The ideology of the current government is somewhat inconsistent when it comes to the way in which it chooses to rely on free markets and when and where it chooses to erect barriers to participation and activity by those deemed unsuitable.

This week Francis Maude has been pontificating on the need to increase to 50% the number of trade unionists that participate in a Strike Vote before it can be accepted as being legal. This does not sound at all unreasonable on the surface, but it is completely at odds with the voting statistics for many of the elections that take place at the ballot boxes in our communities when we are choosing local councillors. It is also a long way from the statistics of those who actually show up to vote in the House of Commons and Lords on most issues. If Francis is determined to set this tariff he must carry this through to our parliamentary and council elections, and to the activities in the places where elected men and women make their decisions. What he needs to do is address the underlying issues. At present our industrial relations are at a level of peace unseen for decades. His determination to further anger the existing moderate trade unionists may have unforseen consequences.

Last week it was announced that the proposed electoral process for the new Police and Crime Commissioners will demand a £5,000 deposit from all candidates which will be lost if the candidate does not get 5% of the votes in the election (I am not making this up). This is ten times the amount they demand from those standing as MPs although this figure is under review and will almost certainly rise. In a society that has universal suffrage and where our leaders claim to want to increase access to those outside of the usual suspects, this seems to be a very odd barrier to erect. Even some of the political parties are concerned that they will be deterred, let alone many of the Independent candidates that they have indicated they would like to see participating.

The reason behind these proposals is said to be that they want to reduce the likelihood of extremists from changing the landscape of our political life. In a free market the way of preventing such extremes is to win the arguments, participate in open negotiations and trust the consumer. What they have failed to understand is that extremists thrive in situations where good men and women are prevented from speaking on behalf of their causes or communities. Sadly whatever the reasoning here, this appears to be a case of only wanting people like them to win. Neither of these ideas should be allowed to be enacted and more importantly those who are behind these ideas should be made to explain what other plans they have to ‘protect’ our democracy.