The silence of unions and students in the face of ruthless governance
Agit Ceviz
The current UK Labour Government is waging an economic war on pensioners, disabled people, and the working class.
Rising living costs, attacks on welfare, and privatisation are making life unbearable for many—yet resistance is nowhere to be seen.
Trade unions, once a powerful force, have grown too cautious. Strikes are rare, and when they do happen, they lack the boldness of past movements.
Meanwhile, students, historically at the forefront of protests, seem disengaged. Fear, debt, and media manipulation have tamed a generation that should be leading the fight.
Many unions and student movements remain loyal to the Labour Party, even as it drifts further from its roots.
Radical change
Keir Starmer’s Labour has abandoned radical change, offering only mild reforms while accepting much of the status quo. Yet unions and student leaders remain largely silent, fearing a Tory alternative but unwilling to challenge Labour’s failures.
This loyalty weakens resistance. Instead of demanding real change, unions and students wait for Labour to act—despite clear signs that Starmer won’t reverse austerity or empower workers.
Meanwhile, pensioners, disabled people, and the working class continue to suffer.
If unions and student movements truly represent the people, they must break free from party loyalty and fight for justice, no matter who is in power.
Silence only enables the government’s ruthless policies.
Resistance
The recent protests in Turkey against Erdoğan started with students taking the lead, showing that youth movements can still spark resistance.
Unlike in the UK, where student activism has weakened due to political complacency and party loyalty, Turkish students took to the streets despite heavy state repression.
If students in Turkey can rise against authoritarianism, why are British student movements so quiet in the face of ruthless government policies?
It’s time for unions and students to remember their role in resistance—before it’s too late.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
Water Cannon…
Just you wait and see, the great unwashed are going to get a good hosing down afore long…
More prisons, that’s the answer Clark, lock us up…!
Clark caves in to Trwmp while the rest fight back…always behind the curve…
I agree with much of this article but I would suggest that the apathy amongst student groups and trade unions has spread almost throughout the population. I suppose it must be that things haven’t got quite bad enough for enough people for any uprising to take hold.
The days of any form of ‘uprising’ are long gone. We meekly complied with being locked in our homes for two years under the cosh of Johnson, with Starmer, Drakeford & Sturgeon 100% on board. It’s done untold damage to this country yet we just accepted it.
I think you may be confusing public health restrictions with time in prison, I don’t remember being locked in anywhere.
I do! Allowed out for an hour’s exercise a day, but house arrest otherwise.
There was no time limit in Wales.
How many hundreds of thousands of deaths would you have accepted in return for doing nothing? Feel free to name a number to show your commitment to freedom.
Part of it is that many who get themselves elected in Students Unions do so in the hope of being the next generation of grown-up politicians. For example England’s health secretary Wes Streeting formerly of Cambridge University Students Union
Under FPTP there are only two types of government possible in the UK: Tory or Diet Tory.
In 2011 people were offered an alternative voting system which was roundly rejected. Anyone who failed to support this change is responsible for the status quo. Anyone who failed to support this change because it wasn’t good enough is responsible for the status quo.
Democracy means accepting the will of the people even if you disagree.
I guess we’ll find out after 2026 Welsh election. But in the end there still has to be a realistic party to vote for.
It’ll take time because you need a voting system that allows smaller parties to flourish before smaller parties can flourish as realistic alternatives to vote for.
It may not take time actually. Welsh Labour insisted on the stitch up that they thought was the closed list system, only to find now that the real beneficiaries may be Reform. Meanwhile, the smaller parties could well disappear all together.
I mean several election cycles. But I don’t see how the closed list system could benefit Labour. Presumably it was only chosen as the most proportional system which is what people think they want from electoral reform while ignoring that it will make people feel more disenfranchised not less. Meanwhile some Reform rabble in the Senedd will be good to humiliate Farage with their inevitable antics and controversy. But there’s no realistic scenario where they enter government. All they’ll do is soak up enough Con and Lab votes to give us a Plaid-led coalition.
‘In 2011 people were offered an alternative voting system which was roundly rejected.’
There’s no way of knowing exactly how many voted against the change to the voting system offered back in 2011 for this reason, but I well remember the debate at the time and there’s no doubt whatever that some voters didn’t back change because the choice was narrowly confined to sticking to ‘first past the post’ or adopting the ‘alternative vote’ method.
The Tories refused to offer proportional representation as an option, and their Lib Dem coalition partners were daft enough to acquiesce to that diktat.
Why turn down an improvement? Proportionality isn’t the only thing that matters in a voting system. Voter engagement is essential and giving people the power to pick who they really want without wasting that vote would’ve been a big step forward. It would’ve allowed more smaller parties to thrive. It would’ve led to permanent coalitions and the constructive form of “grown up” government that creates. But we ended up with Johnson and Brexit instead.
You make a fair point, but I still think the fact remains that the ‘alternative vote’ wasn’t what the Lib Dems – and, indeed, others too who weren’t Lib Dems – were calling for. The conservative political right in the UK tends to be significantly more politically canny than those seeking for reforms of the system, which is why the Conservatives lighted on the tactic of offering some change, but not the change for which most advocates of voting reform were campaigning. They calculated that their offer would split the advocates of reforming the system, and they turned out to… Read more »
And so the left need to ask themselves why they fell into the elephant trap. Because until that’s understood it’ll keep happening.
I think that’s fair comment. An ‘elephant trap’ is pretty much what it was, and the Lib Dems fell into it.
I was living in England at that time, and was a Lib Dem member and activist in a constituency previously held by the Tories which the Lib Dems in 1997 had won.
That was the beginning of my disillusion with the Clegg-era Lib Dems, and I ultimately left the party.
Did Labour back AV? No it didn’t. Explain that.
My sense has always been that both Labour and the Tories favour retaining FPTP because it generally favours them and diminishes the possibility of rival parties establishing themselves. A belief which they hold in common.
London Labour and the Cons have a democratically unhealthy symbiotic relationship. Both parties need breaking up which won’t happen until the voting system is changed. It’s just a shame that Reform are only interested in change that benefits their billionaire backers, and nothing that improves the lives of ordinary people. You may not be a fan of the Lib Dems anymore but they got closer than anyone to making that change happen.
I wouldn’t at all disagree with anything that you’ve said here.
The Unions silence on the matter is defending. They fund the Labour party even though implementing draconian policies that will affect the most vulnerable in society. Why, I ask ? What’s wrong with their membership? Why do they provide money to an increasingly right wing Labour party whose policies demonise the left, working poor, ones on benefits and the disabled. Be caring not complicit.
Unions aren’t there to represent the poorest and most vulnerable in society. They’re there to look after their members.