The strikes are gaining momentum, and public opinion is behind them – could they transform our economic landscape? Lucie Wibberley, the assistant secretary of the Criminal Bar Association, speaking at the barristers’ strike over pay this week, outside the Old Bailey in London. Lucie Wibberley, the assistant secretary of the Criminal Bar Association, speaking at the barristers’ strike over pay this week, outside the Old Bailey in London. Photograph: Jonathan Goldberg/REX/Shutterstock Fri 1 Jul 2022 06.00 BST 1,239 In Britain, more than in most democratic countries, going on strike is a risk. Your employer, the government, most of the media, much of the public and often the opposition parties are likely to be against you – or, at best, unsupportive. Your loss of income is unlikely to be made up by strike pay. Your behaviour on the picket line will be subject to what Tony Blair described approvingly in 1997 as “the most restrictive” trade union laws “in the western world”. In very public ways, you will be breaking the rules of the modern economy: refusing to work, inconveniencing consumers, acting collectively rather than individually, and making demands for more money openly – rather than in private, as more powerful people do. If you are on the left, you are likely to be told again and again that your strike is politically counterproductive. You need to register to keep reading It’s still free to read - this is not a paywall We’re committed to keeping our quality reporting open. By registering and providing us with insight into your preferences, you’re helping us to engage with you more deeply, and that allows us to keep our journalism free for all. You’ll always be able to control your own privacy settings. Register for free I’ll do it later Have a subscription? Made a contribution? Already registered? Sign In Why register & how does it help? How will my information & data be used? Get help with registering or signing in Boris Johnson is somehow clinging to power despite a mutiny by his own MPs over the Partygate affair. The entire debacle is a perfect example of why we need rigorous, independent journalism. Without media scrutiny from the Guardian and our peers, we wouldn’t know that Johnson had broken the law while in office. There would have been no police fines, no independent investigation. We would be none the wiser. This is holding power to account, the most important task of journalists in an age of dishonesty and misinformation. Ever since Johnson became prime minister, Guardian journalists have worked tirelessly to reveal the shortcomings of his government: the Covid blunders, the insider contracts, the hypocrisy - of those who broke their own rules, partying or travelling when they shouldn’t have. Our editorial independence means we are free to expose the failings of the powerful people who lead us in these troubled times. We have no shareholders and no billionaire owner, just the determination and passion to deliver high-impact global reporting, free from commercial or political influence. Reporting like this is vital for democracy, for fairness and to demand better from leadership. And we provide all this for free, for everyone to read. We do this because we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of the events shaping our world, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action. Millions can benefit from open access to quality, truthful news, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Since we started publishing 200 years ago, tens of millions have placed their trust in the Guardian’s fearless journalism, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty, solidarity and hope. More than 1.5 million supporters, from 180 countries, now power us financially – keeping us open to all, and fiercely independent.