Before the election, Nick Clegg warned that there would be "Greek-style unrest" if the Conservatives pushed through savage spending cuts on the back of a slim electoral mandate. On this occasion, the Liberal Democrat leader displayed a rare prescience - but he cannot have guessed that he would be one of those leading the cuts.

As he and other Liberal Democrat cabinet ministers vote to triple university tuition fees, in defiance of their election pledges, there will be more civil unrest. Britain, long considered one of the more politically stable countries in Europe, has become home to the most highly charged protest movement since 1968. In recent weeks, more than 50,000 students have marched against the coalition's plans to marketise higher education, school pupils have walked out in protest at the reckless abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance and the inventive anti-tax-avoidance group UK Uncut has forced branches of Topshop and Vodafone to close their doors. As Anthony Barnett notes on page 30, with the emergence of ever more innovative social media, these protests mark an epochal shift.

The claim that the students are motivated merely by self-interest does not bear scrutiny. They were not marching merely against extortionate fees but in defence of the very ideal of university education. The coalition's decision to abolish teaching grants for all but "priority subjects", such as science and engineering, will leave the humanities to sink or swim according to the whims of the market. Meanwhile, the hackneyed charge that protest never changes anything has already been disproved. It was no coincidence that the government chose 6 December - the Monday following a weekend of UK Uncut protests - to announce a new crackdown on tax avoidance. The coalition has now pledged to study a general anti-avoidance rule, a law that would require corporations to receive clearance from HM Revenue and Customs on their tax plans before implementing them.

During his campaign for the Labour leadership, Ed Miliband spoke frequently of his desire to reach out to grass-roots activists and to lead a movement rather than just a party. But since the protests began, Labour has missed countless opportunities to act as a receptacle for a new generation of activists. Asked about the student demonstrations during a recent appearance on the Today programme, Mr Miliband replied: "I was quite tempted to go out to talk to them," only to add: "I think I was doing something else at the time, actually." His answer was an apt illustration of Labour's botched response to the debate on tuition fees.

The absence of any firm policy on higher education means that the party has offered little more than token resistance to the coalition's cuts. Mr Miliband has belatedly imposed collective responsibility and has forced his shadow chancellor, Alan Johnson, to support a graduate tax. But both have lost much credibility over the affair. The Labour leader should not be afraid to champion causes that already enjoy popular support. A YouGov poll published on 5 December showed that 49 per cent of voters are opposed to the coalition's tuition fees policy, with just 38 per cent in favour. A survey in 2009 by the same polling group found that 77 per cent of the public believes that the government should do everything it can to limit the estimated £25bn lost each year through tax avoidance.

The protests represent an inspiring challenge to the coalition's austerity agenda. But history teaches us that the establishment can swiftly reassert itself. The 1968 événements were followed by the return to power of the Gaullists with an increased majority. If Britain is to avoid a similar fate, Labour must not be left behind by the protesters.