How about a rule that a party which only received 36% of the popular vote, (about 25% of the total population) isn’t allowed to destroy the NHS, welfare state and public sector?

Couldn’t agree more. Johnson is basically demanding that his preferred side automatically get to count all of the abstentions as votes in their favour. This would be appalling at the best of times, let alone when it refers to an organisation many of whose members may not be particularly political, having only signed up to ensure they have representation if something goes wrong.

You could perhaps argue for a minimum turnout on strike action to stop unions with an apathy problem getting hijacked by small special interest groups, but 50% is way too high.

Not really, you can talk about extreme hypotheticals all you like but if a union can’t get 50% of its members to even bother to vote then you really do have to question the actual strength of support for a strike.

You could suggest not voting is an implicit vote for ‘who gives a shit?’.

Don’t you just love these sanctimonious tory retards with their golden plated state paid pensions, and their safe seats on less than 50% of the vote lecturing the rest of us.

Roll on the mobile guillotines!

1 they would be able to do it without the scumbag Lie Dems.

@3
If you introduce a minimum turnout, you create a perverse incentive for opponents of the strike to avoid voting instead of voting against.

I take it Boris wants this to apply to all elections in the UK, such as parliamentary and local elections as well. It’ll certainly be interesting to see many councils operating with about three councillors.

Or is this just for the unions on top of making it illegal to use anything except postal ballots?

Not very democratic to hold unions to a far higher standard with far more restrictions on voting practice than the government.

Is this an actual attack or just his opinion?

I mean, he’s got no power to enact this has he?

No, but he, along with many in the Tory party, is pressing for the law to be changed.

@ 4 Andy

“You could suggest not voting is an implicit vote for ‘who gives a shit?’.”

Which could just as well mean “oh, go ahead and strike, what do I care?” as the opposite. Would you put up with a system where a union had to get 50% of its members to vote against striking, or else strike by default?

Nobody gets to count the “don’t knows” as votes for themselves. It’s obviously absurd.

@ 4. Sally

“Don’t you just love these sanctimonious tory retards with their golden plated state paid pensions, and their safe seats on less than 50% of the vote lecturing the rest of us.”

No.

Are there any political representative, be it at town council or Westminster level, elected with 50+% of the electorate behind them?

How BJ can make this ludicrous argument is beyond me. Even in a perfect system it’d still be nonsense (as described in the OP) but the fact that the Tory bastards stopped the electoral reform shows up their “democratic” credentials as a utter fabrication of the truth. At least Boris Johnson isn’t hiding his class hatred towards workers, which is a start I suppose.

@12 S. Pill

He’s playing to the tory gallery. Cameron’s doing a Heath, Bojo sees himself as Thatcher.

It absolutely beggars belief that after 18 years of Thatcherism and 13 years of Blairism, anyone could possibly try to crack down even more on the unions. Frankly, I’m amazed they still exist after the brutal, fascistic assaults of the 1980s. Unions shouldn’t even need to hold a ballot if that’s their wish, but people have been indoctrinated into thinking that workers are something that needs to be oppressed.

How about making it illegal to ask if someone is in a union?

That will piss of your corporate thug friends Boris.

@10. Chaise Guevara: “Which could just as well mean “oh, go ahead and strike, what do I care?” as the opposite.”

Abstention may mean something more subtle than that. Union members may be genuinely abstaining (unconvinced by employer or union arguments), forming a conclusion after the ballot. Remember, you don’t have to participate and say “Yes” in the ballot to decide to withhold your labour.

I have a union ballot paper on strike action by UCU sitting on the hallway shelf. I voted Yes last time but at this time of year I incline towards non-strike activity; university administrators become very sensitive in the period before publication of A Level results.

As I wrote in a previous thread, UCU members are not angry people and rarely attend branch meetings. But they will turn out when branches propose anti-Israeli government motions that are anti-semitic. I hate reciting that example time and again, and there are others, no doubt. But union activity often fails to interest me, a political wonk, and the union of which I am a member fails to pick up on relevant concerns that are widely reported.

@12. Mr S. Pill: “…but the fact that the Tory bastards stopped the electoral reform shows up their “democratic” credentials as a utter fabrication of the truth.”

Thanks for that. It is therapeutic to read frustration about the AV result (and referendum conduct) from a non-LibDem source. That expression signifies that you are genuine about electoral reform; more from others where pertinent, please, but this thread is probably the wrong place to talk about General Election reform.

fact that the Tory bastards stopped the electoral reform shows up their “democratic” credentials as a utter fabrication of the truth

Whereas it’s far more democratic to implement a change rejected by 70% of the electorate I presume. Face it lads, it wasn’t the Tory bastards who stopped AV, it was the overwhelming majority of the population. Suck it up and move on.

London Mayoral Elections 2008:

Turnout: 2,456.990 : 45.33%

Still keen on that 50% rule, Boris?

Ed Miliband disagrees with you: http://youtu.be/PZtVm8wtyFI “These strikes are wrong because negotiations are still going on”

@18. Tim J: “Whereas it’s far more democratic to implement a change rejected by 70% of the electorate I presume.”

Mr S.Pill and I do not wish to overturn the result of a referendum. We merely wish to express our misgivings about the conduct of the No to AV campaign and the referendum referees. And yes, the Yes to AV was crap.

Feck. I intended to write: “And yes, the Yes to AV *campaign* was crap.”

I’d be happy for the givenrment to pass a law requiring democratic votes to exceed 50% non-absetentions to be valid. They would then have to disolve parliament as the last gemeral election failed to meet that criteria