Published
2 years agoon
By
adminThe congressional committee investigating the January 6 insurrection delivered a comprehensive and compelling case for the criminal prosecution of Donald Trump and his closest allies for their attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
But the committee zoomed in so tightly on the culpability of Trump and his inner circle that it largely cropped out the dozens of other state and federal Republican officials who supported or enabled the presidents multifaceted, months-long plot. The committee downplayed the involvement of the legion of local Republican officials who enlisted as fake electors and said almost nothing about the dozens of congressional Republicans who supported Trumps effortseven to the point, in one case, of urging him to declare Marshall Law to overturn the result.
With these choices, the committee likely increased the odds that Trump and his allies will face personal accountabilitybut diminished the prospect of a complete reckoning within the GOP.
David Frum: Justice is coming for Donald Trump
That reality points to the larger question lingering over the committees final report: Would convicting Trump defang the threat to democracy that culminated on January 6, or does that require a much broader confrontation with all of the forces in extremist movements, and even the mainstream Republican coalition, that rallied behind Trumps efforts?
If we imagine that preventing another assault on the democratic process is only about preventing the misconduct of a single person, Grant Tudor, a policy advocate at the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy, told me, we are probably not setting up ourselves for success.
Both the 154-page executive summary unveiled Monday and the 845-page final report released last night made clear that the committee is focused preponderantly on Trump. The summary in particular read more like a draft criminal indictment than a typical congressional report. It contained breathtaking detail on Trumps efforts to overturn the election and concluded with an extensive legal analysis recommending that the Justice Department indict Trump on four separate offenses, including obstruction of a government proceeding and providing aid and comfort to an insurrection.
Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the former special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first Trump impeachment, told me the report showed that the committee members and staff were thinking like prosecutors. The reports structure, he said, made clear that for the committee, criminal referrals for Trump and his closest allies were the endpoint that all of the hearings were building toward. I think they believe that its important not to dilute the narrative, he said. The utmost imperative is to have some actual consequences and to tell a story to the American people. Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney who has closely followed the investigation, agreed that the report underscored the committees prioritization of a single goal: making the case that the Justice Department should prosecute Trump and some of the people around him.
If they wind up with Trump facing charges, I think they will see it as a victory, Litman told me. My sense is they are also a little suspicious about the [Justice] Department; they think its overly conservative or wussy and if they served up too big an agenda to them, it might have been rejected. The real focus was on Trump.
In one sense, the committees single-minded focus on Trump has already recorded a significant though largely unrecognized achievement. Although theres no exact parallel to what the Justice Department now faces, in scandals during previous decades, many people thought it would be too divisive and turbulent for one administration to look back with criminal proceedings against a former administrations officials. President Gerald Ford raised that argument when he pardoned his disgraced predecessor Richard Nixon, who had resigned while facing impeachment over the Watergate scandal, in 1974. Barack Obama made a similar case in 2009 when he opted against prosecuting officials from the George W. Bush administration for the torture of alleged terrorists. (Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past, Obama said at the time.)
As Tudor pointed out, it is a measure of the committees impact that virtually no political or opinion leaders outside of hard-core Trump allies are making such arguments against looking back. If anything, the opposite argumentthat the real risk to U.S. society would come from not holding Trump accountableis much more common.
There are very few folks in elite opinion-making who are not advocating for accountability in some form, and that was not a given two years ago, Tudor told me.
Yet Tudor is one of several experts I spoke with who expressed ambivalence about the committees choice to focus so tightly on Trump while downplaying the role of other Republicans, either in the states or in Congress. I think its an important lost opportunity, he said, that could narrow the publics understanding as to the totality of what happened and, in some respects, to risk trivializing it.
Read: The January 6 committees most damning revelation yet
Bill Kristol, the longtime conservative strategist turned staunch Trump critic, similarly told me that although he believes the committee was mostly correct to focus its limited time and resources primarily on Trumps role, the report doesnt quite convey how much the antidemocratic, authoritarian sentiments have metastasized across the GOP.
Perhaps the most surprising element of the executive summary was its treatment of the dozens of state Republicans who signed on as fake electors, who Trump hoped could supplant the actual electors pledged to Joe Biden in the decisive states. The committee suggested that the fake electorssome of whom face federal and state investigations for their actionswere largely duped by Trump and his allies. Multiple Republicans who were persuaded to sign the fake certificates also testified that they felt misled or betrayed, and would not have done so had they known that the fake votes would be used on January 6th without an intervening court ruling, the committee wrote. Likewise, the report portrays Republican National Committee Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel, who agreed to help organize the fake electors, as more of a victim than an ally in the effort. The full report does note that some officials eagerly assisted President Trump with his plans, but it identifies only one by name: Doug Mastriano, the GOP state senator and losing Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate this year. Even more than the executive summary, the full report emphasizes testimony from the fake electors in which they claimed to harbor doubts and concerns about the scheme.
Eisen, a co-author of a recent Brookings Institution report on the fake electors, told me that the committee seemed to go out of their way to give the fake electors the benefit of the doubt. Some of them may have been misled, he said, and in other cases, its not clear whether their actions cross the standard for criminal liability. But, Eisen said, if you ask me do I think these fake electors knew exactly what was going on, I believe a bunch of them did. When the fake electors met in Georgia, for instance, Eisen said that they already knew Trump had not won the state, it was clear he had not won in court and had no prospect of winning in court, they were invited to the gathering of the fake electors in secrecy, and they knew that the governor had not and would not sign these fake electoral certificates. Its hard to view the participants in such a process as innocent dupes.
The executive summary and final report both said very little about the role of other members of Congress in Trumps drive to overturn the election. The committee did recommend Ethics Committee investigations of four House Republicans who had defied its subpoenas (including GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the presumptive incoming speaker). And it identifie GOP Representative Jim Jordan, the incoming chair of the House Judiciary Committee, as a significant player in President Trumps efforts while also citing the sustained involvement of Representatives Scott Perry and Andy Biggs.
But neither the executive summary nor the full report chose quoted exchanges involving House and Senate Republicans in the trove of texts the committee obtained from former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. The website Talking Points Memo, quoting from those texts, recently reported that 34 congressional Republicans exchanged ideas with Meadows on how to overturn the election, including the suggestion from Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina that Trump simply declare Marshall Law to remain in power. Even Representative Adam Schiff of California, a member of the committee, acknowledged in an op-ed published today that the report devoted scant attention …[to] the willingness of so many members of Congress to vote to overturn it.
Nor did the committee recommend disciplinary action against the House members who strategized with Meadows or Trump about overturning the resultalthough it did say that such members should be questioned in a public forum about their advance knowledge of and role in President Trumps plan to prevent the peaceful transition of power. (While one of the committees concluding recommendations was that lawyers who participated in the efforts to overturn the election face disciplinary action, the report is silent on whether that same standard should apply to members of Congress.) In that, the committee stopped short of the call from a bipartisan group of former House members for discipline (potentially to the point of expulsion) against any participants in Trumps plot. Surely, taking part in an effort to overturn an election warrants an institutional response; previous colleagues have been investigated and disciplined for far less, the group wrote.
By any measure, experts agree, the January 6 committee has provided a model of tenacity in investigation and creativity in presentation. The record it has compiled offers both a powerful testament for history and a spur to immediate action by the Justice Department. It has buried, under a mountain of evidence, the Trump apologists who tried to whitewash the riot as a normal tourist visit or minimize the former presidents responsibility for it. In all of these ways, the committee has made it more difficult for Trump to obscure how gravely he abused the power of the presidency as he begins his campaign to re-obtain it. As Tudor said, Its pretty hard to imagine January 6 would still be headline news day in and day out absent the committees work.
But Trump could not have mounted such a threat to American democracy alone. Thousands of far-right extremists responded to his call to assemble in Washington. Seventeen Republican state attorneys general signed on to a lawsuit to invalidate the election results in key states; 139 Republican House members and eight GOP senators voted to reject the outcome even after the riot on January 6. Nearly three dozen congressional Republicans exchanged ideas with Meadows on how to overturn the result, or exhorted him to do so. Dozens of prominent Republicans across the key battleground states signed on as fake electors. Nearly 300 Republicans who echoed Trumps lies about the 2020 election were nominated in Novembermore than half of all GOP candidates, according to The Washington Post. And although many of the highest-profile election deniers were defeated, about 170 deniers won their campaign and now hold office, where they could be in position to threaten the integrity of future elections.
From the November 2022 issue: Bad losers
The January 6 committees dogged investigation has stripped Trumps defenses and revealed the full magnitude of his assault on democracy. But whatever happens next to Trump, it would be naive to assume that the committee has extinguished, or even fully mapped, a threat that has now spread far beyond him.

You may like
Entertainment
Pete Townshend’s Quadrophenia talked about modern masculinity before Gen Z was born
Published
1 hour agoon
April 5, 2025By
admin
Despite The Who’s Quadrophenia being set over 60 years ago, Pete Townshend’s themes of identity, mental health, and modern masculinity are just as relevant today.
The album is having a renaissance as Pete Townshend’s Quadrophenia A Mod ballet is being brought to life via dance at Sadler’s Wells East, and Sky News has an exclusive first look.
As Townshend puts it, the album he wrote is “perfect” for the stage.

Pete Townshend
“My wife Rachel did the orchestration for me, and as soon as I heard it I said to her it would make a fabulous ballet and we never really let that go,” he tells Sky News.
“Heavy percussion, concussive sequences. They’re explosive moments. They’re also romantic movement moments.”
If you identify with the demographics of Millennial, Gen Y or Gen Z, you might not be familiar with The Who and Mod culture.
But in post-war Britain the Mods were a cultural phenomenon characterised by fashion, music, and of course, scooters. The young rebels were seen as a counter-culture to the establishment and The Who, with Roger Daltry’s lead vocals and Pete Townshend’s writing, were the soundtrack.
More on The Who
Related Topics:
Quadrophenia the album is widely regarded as an essay on the British adolescent experience at the time, focusing on the life of fictional protagonist Jimmy – a young Mod struggling with his sanity, self-doubt, and alienation.
Townshend sets the rock opera in 1965 but thinks its themes of identity, mental health, and modern masculinity are just as relevant today.
He says: “The phobias and the restrictions and the unwritten laws about how young men should behave. The ground that they broke, that we broke because I was a part of it.
“Men were letting go of [the] wartime-related, uniform-related stance that if I wear this kind of outfit it makes me look like a man.”

Paris Fitzpatrick and Pete Townshend. Pic: Johan Persson
This struggle of modern masculinity and identity appears to be echoing today as manosphere influencers like Andrew Tate, incel culture, and Netflix’s Adolescence make headlines.
For dancer Paris Fitzpatrick, who takes on the lead role of Jimmy, the story resonates.

Paris Fitzpatrick, who takes on the lead role of Jimmy in the ballet
“I think there’s a connection massively and I think there may even be a little more revival in some way,” he tells Sky News.
“I love that myself. I love non-conforming to gender norms and typical masculinity; I think it’s great to challenge things.”
Despite the album being written before he was born, the dancer says he was familiar with the genre already.
“I actually did an art GCSE project about Mods and rockers and Quadrophenia,” he says.
“I think we’ll be able to bring it to new audiences and hopefully, maybe people will be inspired to to learn more about their music and the whole cultural movement of the early 60s.”
Read more from Sky News:
Tributes to ‘genius’ Kilmer
Richest billionaires named
Springsteen’s seven new albums
In 1979, the album was adapted into a film directed by Franc Roddam starring Ray Winstone and Sting but Townshend admits because the film missed key points he is “not a big fan”.
“What it turned out to be in the movie was a story about culture, about social scenario and less about really the specifics of mental illness and how that affects young people,” he adds, also complimenting Roddam’s writing for the film.
Perhaps a testament to Pete Townshend’s creativity, Quadrophenia started as an album, was successfully adapted to film and now it will hit the stage as a contemporary ballet.
It appears that over six decades later Mod culture is still cool and their issues still relatable.
Quadrophenia, a Mod Ballet will tour to Plymouth Theatre Royal from 28 May to 1 June 2025, Edinburgh Festival Theatre from 10 to 14 June 2025 and the Mayflower, Southampton from 18 to 21 June 2025 before having its official opening at Sadler’s Wells Theatre, London on 24 June running to 13 July 2025 and then visiting The Lowry, Salford from 15 to 19 July 2025.
Business
‘We will see closures’: The industries hit the hardest by national insurance hike
Published
1 hour agoon
April 5, 2025By
admin
The cost of having staff is going up this Sunday as the increase in employers’ national insurance kicks in.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in the October budget employers will have to pay a 15% rate of national insurance contributions (NIC) on their employees from 6 April – up from 13.8%.
She also lowered the threshold at which employers pay NIC from £9,100 a year to £5,000 a year, meaning they start paying at an earlier point on staff salaries.
This is on top of the national minimum wage rising, the business relief rate for hospitality, retail and leisure reducing from 75% to 40% and the rising cost of ingredients and services.
Sky News spoke to people working in some of the industries that will be hardest hit by the rise in NIC: Nurseries, hospitality, retail, small businesses and care.
NURSERIES
Nearly all (96% of 728) nurseries surveyed by the National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA) said they will have no choice but to put up fees because of the NIC rise, leaving parents to pick up the shortfall.
More on Cost Of Living
Related Topics:
The NDNA has warned nurseries could close due to the rise, with 14% saying their business is at risk, 69% reducing spending on resources and 39% considering offering fewer places with government-funded hours as 92% said they do not cover their costs.
Sarah has two children, with her youngest starting later this month, but they were just informed fees will now be £92 a day – compared with £59 at the same nursery when her eldest started five years ago.
“I’m not sure how we will afford this. Our salaries haven’t increased by 50% during this time,” she said.
“We’re stuck as there aren’t enough nursery spaces in our area, so we will have to struggle.”
Karen Richards, director of the Wolds Childcare group in Nottinghamshire, has started a petition to get the government to exempt private nurseries – the majority of providers – from the NIC changes as she said it is unfair nurseries in schools do not have to pay the NIC.
She told Sky News she will have to find about £183,000 next year to cover the increase across her five nurseries and reducing staff numbers is “not off the table” but it is more likely they will reduce the number of children they have.

Joeli Brearley, founder of Pregnant Then Screwed, said parents are yet again having to pay the price for the government’s actions. Pic: Pregnant Then Screwed
Joeli Brearley, founder of the Pregnant Then Screwed campaign group, told Sky News: “Parents are already drowning in childcare costs, and now, thanks to the national insurance hike, nurseries are passing even more fees on to families who simply can’t afford it.
“It’s the same story every time – parents pay the price while the government looks the other way. How exactly are we meant to ‘boost the economy’ when we can’t even afford to go to work?”
Purnima Tanuku, executive chair of the NDNA, said staffing costs make up about 75% of nurseries’ costs and they will have to find £2,600 more per employee to pay for the NIC rise – £47,000 for an average nursery.
“The government says it wants to offer ‘cheaper childcare’ for parents on the one hand but then with the other expects nurseries to absorb the costs of National Insurance Contributions themselves,” she told Sky News.
“High-quality early education and care gives children the best start in life and enables parents to work. The government must invest in this vital infrastructure to make sure nurseries can continue to deliver this social and economic good.”
HOSPITALITY
The hospitality industry has warned of closures, price rises, lack of growth and shorter opening hours.
Dan Brod, co-owner of The Beckford Group, a small southwest England restaurant and country pub/hotel group, said the economic situation now is “much worse” than during COVID.
The group has put plans for two more projects on hold and Mr Brod said the only option is to put up prices, but with the rising supplier costs, wages, business rates and NIC hike they will “stay still” financially.
Read more:
Reeves admits it won’t be easy for businesses to absorb NI hike
UK businesses issue warning over ‘deeply troubling’ Trump tariffs

Dan Brod, co-owner of The Beckford Group, said the government does not value hospitality as an industry. Pic: The Beckford Group
He told Sky News: “What we’re nervous about is we’re still in the cost of living crisis and even though our places are in very wealthy areas of the country, Wiltshire, Somerset and Bath, people are feeling the situation in their pockets, people are going out less.”
Mr Brod said they are not getting rid of any staff as their business strongly depends on the quality of their hospitality so they are having to make savings elsewhere.
“I’m still optimistic, I still feel that humans need hospitality but we’re not valued as an industry and the social benefit is never taken into account by government.”

Chef/owner Aktar Islam, who runs Opheem in Birmingham, said the rise will cost him up to £120,000 more this year. Pic: Opheem
Aktar Islam, owner/chef at two Michelin-starred Opheem in Birmingham, said the NIC rise will cost him up to £120,000 more in staff costs a year and to maintain the financial position he is in now they would have to make “another million pounds”.
He got emails from eight suppliers on Thursday saying they were raising their costs, and said he will have to raise prices but is concerned about the impact on diners.
The restaurateur hires four commis chefs to train each year but will not be able to this year, or the next few.
“It’s very short-sighted of the government, you’re not going to grow the economy by taxing hospitality out of existence, these sort of businesses are the lifeblood of our economy,” he said.
“They think if a hospitality business closes another will open but people know it’s tough, why would they want to do that? It’s not going to happen.”
The chef sent hundreds of his “at home” kits to fellow chefs this week for their staff as an acknowledgement of how much of a “s*** show” the situation is – “a little hug from us”.
RETAIL
Some of the UK’s biggest retailers, including Tesco, Boots, Marks & Spencer and Next, wrote to Rachel Reeves after the budget to say the NIC hike would lead to higher consumer prices, smaller pay rises, job cuts and store closures.
The British Retail Consortium (BRC), representing more than 200 major retailers and brands, said the costs are so significant neither small or large retailers will be able to absorb them.
Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, told the Treasury committee in November that job losses due to the NIC changes were likely to be higher than the 50,000 forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

Big retailers have warned the NIC rise will lead to higher prices, job cuts and store closures. File pic: PA
Nick Stowe, chief executive of Monsoon and Accessorize, said retailers had the choice of protecting staff numbers or cancelling investment plans.
He said they were trying to protect staff numbers and would be increasing prices but they would likely have to halt plans to increase store numbers.
Helen Dickinson, head of the BRC, told Sky News the national living wage rise and NIC increase will cost businesses £5bn, adding more than 10% to the cost of hiring someone in an entry-level role.
A further tax on packaging coming in October means retailers will face £7bn in extra costs this year, she said.
“This huge cost burden will undoubtedly reduce investment in stores and jobs and is likely to lead to higher prices,” she added.
SMALL BUSINESSES
A massive 85% of 1,400 small business owners surveyed by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) in March reported rising costs compared with the same time last year, with 47% citing tax as the main barrier to growth – the highest level in more than a decade.
Just 8% of those businesses saw an increase in staff numbers over the last quarter, while 21% had to reduce their workforce.
Kate Rumsey, whose family has run Rumsey’s Chocolates in Wendover, Buckinghamshire and Thame, Oxfordshire, for 21 years, said the NIC rise, minimum wage increase and business relief rate reduction will push her staff costs up by 15 to 17% – £70,000 to £80,000 annually.
To offset those costs, she has had to reduce opening hours, including closing on Sundays and bank holidays in one shop for the first time ever, make one person redundant, not replace short-term staff and introduce a hiring freeze.
The soaring price of cocoa has added to her woes and she has had to increase prices by about 10% and will raise them further.

Kate Rumsey, who runs Rumsey’s Chocolates in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, said they are being forced to take a short-term view to survive. Pic: Rumsey’s Chocolates
She told Sky News: “We’re very much taking more of a short-term view at the moment, it’s so seasonal in this business so I said to the team we’ll just get through Q1 then re-evaluate.
“I feel this is a bit about the survival of the fittest and many businesses won’t survive.”
Tina McKenzie, policy chair of the FSB, said the NIC rise “holds back growth” and has seen small business confidence drop to its lowest point since the first year of the pandemic.
With the “highest tax burden for 70 years”, she called on the chancellor to introduce a “raft of pro-small business measures” in the autumn budget so it can deliver on its pledge for growth.
She reminded employers they can claim the Employment Allowance, which has doubled after an FSB campaign to take the first £10,500 off an employer’s annual bill.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:46
National Insurance rise impacts carers
CARE
The care sector has been warning the government since the October that budget care homes will be forced to close due to the financial pressures the employers’ national insurance rise will place on them.
Care homes receive funding from councils as well as from private fees, but as local authorities feel the squeeze more and more their contributions are not keeping up with rising costs.
The industry has argued without it the NHS would be crippled.
Raj Sehgal, founding director of ArmsCare, a family-run group of six care homes in Norfolk, said the NIC increase means a £360,000 annual impact on the group’s £3.6m payroll.
In an attempt to offset those costs, the group is scrapping staff bonuses and freezing management salaries.
It is also considering reducing day hours, where there are more staff on, so the fewer numbers of night staff work longer hours and with no paid break.

Raj Sehgal said his family-owned group of care homes will need £360,000 extra this year for the NIC hike
Mr Sehgal said: “But what that does do unfortunately, is impact the quality you’re going to be able to provide, at a time when we need to be improving quality, but something has to give.
“The government just doesn’t seem to understand that the funding needs to be there. You cannot keep enforcing higher costs on businesses and not be able to fund those without actually finding the money from somewhere.”
He said the issue is exacerbated by the fact local authority funding, despite increasing to 5%, will not cover the 10% rise.
“It’s going to be a really, really tough ride. And we are going to see a number of providers close their doors,” he warned.
Nadra Ahmed, executive co-chair of the National Care Association, said those who receive, or are waiting to access, care as well as staff will feel the impact the hardest.
“As providers see further shortfalls in the commissioning of care services, they will start to limit what they can do to ensure their viability or, as a last resort exit the market,” she said.
“This is very short-sighted, with serious consequences, which alludes to the understanding of this government.”
Government decided to ‘wipe the slate clean’
A Treasury spokesperson told Sky News the government is “pro-business” but has “taken the difficult but necessary decisions to wipe the slate clean and properly fund our public services after years of declines”.
“Our budget choices have already delivered an NHS with falling waiting lists, a £3.7bn rescue package for social care, and vital protection for Britain’s small businesses,” they said.
“We’re making tough choices today to secure a better tomorrow through our Plan for Change. By investing in economic growth and early years education while capping corporation tax, we’re putting more money in working people’s pockets and giving every child the best start in life.”
Politics
‘We will see closures’: The industries hit the hardest by national insurance hike
Published
1 hour agoon
April 5, 2025By
admin
The cost of having staff is going up this Sunday as the increase in employers’ national insurance kicks in.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in the October budget employers will have to pay a 15% rate of national insurance contributions (NIC) on their employees from 6 April – up from 13.8%.
She also lowered the threshold at which employers pay NIC from £9,100 a year to £5,000 a year, meaning they start paying at an earlier point on staff salaries.
This is on top of the national minimum wage rising, the business relief rate for hospitality, retail and leisure reducing from 75% to 40% and the rising cost of ingredients and services.
Sky News spoke to people working in some of the industries that will be hardest hit by the rise in NIC: Nurseries, hospitality, retail, small businesses and care.
NURSERIES
Nearly all (96% of 728) nurseries surveyed by the National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA) said they will have no choice but to put up fees because of the NIC rise, leaving parents to pick up the shortfall.
More on Cost Of Living
Related Topics:
The NDNA has warned nurseries could close due to the rise, with 14% saying their business is at risk, 69% reducing spending on resources and 39% considering offering fewer places with government-funded hours as 92% said they do not cover their costs.
Sarah has two children, with her youngest starting later this month, but they were just informed fees will now be £92 a day – compared with £59 at the same nursery when her eldest started five years ago.
“I’m not sure how we will afford this. Our salaries haven’t increased by 50% during this time,” she said.
“We’re stuck as there aren’t enough nursery spaces in our area, so we will have to struggle.”
Karen Richards, director of the Wolds Childcare group in Nottinghamshire, has started a petition to get the government to exempt private nurseries – the majority of providers – from the NIC changes as she said it is unfair nurseries in schools do not have to pay the NIC.
She told Sky News she will have to find about £183,000 next year to cover the increase across her five nurseries and reducing staff numbers is “not off the table” but it is more likely they will reduce the number of children they have.

Joeli Brearley, founder of Pregnant Then Screwed, said parents are yet again having to pay the price for the government’s actions. Pic: Pregnant Then Screwed
Joeli Brearley, founder of the Pregnant Then Screwed campaign group, told Sky News: “Parents are already drowning in childcare costs, and now, thanks to the national insurance hike, nurseries are passing even more fees on to families who simply can’t afford it.
“It’s the same story every time – parents pay the price while the government looks the other way. How exactly are we meant to ‘boost the economy’ when we can’t even afford to go to work?”
Purnima Tanuku, executive chair of the NDNA, said staffing costs make up about 75% of nurseries’ costs and they will have to find £2,600 more per employee to pay for the NIC rise – £47,000 for an average nursery.
“The government says it wants to offer ‘cheaper childcare’ for parents on the one hand but then with the other expects nurseries to absorb the costs of National Insurance Contributions themselves,” she told Sky News.
“High-quality early education and care gives children the best start in life and enables parents to work. The government must invest in this vital infrastructure to make sure nurseries can continue to deliver this social and economic good.”
HOSPITALITY
The hospitality industry has warned of closures, price rises, lack of growth and shorter opening hours.
Dan Brod, co-owner of The Beckford Group, a small southwest England restaurant and country pub/hotel group, said the economic situation now is “much worse” than during COVID.
The group has put plans for two more projects on hold and Mr Brod said the only option is to put up prices, but with the rising supplier costs, wages, business rates and NIC hike they will “stay still” financially.
Read more:
Reeves admits it won’t be easy for businesses to absorb NI hike
UK businesses issue warning over ‘deeply troubling’ Trump tariffs

Dan Brod, co-owner of The Beckford Group, said the government does not value hospitality as an industry. Pic: The Beckford Group
He told Sky News: “What we’re nervous about is we’re still in the cost of living crisis and even though our places are in very wealthy areas of the country, Wiltshire, Somerset and Bath, people are feeling the situation in their pockets, people are going out less.”
Mr Brod said they are not getting rid of any staff as their business strongly depends on the quality of their hospitality so they are having to make savings elsewhere.
“I’m still optimistic, I still feel that humans need hospitality but we’re not valued as an industry and the social benefit is never taken into account by government.”

Chef/owner Aktar Islam, who runs Opheem in Birmingham, said the rise will cost him up to £120,000 more this year. Pic: Opheem
Aktar Islam, owner/chef at two Michelin-starred Opheem in Birmingham, said the NIC rise will cost him up to £120,000 more in staff costs a year and to maintain the financial position he is in now they would have to make “another million pounds”.
He got emails from eight suppliers on Thursday saying they were raising their costs, and said he will have to raise prices but is concerned about the impact on diners.
The restaurateur hires four commis chefs to train each year but will not be able to this year, or the next few.
“It’s very short-sighted of the government, you’re not going to grow the economy by taxing hospitality out of existence, these sort of businesses are the lifeblood of our economy,” he said.
“They think if a hospitality business closes another will open but people know it’s tough, why would they want to do that? It’s not going to happen.”
The chef sent hundreds of his “at home” kits to fellow chefs this week for their staff as an acknowledgement of how much of a “s*** show” the situation is – “a little hug from us”.
RETAIL
Some of the UK’s biggest retailers, including Tesco, Boots, Marks & Spencer and Next, wrote to Rachel Reeves after the budget to say the NIC hike would lead to higher consumer prices, smaller pay rises, job cuts and store closures.
The British Retail Consortium (BRC), representing more than 200 major retailers and brands, said the costs are so significant neither small or large retailers will be able to absorb them.
Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, told the Treasury committee in November that job losses due to the NIC changes were likely to be higher than the 50,000 forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

Big retailers have warned the NIC rise will lead to higher prices, job cuts and store closures. File pic: PA
Nick Stowe, chief executive of Monsoon and Accessorize, said retailers had the choice of protecting staff numbers or cancelling investment plans.
He said they were trying to protect staff numbers and would be increasing prices but they would likely have to halt plans to increase store numbers.
Helen Dickinson, head of the BRC, told Sky News the national living wage rise and NIC increase will cost businesses £5bn, adding more than 10% to the cost of hiring someone in an entry-level role.
A further tax on packaging coming in October means retailers will face £7bn in extra costs this year, she said.
“This huge cost burden will undoubtedly reduce investment in stores and jobs and is likely to lead to higher prices,” she added.
SMALL BUSINESSES
A massive 85% of 1,400 small business owners surveyed by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) in March reported rising costs compared with the same time last year, with 47% citing tax as the main barrier to growth – the highest level in more than a decade.
Just 8% of those businesses saw an increase in staff numbers over the last quarter, while 21% had to reduce their workforce.
Kate Rumsey, whose family has run Rumsey’s Chocolates in Wendover, Buckinghamshire and Thame, Oxfordshire, for 21 years, said the NIC rise, minimum wage increase and business relief rate reduction will push her staff costs up by 15 to 17% – £70,000 to £80,000 annually.
To offset those costs, she has had to reduce opening hours, including closing on Sundays and bank holidays in one shop for the first time ever, make one person redundant, not replace short-term staff and introduce a hiring freeze.
The soaring price of cocoa has added to her woes and she has had to increase prices by about 10% and will raise them further.

Kate Rumsey, who runs Rumsey’s Chocolates in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, said they are being forced to take a short-term view to survive. Pic: Rumsey’s Chocolates
She told Sky News: “We’re very much taking more of a short-term view at the moment, it’s so seasonal in this business so I said to the team we’ll just get through Q1 then re-evaluate.
“I feel this is a bit about the survival of the fittest and many businesses won’t survive.”
Tina McKenzie, policy chair of the FSB, said the NIC rise “holds back growth” and has seen small business confidence drop to its lowest point since the first year of the pandemic.
With the “highest tax burden for 70 years”, she called on the chancellor to introduce a “raft of pro-small business measures” in the autumn budget so it can deliver on its pledge for growth.
She reminded employers they can claim the Employment Allowance, which has doubled after an FSB campaign to take the first £10,500 off an employer’s annual bill.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:46
National Insurance rise impacts carers
CARE
The care sector has been warning the government since the October that budget care homes will be forced to close due to the financial pressures the employers’ national insurance rise will place on them.
Care homes receive funding from councils as well as from private fees, but as local authorities feel the squeeze more and more their contributions are not keeping up with rising costs.
The industry has argued without it the NHS would be crippled.
Raj Sehgal, founding director of ArmsCare, a family-run group of six care homes in Norfolk, said the NIC increase means a £360,000 annual impact on the group’s £3.6m payroll.
In an attempt to offset those costs, the group is scrapping staff bonuses and freezing management salaries.
It is also considering reducing day hours, where there are more staff on, so the fewer numbers of night staff work longer hours and with no paid break.

Raj Sehgal said his family-owned group of care homes will need £360,000 extra this year for the NIC hike
Mr Sehgal said: “But what that does do unfortunately, is impact the quality you’re going to be able to provide, at a time when we need to be improving quality, but something has to give.
“The government just doesn’t seem to understand that the funding needs to be there. You cannot keep enforcing higher costs on businesses and not be able to fund those without actually finding the money from somewhere.”
He said the issue is exacerbated by the fact local authority funding, despite increasing to 5%, will not cover the 10% rise.
“It’s going to be a really, really tough ride. And we are going to see a number of providers close their doors,” he warned.
Nadra Ahmed, executive co-chair of the National Care Association, said those who receive, or are waiting to access, care as well as staff will feel the impact the hardest.
“As providers see further shortfalls in the commissioning of care services, they will start to limit what they can do to ensure their viability or, as a last resort exit the market,” she said.
“This is very short-sighted, with serious consequences, which alludes to the understanding of this government.”
Government decided to ‘wipe the slate clean’
A Treasury spokesperson told Sky News the government is “pro-business” but has “taken the difficult but necessary decisions to wipe the slate clean and properly fund our public services after years of declines”.
“Our budget choices have already delivered an NHS with falling waiting lists, a £3.7bn rescue package for social care, and vital protection for Britain’s small businesses,” they said.
“We’re making tough choices today to secure a better tomorrow through our Plan for Change. By investing in economic growth and early years education while capping corporation tax, we’re putting more money in working people’s pockets and giving every child the best start in life.”
Trending
-
Sports2 years ago
‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months ago
Story injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year ago
Game 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years ago
MLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years ago
Japan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years ago
Game-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years ago
Bank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway