(left to right) Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Dr James Marsh, Group Deputy CEO for Epsom and St Helier Hospitals, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and NHS CEO Amanda Pritchard during a visit to Elective Orthopaedic Centre in Epsom, Surrey, January 6, 2025
Labour warned that workers expect better as anger mounts over welfare cuts and public-sector pay
WORKERS expect better, Labour has been warned by the country’s biggest trade union as anger mounts over cruel welfare cuts and public-sector pay.
Protests met Health Secretary Wes Streeting’s address to Unison health conference in Liverpool yesterday, following a sharp rebuke to the government from its general secretary Christina McAnea on Tuesday.
Ms McAnea had thanked the government for taking steps to improve workers’ conditions through the upcoming Employment Rights Bill.
But she said that some of Labour’s decisions, such as stopping winter fuel payments and inflicting “heartless” cuts to welfare, had left her “baffled and speechless.”
“These cuts will place yet more strain on an NHS already creaking at the seams,” she warned.
“They’re counter-productive, will cost more in the long run and are morally wrong.
“The best way to turn the NHS around is by focusing on the workforce.
“There’s simply no route to fixing the NHS that doesn’t first involve sorting health workers’ pay,” which declined in real terms for over a decade under the Tories.
She called Labour’s 2.8 per cent pay rise for workers “ludicrous,” adding that it “won’t encourage experienced staff to stay in the NHS, nor will it be enough to persuade new recruits to join.”
U.S. President Donald Trump stands with White House staff secretary Will Scharf before signing executive orders imposing sweeping tariffs on April 2, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
“What Republicans are trying to jam through Congress right now is a level of economic recklessness we’ve never seen before,” said a group of Democratic lawmakers.
A new analysis indicates Republicans’ plan to extend soon-to-expire provisions of their party’s 2017 tax law, as well as their push to tack on additional tax breaks largely benefiting the rich and big corporations, would cost $7 trillion over the next decade, a figure that a group of congressional Democrats called “staggering.”
The analysis from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), published on Thursday, updates previous estimates that suggested the GOP effort to extend expiring provisions of the 2017 law would cost $4.6 trillion over a 10-year period. The new assessment shows that extending the law’s temporary provisions—which disproportionately favored the wealthy—would cost $5.5 trillion over the next decade.
“The Republican handouts to billionaires and corporations will come at a staggering cost, and it’s unconscionable that their plan to pay for those handouts includes kicking millions of Americans off their health insurance, hiking the cost of living with tariffs, and driving up child hunger,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), and Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) said in a joint statement issued in response to the JCT figures.
“Even after making painful cuts that will inflict hardship on typical American families, Republicans will still risk sending us into a catastrophic debt spiral that does permanent harm to our economy,” the Democrats added. “What Republicans are trying to jam through Congress right now is a level of economic recklessness we’ve never seen before.”
In an appearance on MSNBC on Thursday, Boyle—the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee—said Trump’s tariffs represent “the single largest tax increase in American history.”
“It’s a tax that everyone will pay in this country, based on the goods that they buy,” said Boyle. “However, it’s also a tax that is highly regressive—the poorest amongst us will end up paying a higher percentage of their income.”
A previous version of this story incorrectly stated the analysis was conducted by the Congressional Budget Office. It was conducted by the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
The unnecessarily violent police intervention at a Quaker place of worship is a PR disaster and will only serve to deepen the chasm between them and the public. SYMON HILL reports
THE police raid on a Quaker place of worship last week was not about preventing crime or arresting criminals. It was an attempt to intimidate peaceful protesters. It will not succeed.
At about 7.15pm on Thursday March 27, at least 20 police officers broke down the door of Westminster Quaker Meeting House in St Martin’s Lane in London. They could have just rung the doorbell.
The police, some armed with tasers, charged into a room where the non-violent protest group Youth Demand were holding a welcome talk. Women in their late teens and early twenties were grabbed and handcuffed behind their backs.
They swarmed through the rest of the building, entering every room, including one that had been hired by a life drawing class and even a room where a private counselling session was taking place.
This horrific incident was made possible by the draconian anti-protest laws introduced by the previous Tory government and maintained by their Labour successors. The police reportedly used the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act as they arrested six women. The youngest was 18.
When the Act was passed in 2022, we were told that the police would use it only in extreme situations. That promise is now as broken as Westminster Meeting House’s door.
In their media statement, the Metropolitan Police said that Youth Demand are planning civil disobedience in London. In recent years there has been a noticeable increase in campaigners being arrested for things they are only talking about doing. Even so, this went further.
This Youth Demand gathering was a welcome talk. It was a public event, open to people who had never even considered engaging in civil disobedience before. The police arrested other Youth Demand members in London and Exeter on the same day.
The police’s thuggery seems designed to intimidate Youth Demand from going ahead with their plans for April. The police may hope that the publicity around the raid will deter others from joining in.
Typically, the police have seriously underestimated the determination of people whose rights are denied.
Lengthy prison sentences have been imposed on five Just Stop Oil activists for coordinating direct action on the M25, the main ring road around London. For a non-violent protest, there is no equivalent in modern times.
The five years for Roger Hallam and four years for the remaining four: Daniel Shaw, Louise Lancaster, Cressida Gethin and Lucia Whittaker de Abreu, have been widely condemned as grossly disproportionate. According to one snap poll, 61% of the public consider the sentences too harsh.
But nobody should be surprised: these sentences are a logical outcome of Britain’s authoritarian turn against protest over the past five years.
Protest in England and Wales was previously dealt with by the courts according to what we call Hoffmann’s Bargain. This meant protesters should accept their guilt in court, but their conscientiousness – along with the wider importance of disruptive protest to democracy – would be rewarded with lenient sentences.
This changed with the prosecution of the Stansted 15, who were charged and found guilty of terrorist-related offences for stopping a deportation flight in 2017. The 15 were sentenced to community service, fines, and for some, short suspended prison sentences. On appeal, the Court of Appeal threw out the charges in 2021, but at the same time hardened the general approach of the courts to protest, confirming that a key defence (known as necessity) was not available to protest defendants in court.
Making it harder for activists to defend themselves
Since then, three things have happened. First, other potential defences that protesters could rely on, including lawful excuse, have been systematically restricted by the Court of Appeal.
Second, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has sought where possible to bring more serious charges against protesters than used to be the case. In this they have been encouraged by new legislation brought in by the last government, notably the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (2022) and the Public Order Act (2023).
Third, judges have typically sought to control and reduce the time that defendants have in court to explain their motives to the jury, because – without a defence in law – the defendants’ arguments are, in legal terms, not relevant.
We saw each of these dynamics in the Just Stop Oil “Conspiracy 5” trial. Before 2018, public nuisance itself was barely used for protest offences, but the CPS now regularly brings this charge against peaceful protesters. But the charge of a conspiracy to cause public nuisance, which these five defendants faced, is a further escalation as it treats protest movements as a criminal enterprise, and does not allow a lawful excuse defence. As a consequence, the stakes are higher and the outcomes more serious.
In court, the defendants were unable to argue that they had a lawful excuse for their action (Hallam repeatedly tried to argue this in court, and was repeatedly shut down by the trial judge). Finally, although the defendants did manage to explain their motives to the jury, the jury had no opportunity to find them not guilty in law. Although juries still have the power to find defendants not guilty by making a moral rather than a legal decision, this is much harder and rarer.
The result is that the first part of Hoffmann’s Bargain is being abandoned. With no recourse to a defence in law, protest defendants are now regularly being found guilty. But the second part of the bargain, leniency at sentencing, is increasingly being forgotten.
A new benchmark
In April 2023, Just Stop Oil activists Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were sentenced to three years and two years seven months in prison respectively after being convicted of public nuisance for disrupting the Dartford Crossing, a large bridge over the Thames to the east of London. Upheld by the Court of Appeal, these sentences have now become a benchmark.
In the Conspiracy 5 case, the trial judge explicitly cited this benchmark as the basis for the sentences he imposed, and any appeal against them will have to reckon with the Court of Appeal’s determination that they are fair.
This case brings into sharp focus two very contrasting visions of what a trial is, and what the criminal law is for. The courts are effectively treating protest trials as a legal flowchart, with a strict distinction between what is and what is not relevant on the shortest route to a verdict.
But defendants often see the courts as a place where they can make urgent arguments about moral values and social justice. Rather than a public nuisance, they consider their actions a public service. By not allowing defendants to account for their actions properly, the courts create an artificial separation between law and politics, and diminish the democratic agency of juries.
By imposing prison sentences on non-violent protesters, they impose authoritarian responses to pressing social problems.
Keir Starmer confirms that his government is cnutier than Suella Braverman on killing the right to protest.Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels.
As the 19th-century French political philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville, memorably observed, Americans have a tendency to fight their political battles in court. Barely two months into his presidency, Donald Trump is demonstrating increasing frustration as trade unions, civil rights organisations and states attorneys general challenge the implementation of his policies with lawsuits alleging presidential overreach that undermines the constitutional separation of powers.
More than 130 lawsuits are now pending. As a result, federal courts have put on hold key policies of the Trump administration and Trump lawyers have lodged emergency petitions invoking Supreme Court intervention.
First to face court check was the federal funding freeze order. This was swiftly followed by court rulings against the birthright citizenship order. This controversial measure would withdraw citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented or non-citizen parents who are in the country legally but temporarily.
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
Donald Trump decrees forbidden terms denying sexual diversity. Image added by https://onaquietday.org
This was blocked for the very fundamental grounds that this has not been authorised by Congress and is not within the scope of the presidential power. Whether Doge can even exist without Congressional authority is also in contention.
The president’s increasing anger with the courts erupted on March 18. The US president launched an astonishing personal attack on a US federal judge who ruled against the summary deportation of alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang and ordered the administration to turn around the plane carrying them that had already taken off.
The US president calls for a judge to be impeached. TruthSocial.
Trump’s call for Judge James Boasberg to be impeached prompted a rare intervention from Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts. Roberts condemned the impeachment call in a statement that did not name the president but was clearly intended as a rebuke and a reminder of the constitutional boundaries that guarantee the role of the judiciary as the equal third branch of government.
Unrepentant, Trump doubled down the next day on TruthSocial calling Judge Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic Judge” who wanted “to assume the role of president”. His charge was then echoed by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt who accused the judiciary generally of attempting to paralyse the administration’s programme, usurp the power of the president and undermine the will of the American people.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Judge James Boasberg.
Despite Judge Boasberg’s order, the plane carrying the Venezuelans did not turn back. The administration has denied wrongdoing and Judge Boasberg has yet to impose any penalty.
This was not the first occasion that the administration has appeared to openly defy court orders. The previous week Dr Raiza Alawieh, a Brown University professor with an American visa was deported despite an order from a federal judge in Boston requiring that the court be given advance notice before the government attempted to remove her.
All eyes on the Supreme Court
All these cases are likely to go to the US Supreme Court. As its name suggests, this is the highest level of the judiciary in the US. It has the final say on what the US constitution means and authorises. At issue will be the scope of the presidential power – and the outcome is uncertain.
It’s important to bear in mind that the court now has a six-to-three majority of conservative justices – three of whom were Trump nominees. We also need to be aware that this court, in a previous ruling, considerably extended the scope of presidential immunity to cover all official “core acts” so that, whatever the outcome, the president himself is unlikely to attract personal liability.
But we do know that the Supreme Court’s ruling on a constitutional issue is final – and that all government officials at federal and state level will be required to respect it. The fear now is that the administration may go ahead regardless in which case we will find ourselves in unknown constitutional territory.
To find parallels we could go back to the desegregation era of the middle of the 20th century and specifically to Little Rock in Arkansas where the then governor, Orval Faubus, called out the national guard to prevent the court-ordered desegregation of the local high school.
The ensuing crisis ended when the then president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, sent in federal troops to enforce the court order. The US Supreme Court unanimously declared that its interpretations of what the constitution required were the supreme law of the land, which bound the governor and the state legislature.
The chief justice of that era, Earl Warren, later regarded this ruling (Cooper v Aaron) as the most important of his time on the Supreme Court – more important even than the actual desegregation decision itself (Brown v Board of Education).
It is clear that the judicial branch depends upon the executive to put its orders into effect and demonstrate respect for the rule of law and the separation of powers. But we now see a president who demonstrates open hostility to judges whom he considers have opposed him. His administration has also begun to vindictively target with punitive blocking orders the big law firms who assisted in the prosecutions brought against him before he took office.
Does a constitutional crisis loom? How all this plays out remains to be seen.
