A row has broken out between the government and the Trades Union Congress over plans to ban protests without at least 40% of support from union members. Those in favor of the proposed crackdown on industrial action say it will stop U.K. bosses from "holding Britain to ransom." Those opposed believe the threshold will effectively end the right to strike in the public sector.

On announcing the tougher anti-strike laws, Patrick McLoughlin, the U.K.’s Transport Secretary, said the government will put an end to the “misery for millions” by banning strikes with low turnouts.

If the Conservatives were to win May’s general elections, core public workers in transport, education, fire services and health would not be able to strike without the support of at least 40% of those entitled to vote. Under current laws, a strike can be called in the U.K. if it is backed by a majority who called it.

The tough new strike laws would also lift the ban on the use of agency workers during industrial action. Instead of closing, schools would therefore be able to bring in supply teachers to keep classrooms going during strikes.

Since the coalition government came into power in 2010, the U.K. has been awash with industrial action, namely in derision to the harsh cuts made to the public sector.

Austerity and Britain

From firefighters fronting the picket line in protest of job cuts and the closure of long-standing fire stations, to teachers picking up their placards in contempt of pensions, pay and conditions, just about every public sector industry has been actively demonstrating their derision in Britain in recent years. Once a government imposes steep cuts to public services, like the ones currently plaguing contemporary British society, strikes are one of the few resources workers have.

Between August 2010 and December 2014, there have been 119 major ballots for industrial action in Britain. If the proposed changes were executed, almost three-quarters of them would have been invalid. It is hardly surprising then that the announcement has led to outcry by Liberal Democrats, unions and public sector workers.

Widespread Condemnation to the Proposed Changes

The Conservatives’ partners in the coalition, the Liberal Democrats, condemned the plans to curb public sector strikes, calling it a “brutal bid to strangle workers’ rights.”

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Business Secretary, referred to the proposed changes to strike action as “entirely ideologically led.”

“Industrial relations in the U.K. are good and the Conservatives would do well to turn their attention to creating a fairer society,” Vince Cable added.

Frances O’Grady, the Trade Union Congress general secretary, said the Conservatives know that such measures would “effectively end the right to strike in the public sector.”

“No democracy elsewhere in the world has this kind of restriction on industrial action. It is a democratic outrage.”

The Increasing Crackdown on Protests and the Right to Peacefully Dissent

In October 2014 the Occupy Democracy movement began in London with a nine-day occupation of Parliament Square. Just four days into the protest, high-level fences had been erected, pushing the protestors onto a small strip of grass. The group faced persistent harassment and mass arrests were made.

London’s Parliament Square, located next to the Palace of Westminster in the heart of contemporary British politics, has a history of being a venue where protests are stopped. Matthew Butcher, an activist and writer from the U.K., was one of the first people to be arrested under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act for having a picnic in central London.

Butcher said that when he was arrested in 2005, the policemen couldn’t stop smiling because it was the first time they said they had arrested anyone under the that act, which banned "unauthorized" protests opposite the Houses of Parliament.

The evidence of the protest included cupcakes and a banner saying “picnics aren’t protests.”

In 2011, Butcher’s case was thrown out of court when the Coalition government replaced the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act with a similarly authoritarian law giving police the power to evict protestors from Parliament Square. Known as the Public Reform and Social Responsibility Act, the legislation was passed in time to ensure that no anti-establishment protests could occur in the central London location during the royal wedding in April 2011 and the London Olympics in 2012.

In October of last year, under this same law, police told Occupy protestors they were enforcing a notice to desist. Officers could be seen dragging away protesters who refused to leave. An Occupy spokeswoman [described the police action](http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/19/occupy-protesters-parliam... described) as “absolutely crazy.”

Responding to the police actions on Parliament Square protestors, Matthew Butcher said, “The truth is that democracy isn’t something that can only be permitted to take place within the confines of Parliament. Indeed these Occupy protestors whose presence exemplifies a definite shift in British politics away from mainstream political parties, are a vital part of our political system.”

Authorities Feeling Threatened by Protests

Maria Saunders, a supporter of the Occupy Democracy movement in London, said the “establishment clearly wants to stamp out dissent and not listen to the voices of the people of this country.”

As Occupy.com reported, the police reaction to Occupy Democracy reflects its impact on the British establishment, and “underlines the degree to which authorities feel threatened by it.”

Now, Conservatives' plan to ban protests without at least 40% of support marks the latest in a series of attempts to forbid the basic democratic rights to march and protest. As one anonymous public sector worker told Occupy.com:

“Britain must be the only country to allow protests to run for little more than a day before moving in and still be seen as a beacon of democracy.”

img_0914-e1376653840989.jpg