Maybe it’s the rain, maybe it’s the lack of cricket in the Test match, but I’m in a wretched mood today. But the government, at least, has given me something to get my teeth into with two law-related stories catching my eye.

Let’s start with justice minister Jonathan Djanogly’s assessment of the rise in the number of magistrates resigning. Despite a jump of nearly 20% in the past seven months, JD says there is absolutely no reason to suggest the exodus is linked to impending courtroom closures. Personally, I’m not sure he’s looking hard enough.

The 100-plus closures across England and Wales will mean magistrates – who, lest we forget, are volunteers – having to travel further to do their bit. There will be no provision made for this extra time and effort; indeed, there have been rumours that magistrates are seeing their expense allowance cut.

Is this David Cameron’s grand vision of the Big Society? Take a group of people who already volunteer in their community and inconvenience them until they cannot take it any longer? If this is how the government treats those already participating in the BS, how can it possibly hope to tempt others to follow suit?

The law has also been a topic of discussion when it comes to the impending ‘summer of discontent’ that could be brought about by a raft of proposed strikes. Six million people could potentially down tools in the coming months, including members of the PCS union and their brothers and sisters in Unite, Unison, the NUT and the RMT.

The rebellious masses have been met by a wall of opposition as ministers line up to take potshots at people simply for insisting their terms and conditions of work are upheld.

Francis Maude, the cabinet office minister, was at the front of Cameron’s army, rather sinisterly warning that legislation to reform strike law ‘had not been ruled out’.

Maude seems like the kind of man who auditions for his local amateur dramatics company and always ends up as the panto villain. I can imagine him dressed as the evil stepmother, with blushed cheeks and false eyelashes, snarling as he orders around poor Cinderella (presumably he won’t let her go on strike).

Ministers seem keen on this idea of enforcing a rule that union ballots must attract a 50% turnout to be valid. But the fundamental rule of democracy is that we act on the wishes of the majority. The government’s view seems to be that non-voters would opt against a strike – my suspicion is that most simply abstain from ballots because they trust enough people would vote for a strike they support.

If the government wants more rigidly enforced ballots, it can have them, whether by email or by votes on the shopfloor. I can almost guarantee you’ll see an even greater percentage in favour of a walkout.

The government is on very shaky ground when it starts to question the legitimacy of these union votes. Cameron sits in Downing Street after galvanizing his party to win just 36% of the vote in 2010. Now try explaining how legitimate his right to power is.