At the recent Scottish Trade Unions Congress (STUC) held in Glasgow, Wilma Brown—a figure mired in controversy due to her previous suspension from Scottish Labour over allegations of endorsing racist and Islamophobic social media posts—was controversially given the platform to deliver the Vote of Thanks to STUC President Lilian Macer. This decision was endorsed by STUC General Secretary Roz Foyer, who downplayed Ms Brown’s troubling past as mere “mistakes” made during her candidacy.
The episode lays bare a disturbing tendency within parts of the political and union establishment to overlook problematic behaviour by individuals associated with the left, ostensibly in the name of inclusion. Ms Brown, removed from her Labour candidacy after investigations exposed her support for offensive content, should not have been given such a visible role, particularly when the event centred on tackling the very far-right ideologies she appears dangerously ambivalent about.
Andrea Bradley, General Secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), who spoke immediately after Ms Brown’s contribution, acknowledged the rise of far-right sentiments but betrayed a failure to recognise that this can partly be attributed to Labour’s own mishandling of serious issues such as immigration and national identity, which has driven many voters towards alternatives. Rather than addressing these concerns seriously, Ms Bradley placates with vague calls for “unity” and vaguely blames parts of the media for fuelling “bigoted” narratives.
Ms Foyer’s comments to The Herald’s Unspun Live podcast provide further insight into the paralysis gripping the established left. She admitted that, while Ms Brown had made “some mistakes” and apologised, her continued support owed to the STUC president’s “prerogative” to invite who she chooses—ignoring how this undermines public confidence in the movement’s moral standing. To suggest that the trade union movement must not “ostracise or alienate people” risks normalising behaviour that should be unequivocally condemned.
Moreover, Ms Foyer’s acknowledgement that parts of the union membership might be drawn to emerging conservative alternatives—not for racist reasons but “seeking answers”—is a tacit admission that the Labour-dominated establishment has failed to engage seriously with legitimate concerns around governance, immigration, and economic security. This vacuum has enabled parties committed to restoring common-sense policies and prioritising national interest to gain traction.
What is clear is that a genuine opposition grounded in strong principles is desperately needed—one that does not apologise for challenging divisive social experiments or dismiss concerns of ordinary voters. Parties refusing to kowtow to political correctness, advocating for Britain’s sovereignty and security, and standing up for hardworking citizens’ rights are providing the substantive alternative that unions and mainstream politics have long neglected.
This episode at the STUC therefore epitomises broader dysfunction in today’s political culture: an unwillingness to confront uncomfortable truths, a tolerance for reckless past conduct, and a failure to offer meaningful solutions to the challenges driving British voters towards pragmatic, nationalistic representation. Only those willing to restore accountability and put the British public first can effectively oppose the softness and confusion that the current Labour government embodies.
Source: Noah Wire Services