Tory Hypocrisy on Turnout

The Police & Crime Commissioner votes took place yesterday, and turnout was low, as expected. Before the elections, both Theresa May (Minister for Government Incompetence) and Damian Green (Minister for Police Privatisation) both refused to specify a minimum turnout for the elections.

This is not surprising, given that the Tories have been vociferous in their opposition to strike ballots with turnout lower than they think should be valid.

Here's a few examples.

Francis Maude and Charlie Elphicke - Public Administration Committee - 28/11/2011 (Link)

Q412 Charlie Elphicke: Minister, isn’t there a basic point here that the strikes are taking place on turnouts of between a quarter and a third? How can it possibly be right for the few to hold to ransom the many? That is not just in the union movement, but across the country as a whole. [Emphasis added]

Mr Maude: It is true that the ballots held by the biggest unions-Unite, GMB, PCS, UNISON-had a turnout in no case of more than a third, and one case of not much more than a quarter; they were between 25% and 33%. Some of the other unions, particularly the smaller unions, had higher turnouts, in a couple of cases over 50%. That is the way the law is. Those union leaders who actually call for strike action on the basis of these extraordinarily low turnouts, particularly when they have argued that this is the most important issue facing their members for a generation, have a limited claim on legitimacy. In most circumstances, I think union leaders would have chosen not to go ahead on those very low turnouts.

Does it justify changing the law? That is not our first response. We think the strike laws, for the most part, work reasonably well, but every time there is a very low turnout, and a strike called on the basis of that turnout, the case for change, and the advocates for change, will feel their hand is strengthened.

 

Later in the same exchange, Francis Maude says

"The CBI have argued that there should be a requirement for there to be at least a 50% turnout; regardless of what the percentage voting in favour of industrial action is, the ballot would not be valid unless there was a 50% turnout".
 

 In this Telegraph article, on the PCS strikes shortly before the Olympics, there are rich pickings to be had on the matter.

Dominic Raab, the Tory MP, said: “These reckless and damaging strikes strengthen the case for a voting threshold, so the militant minority can’t hold the hard-working majority to ransom.

“It can’t be right that union bosses can paralyse vital infrastructure and humiliate the nation on a malicious whim, when just 11 per cent of their members support strike action.”
 

Fellow Tory Priti Patel said

"Any ballot in which fewer than half of those eligible to vote do so should be ruled invalid. This strike is yet another irresponsible protest by those who are once again putting their own interests before that of our county.”

 The outspoken Conor Burns had this to say:

“The idea that these cloth cap colonels can hold the public to ransom on a turnout of 11 per cent is grotesque and anti-democratic.”
 

This was the contribution of that well-known oasis of good advice, Francis Maude:

"If very disruptive strike action is carried out on the basis of these weak ballots, weak turnouts, the case for reform gets stronger.” 

At the time of the article, the Minister on the sharp end of these strikes before the Olympics was Damian Green who by coincidence is now Policing Minister. He said this of the strike action:

“This is a completely selfish and irresponsible decision by the PCS leadership. With only around one in 10 voting for industrial action, they have no authority to call their members out on strike.” 
 

Can we draw any other conclusion from this other than that the Tories are all for Democracy as long as the vote goes the way they want it to?