capital requirements.

When Lord Turner reported to a parliamentary Committee on the failures of the FSA, bearing in mind brown took sole responsibility away from the BoE in 1997, Turner conceded that neither the FSA nor the Bank of England had a formal, legal responsibility for maintaining the financial stability of the system - and what a screw up, as probably why Northern Rock was allowed to fail before every other financial institution got day-to-day liquidity help.

Labour’s new excessive but largely ineffective regulations were strangling the economy by the early 2000’s, and were part cited by manufacturers in the reason labour lost 1 million manufacturing jobs by 2005 – and it wasn’t just those OUTSIDE Labour complaining about it;


(July 2005) "What Blair really thinks about the FSA"

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2918368/What-Blair-really-thinks-about-the-FSA.html

“Tony Blair is gripped by a desire to slash red tape - or so he claimed in a speech last month. That address attracted notice principally for Tony Blair's surprising and controversial statement that the Financial Services Authority is "seen as hugely inhibiting of efficient business" - but his assertions roamed wider than that.”

“No one in any business - be it vast or tiny - needs to be told that the burden of regulation has increased since Labour came to power in 1997. The British Chambers of Commerce estimates that the cost for business of coping with red tape from Whitehall and Brussels will be £39bn this year - four times as much as in 1997.”

“Of course the bureaucrats of Brussels are only half of the problem. At the end of May the prime minister delivered an embarrassing rebuke to the City watchdog, the FSA, which was set up by the new Labour Government in 1997.”


“Blair said: "Something is seriously awry when … the Financial Services Authority that was established to provide clear guidelines and rules for the financial services sector and to protect the consumer against the fraudulent, is seen as hugely inhibiting of efficient business by perfectly respectable companies - that have never defrauded anyone."

[Isitmebut]

thegambler …… like every Labour apologist, you keep trying to deflect their 1997 to 2010 policy incompetence on to the Conservatives.

First of all, as you are clearly not reading this link thoroughly enough, I reiterate a point I’ve made several times, alluded to in this link, any figures to GDP under Labour is distorted, as our national income side of the balance sheet was heavily influenced by excessive government spending and the proceeds of speculation and debt (again mentioned in the link) – hence when the financial crash hit in late 2007, which morphed into an economic recession, the damage was already done = an annual budget deficit of £157 bil in 2010.
www.economicshelp.org/blog/5509/economics/government-spending-under-labour/

In 1997 UK Mortgage Lending was £21 billion and the average House Price was £73,000.

By late 2007 UK Mortage Lending was £115 billion and in early 2008 the average House price was £232,000.

FYI any comment made by the Conservatives in 2007 was irrelevant, AS THE FINANCIAL AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING DAMAGE WAS ALREADY DONE - they get the responsibility of correcting Labour unbalanced GDP/economy with a £157 bil annual deficit, not causing it.

[thegambler]

Do you think they would have carried that out ? Obviously they'd have had to do something but enough ? Before the crash hit I very much doubt they'd have done enough, like the the tough talk over tax avoidance/dodging but it's still going on.

[caroldecker]

thegambler Selective quotations from a biased source do not story make - here is another quote from the same paper:

We agree that institutions which take clients money and place it on their own balance sheet, or mix it with other funds, should have to meet capital adequacy requirements, and strict reporting requirements.

If the banks had had adequate capital, there would be no crash, so not against the right sort of regulation.

An interesting thing i read the other day; The Labour party has never left power with unemployment lower than when they started.

[thegambler]

caroledecker, I don't know much about the Aussie economy at that time but I'm sure it was widely assumed that Canada avoided the worst of the crash because it had much better banking regulations. At that time the conservatives were against it.

tompride.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/lest-we-forget-in-2007-cameron-endorsed-even-less-regulation-of-banks-than-labour/

[thegambler]

Isitmebut...It's not a question of the 50% increase (link me to that please so I can look at the context) as There are times when you can afford to spend more and there was a need to after years of Conservative neglect. Not that Labour spent well mind you.

As for government debt you can see that most of it came in the wake of the 2007 crash.

Link 1 1979-1997.. www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1979_1997UKp_10c1li111lcn_G0t_UK_National_Debt_As_Pct_GDP

Link 2 1997-2010 www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1979_1997UKp_10c1li111lcn_G0t_UK_National_Debt_As_Pct_GDP

[Isitmebut]

thegambler .... there is no way having reduced our Public Sector head count etc up until 1997 to balance our budget, the Conservatives would have increased government spending from 2001 to 2008 by 50%, which was unprecedented in the west, especially when other governments were try ing to pay down debt, not increase it like Brown.

Labour and Brown 'own' this nonsense, as this is the complete opposite of Conservatism, that government should be as big as it needs to be.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214001/The-cost-quango-Britain-hits-170bn--seven-fold-rise-Labour-came-power.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358144/Labours-3m-town-hall-jobs-bonanza-employed-deliver-frontline-services.html

[Isitmebut]

caroldecker ..... good points, and the European bad credits took longer to surface than ours i.e. RBS and Lloyds, so their economies not built on the City and huge government spending, slowed later than ours, which affected our trade e.g. manufacturing, which had halved under Labour.

[caroldecker]

Not a global economic crash, but a US and UK crash, with some silly bank lending in Ireland and Spain. The other Eurozone countries had long term borrowing problems which surfaced with reduced credit. The eastern countries, Canada, Australia etc were unaffected as they had a decent government in charge. It suited the Labour party to say it was global but it was entirely avoidable if they had not relaxed financial regulations and not borrowed excessively.

[thegambler]

Re the use of food banks, I'd put that more so down to the world economic downturn than Labours doing. i realise over there at Conservative central office you are obliged to repeat the mantra that the global economic crash was Labours fault . what I'll blsme both parties for is that we could eliminate the use of foodbanks if Vodafone paid the tax they should, not to mention Barclays, Amazon etc etc etc etc.

[thegambler]

Isitmebut...To follow on from your link.. www.economicshelp.org/blog/7568/debt/government-debt-under-labour-1997-2010/ which is basically my positon. Had the conservatives been in power it would have been little different, it's why, until the world wide crash hit, the conservatives were quite happy to abide by labours spending plans.

Don't get me started on PFI's, I've been raging against these for years. i notice Osbourne said he was going to get rid of them but instead he's just tweeked them a bit.

[Isitmebut]

Micksy .... the Trade Union movement was a necessary and noble cause, no one disputes that – but I do find it interesting that you blame the Coalition for the use of food banks, not Labour’s immigration, unemployment, economic and homes policies – why didn’t the trade unions speak up back then if so socially aware I wonder.

Re the NHSwho’s budget Labour was not going to protect in 2010 and are making a pigs ear with running in Wales – and serious ‘privatising’ of the NHS was done under Labour already and we’ll have the bills for years.

“Tony Blair has defended the spread of private finance initiatives under Labour as seven NHS trusts face administration as they struggle to repay large debts from PFI deals.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9356942/Blair-defends-PFI-as-NHS-trusts-face-bankruptcy.html

“Six other NHS trusts face joining South London Healthcare in "administration" as they have taken on projects viewed by ministers as "unsustainable", it has emerged.”


“South London Healthcare NHS Trust will be the first in the country to be put under the control of a special administrator tasked with securing its finances.”


“The schemes saw private firms building hospitals, leaving the NHS with an annual fee to pay over around 30 years.”


“The total value of the NHS buildings built by Labour under the scheme is £11.4bn. But the bill, which will also include fees for maintenance, cleaning and portering, will come to more than £70bn on current projections and will not be paid off until 2049.”


Some trusts are spending up to a fifth of their budget servicing the mortgages.

"Across the public sector, taxpayers are committed to paying £229bn for hospitals, schools, roads and other projects with a capital value of £56bn.”


Another snippet for Niceguy2’s ex. lol

[Isitmebut]

thegambler .... as I mentioned with that link, it was "fair" to Labour, but you are missing a crucial point or two - and I suspect that it overstated the 'flatlining, as if memory serves there was no double (or forecast and one time) triple dip recession, as stated.

*What you are missing, and they allude to, is that while measurements of our profligate spending to GDP were relatively low, our GDP was built on the proceeds of government spending, speculation and debt, so once that dramatically reduced due to the financial/economic recession - what was left to pay the bills that Labour would not cut for a further year or more into 2012, if elected???

I 'get it' that if the Uk economy was lean, mean and balanced in 2010/11 building homes, power stations and infrastructure and Osborne cut back on that, then that might have been seen as austerity for austerity sake.

But the 2010 economy Labour handed over, was anything but that, so any RESPONSIBLE government had to 'trim our UK cloth' from 2008 when our GDP plummeted - as what is in the national interest throwing ever more money at a fat inefficient State - when the revenues had fallen dramatically and we already have £32 billion a year coming out of our annual budgets in interest payments SERVICING (not paying off) that debt - and interest rate costs will only rise from here on.

We have just cut back on the rate of spending growth, which is a 'cut' of sorts, but after 4-years going from over spending our annual budget from £157 billion to currently just over £100 billion, with help for the lower paid and pensioners, is hardly "austerity".

[niceguy2]

I sometimes do think that maybe it's a good idea to compel everyone to vote like Australia do.

But then I think back to my ex who voted for Tony Blair because:

a) Her mum told her to.
b) He has a nice smile so he can't be that bad.

In my opinion the best thing people like that can do is to not vote.

[Micksy]

If you're going to look at the legacy of unions over the last fifty years, why not go back another fifty and see that they brought the birth of the labour party and with it such positives a the abolition of workhouses and the introduction of the Nhs.
Now we have the poor relying on big society in the form of food banks and the dismantling of universal health. I do not think that the pendulum needs swinging any further towards the neo-victorians thanks.

[longfingernails]

The London public are fed up with the RMT.

www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/londoners-back-tube-strike-rule-change-poll-reveals-9355049.html

Time for Boris to channel his inner Maggie.

[thegambler]

Isitmebut, I don't have to challenhge the economics help link, I'll just let it speak for itself. The entire article is hardly an endorsment of the coalitions policies since 2010, when asking directly "Did Labour’s Spending and Deficits of 2000s Contribute to the Great Recession?" it explains that things could have been better had they shown more restraint but also that the coalitions austerity policies were a key factor in the double dip recession, policies which the author of the article, in fact I'll quote it. "A key factor in the double dip recession, was the government’s pursuit of austerity measures in 2010 and 2011. The coalition claim they had no choice because the previous government had left them with a large deficit. I don’t agree. The coalition could have taken more time to reduce long-term deficit, the pace of austerity was self-defeating and unnecessary"

The author then goes on to say that if the debt had been lower then the coalition may not have persued such an austere policy, I believe they would have as it's idealogical.

[TheHammaconda]

I thought proposals such as these breached ILO Conventions

[TheHammaconda]

I thought proposals such as these breached ILO Convention?

I'm surprised, given the commitment to democracy demonstrated with this announcement, that the same turnout threshold won't be applied to referenda on major constitutional reforms like, for example, a referendum on whether to remain within the European Union.

[Isitmebut]

ttosca ….. excuse me, I did go ‘off thread here’ but mainly in answer to thegamblers incorrect statements, popularly accepted thanks to Labour’s (and their apologists) propaganda, that I like to correct and qualify for balance.

Re Trade Union Reform, here all the points I want to make, as although I do not believe with the current state of the UK’s finances would allow the UK to go back to the bad old 1970’s I remember all too well – there is a TREND here, that I would find disturbing WITHOUT trade union reforms – that would not just benefit the country as a whole, but those the trade unions represent.

There is no doubt, as I’ve mentioned earlier, that the Trade Union’s have far more control over the parliamentary Labour Party than they have for decades, especially financially, which is CLEARLY shaping their current policies – as their appointee, Mr Miliband (who initially resisted), now see’s those policies as the path of least residence to shore up their own vote, including the new more leftie Lib Dems – ahead of the 2015 General Election where they only need 35% of the vote for a large majority in parliament.

Furthermore, for a Labour Party far more comfortable attacking the Private Sector than building it up to increase tax receipts and jobs, there seems to be other moves to increase the Trade Union influence over parliament, which is not healthy considering the financially compromised UK’s inward investment needs now more than ever, for the Private Sector’s contribution and points of views to be fully understood by our MP law makers.

This post below, looks at Labour’s current attempts to weaken the Private Sector’s ‘influence’ which may not be a bad idea in general, it comes across as yet another ‘plot’ by a Labour Party currently receiving around 90% of their funding from Trade Unions and a shadow cabinet, where AT LEAST 80% have their offices funded by unions, including Ed Miliband at over 6-figures in total, I understand.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2045534-Labour-to-ban-external-working-MP-s

As we saw in the late 1970’s with the ‘Winter of Discontent’, an emboldened Trade Union movement and a weakened Labour government can create a crisis this country with close to £1,500,000,000,000 (£1.5 trillion) National Debt by 2015 can NOT afford.

Public Sector trade unions were mainly kept in their box due to the sheer weight of money Labour threw at the unreformed Public Sector over 13-years, which to my mind was why ‘more of the same’ was their 2010 manifesto.

Trade Union reforms built on a 50% vote is the LEAST democratic safeguard(s) the British public should insist on before the next General Election. IMO.

[ttosca]

Threads can take all sorts of turns.

Yes they can, but isitmebut consistently tries to turn every thread in to an opportunity for him to spout Tory scum propaganda - as he is paid to do.

And 'hypocrisy an ridiculous consequences' is not limited to one party.

Of course not.

Labour plans to after the block vote will probably have a much bigger impact on the union movement than a simple membership majority for valid strikes.

I'd be interested to know what you're talking about. Is this a recent labour proposal?

[EdithWeston]

Threads can take all sorts of turns.

And 'hypocrisy an ridiculous consequences' is not limited to one party.

Labour plans to after the block vote will probably have a much bigger impact on the union movement than a simple membership majority for valid strikes.