Vince Cable makes veiled threat on anti-union laws at GMB conference

Con-Dem Business Secretary, Vince Cable, struggled to complete his speech today when he said coordinated strike action could result in more anti-union laws. John Bowman reports
The chair had to step in to calm the conference as Cable was met by a storm of boos and heckles. Praising Britain’s low level of strike figures, Cable then noted the day of mass strike action (due to take place on 30 June) and said that “the usual suspects” would call for “general strikes and widespread disruption” to stop the cuts.
Cable openly threatened to make strike action harder in the face of industrial resistance to the Con-Dem government. But even as he made this outrageous attack on the entire union movement, he tried to deflect blame onto hardline Tories who were already calling for new legislation.
He described this group, which include London Mayor Boris Johnson, as “a different group of usual suspects”, and added “should strikes cause damage to our economic and social fabric, the pressure on us to act [from the Tory right] will ratchet up.” He said “conference, this is something that both you and I want to avoid.”
 
Cable’s cowardice
This is nonsense.
In truth Cable had been put up by the Tories, as “the nice guy”, who could threaten to carry through another massive attack on the right to strike without inciting boos and derision. And it didn’t work – he was roundly condemned.
Cable’s speech was cowardly and hypocritical. No trade unionist should be swayed by threats that using the right to strike will result in its erosion.
While calling the right to strike a “principle”, Cable’s argument that to exercise the right would result in it being taken away exposed his total lack of principle.
In doing so, the Con-Dems have made it abundantly clear that that trade unions and workers’ rights have no place in their ‘big society’, and that they will not allow industrial action constrained by the law to beat them.
If the anti-union laws are used on 30 June, or against any union taking action against their attacks, if they attempt to “tighten” the anti-union laws, the response must be an indefinite general strike for the survival of our unions.