Connect with us

Published

on

Now that the election is over, Donald Trump has returned to one of his most cherished pastimes: filing nuisance lawsuits. Abusing the legal system was a key precept of Trumps decades-long career as a celebrity business tycoon, and he kept it up, out of habit or perhaps enjoyment, during his first term as president.

The newest round of litigation is different. Trump has broadened his targets to include not just reporters and commentators but pollsters. On Monday, his lawyers filed an absurd lawsuit against the pollster J. Ann Selzer, accusing her of election interference and consumer fraud for a now-infamous poll released on the eve of the election that showed Trump losing to Kamala Harris in Iowa. (The lawsuit also names The Des Moines Register, which published the poll, and its parent company, Gannett, as defendants.) An even more important difference is the behavior of the targets of his threats. Unlike during his first term, when they mostly laughed off his ridiculous suits, much of the medias ownership class now seems inclined to submit.

Last Saturday, ABC News revealed that it had decided to settle a Trump lawsuit, donating $15 million to a future Trump presidential museum and paying $1 million in legal fees. The pretext for Trumps suit was an interview by George Stephanopoulos, a frequent Trump target, with Representative Nancy Mace, in which he said Donald Trump has been found liable for rape by a jury. Stephanopoulos was describing a lawsuit in which the jury found that Trump had forcibly penetrated the writer E. Jean Carroll with his hands, but not with his penisan act that is currently defined as rape under New York law, but that was not at the time the assault happened. This is an exceedingly narrow ground for a libel suit, not to mention an odd distinction upon which to stake a public defense. According to The New York Times, ABC decided to settle in part because Disney, its parent company, feared blowback.

ABC may not be alone in this. Since the prospect of a Trump restoration began to seem likely earlier this year, corporate titans have been transparently sucking up to him. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, not only spiked that newspapers endorsement of Harris, but since the election has demanded that an editorial expressing concern over Trumps Cabinet choices be balanced with opinions expressing the opposite view, according to multiple reports. The Washington Posts owner, Jeff Bezos, notoriously overruled his papers planned endorsement of Harris as well. Bezos defended this decision as merely a poorly communicated and clumsily timed choice to halt presidential endorsements on journalistic principles that had nothing to do with Trump.

Paul Farhi: Why Trump wont stop suing the media and losing

This would have been a reasonable editorial decision in the absence of context. The context, however, is that Trump intervened to stop the Pentagon from awarding a $10 billion contract to Amazon during his first term, and is in a position to dish out additional punishments to Bezos, including to his space business, during his second. Bezos has showered Trump with praiseIm actually very optimistic this time around, he said at an event earlier this monthwhich seems to undermine the rationale for stopping endorsements. How is it that a newspapers editorial page endorsing a candidate exposes it to charges of bias, but public support by the owner for the presidents agenda does not?

Amazon has pledged $1 million to Trumps inauguration committee. So has Meta, whose founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, recently stood respectfully, with his hand over his heart, at a gathering at Mar-a-Lago as a recording of The Star-Spangled Banner performed by imprisoned defendants accused of participating in the January 6 insurrection played over the speakers. (According to reports, the identity of the singers was not announced, if you happen to think that would have made any difference in his behavior.)

The leverage point Trump has recognized is that most major media properties are tied to some larger fortune: Amazon, Disney, NantWorks (the technology conglomerate owned by Soon-Shiong), and so on. All those business interests benefit from government cooperation and can be harmed by unfavorable policy choices. Trump can threaten these owners because he mostly does not care about policy for its own sake, is able to bring Republicans along with almost any stance he adopts, and has no public-spirited image to maintain. To the contrary, he has cultivated a reputation for venality and corruption (his allies euphemistically call him transactional), which makes his strongman threats exceedingly credible.

What about the billionaires who dont own a legacy-media property? The idea of Resistance has fallen deeply out of fashion at the moment. But if any wealthy donors still care about defending free speech and democracy, they might consider a civil-defense fund for the less well-resourced targets of Trumps litigation spreewith the potential to expand into criminal defense once Trump officially takes over the Justice Department. The Register is unlikely to be the last small publication targeted by Trump. During the campaign, his mainstream Republican supporters explained away his repeated threats of revenge against his perceived enemies by insisting that he didnt really mean them. The latest flurry of absurd lawsuits makes clear that he very much does.

Continue Reading

Politics

Wes Streeting rules out pay rises for striking resident doctors saying they have ‘squandered goodwill’

Published

on

By

Wes Streeting rules out pay rises for striking resident doctors saying they have 'squandered goodwill'

Resident doctors have “squandered the considerable goodwill” they had with the government by going on strike, Health Secretary Wes Streeting has told them.

The medics – formerly known as junior doctors – finished a five-day strike over pay on Wednesday morning. The group were awarded a close to 30% raise last year but say they want more in an attempt to bring their pay back in line with what they had in 2008.

Mr Streeting previously said he would not negotiate further on pay but would consider taking steps on working conditions.

He has reiterated that stance – and continued to put pressure on negotiations to start again on the government’s terms.

The British Medical Association Resident Doctors Committee, which represents the doctors, have not ruled out further action.

In a letter sent today to the co-chairs of the committee, Mr Streeting thanked them for an invitation to “get back to the negotiating table” – but added the barb that it was “ironic because I never left”.

“I am ready to continue the conversation from where you left it,” he added.

More on Strikes

He went on to say the strikes were “deeply disappointing and entirely unnecessary” – adding that there were “seemingly promising discussions” about improving doctors’ working lives.

Read more:
BMA defends refusing ‘critical’ work
Tories vow to ban doctor strikes
Labour doesn’t have what doctors want

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘No doctor wants to go out on strike’

‘We cannot move on pay’

Mr Streeting criticised the committee, saying they “rushed to strike”.

His letter added: “The consequences of your strike action have been a detrimental impact on patients, your members, your colleagues and the NHS, which might have been worse were it not for the considerable efforts of NHS leaders and front-line staff who stepped up.

“Your action has also been self-defeating, because you have squandered the considerable goodwill you had with me and this government. I cannot in good conscience let patients, or other NHS staff, pay the price for the costs of your decision.”

The health secretary said he wanted to “reset the relationship” between the government and young doctors following the previous industrial action.

Mr Streeting went on to say he is “serious about improving working conditions” but has been clear “we cannot move on pay”.

“This government is prepared to negotiate on areas related to your conditions at work, career progression and tangible measures which would put money in your members’ pockets,” he added.

👉Listen to Politics At Sam And Anne’s on your podcast app👈

Mr Streeting concluded: “I was critical of my predecessors when they closed the door to the Junior Doctors Committee.

“My door remains open to the hope that we can still build the partnership with resident doctors I aspired to when I came in a year ago and, in that spirit, I am happy to meet with you early next week.”

A BMA spokesperson said: “The resident doctors committee has received the letter from Mr Streeting and is considering its response.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Companies who pay suppliers late to be fined

Published

on

By

Companies who pay suppliers late to be fined

Companies which continually pay their suppliers late will face fines worth potentially millions of pounds, the prime minister has announced.

Sir Keir Starmer said “It’s time to pay up” as the government is set to unveil plans to give the small business commissioner powers to fine large companies that persistently pay their suppliers late.

Under the new legislation, businesses will have to pay their suppliers within 30 days of receiving a valid invoice, unless otherwise agreed, with spot checks to help identify breaches.

Maximum payment terms of 60 days, reducing to 45 days, will also be introduced as part of the legislation to ensure businesses are paid on time.

Late payments cost the UK economy £11 billion a year and shut down 38 businesses a day, the government said.

The new law will save small and medium businesses time so they can focus on growing their revenue, it added.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer at the launch of the 10-year health plan in east London. Pic: PA
Image:
Chancellor Rachel Reeves and PM Sir Keir Starmer. Pic: PA

Sir Keir said: “From builders and electricians to freelance designers and manufacturers – too many hardworking people are being forced to spend precious hours chasing payments instead of doing what they do best – growing their businesses.

More on Sir Keir Starmer

“It’s unfair, it’s exhausting, and it’s holding Britain back. So, our message is clear: it’s time to pay up.

“Through our Small Business Plan, we’re not only tackling the scourge of late payments once and for all, but we’re giving small business owners the backing and stability they need for their business to thrive, driving growth across the country through our Plan for Change.”

The late payment crackdown is part of a wider government package, including a move to pump £4bn of financial support into small business start-ups and growth.

This will include £1bn for new firms, with 69,000 start-up loans and mentoring support.

Read more:
Sainsbury’s blames Visa card issues for online payment failure
Streeting rules out pay rises for striking doctors

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

The value of ‘de minimis’ imports into Britain

The Conservatives said the crackdown will be welcome, but fails to address the “218,000 businesses that have closed under Labour”.

Andrew Griffith, the Tory shadow business secretary, added: “The reality for businesses under Labour is a doubling of business rates, a £25billion jobs tax and a full-on strangulation of employment red tape.

“Only the Conservatives are on the side of the makers and will support businesses across Britain to create jobs and wealth.”

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has increased employers’ national insurance, raised the minimum wage and lowered the threshold at which employers’ national insurance is paid.

The Resolution Foundation said this hits the cost of low-paid and part-time workers the most.

Continue Reading

Politics

How is Starmer’s government doing? Here’s what ‘end-of-term’ report from voters says

Published

on

By

How is Starmer's government doing? Here's what 'end-of-term' report from voters says

One year on, how’s Keir Starmer’s government going? We’ve put together an end-of-term report with the help of pollster YouGov.

First, here are the government’s approval ratings – drifting downwards.

It didn’t start particularly high. There has never been a honeymoon.

But here is the big change. Last year’s Labour voters now disapprove of their own government. That wasn’t true at the start – but is now.

And remember, it’s easier to keep your existing voter coalition together than to get new ones from elsewhere.

So we have looked at where voters who backed Labour last year have gone now.

YouGov’s last mega poll shows half of Labour voters last year – 51% – say they would vote for them again if an election was held tomorrow.

Around one in five (19%) say they don’t know who they’d vote for – or wouldn’t vote.

But Labour are also leaking votes to the Lib Dems, Greens and Reform.

These are the main reasons why.

A sense that Labour haven’t delivered on their promises is top – just above the cost of living. Some 22% say they’ve been too right-wing, with a similar number saying Labour have “made no difference”. Immigration and public services are also up there.

Now, YouGov asked people whether they think the cabinet is doing a good or a bad job, and combined the two figures together to get a net score.

John Healey and Bridget Phillipson are on top, but the big beats of Angela Rayner, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves bottom.

But it’s not over for Labour.

Here’s one scenario – 2024 Labour voters say they would much prefer a Labour-led government over a Conservative one.

But what about a Reform UK-led government? Well, Labour polls even better against them – just 11% of people who voted Labour in 2024 want to see them enter Number 10.

Signs of hope for Keir Starmer. But as Labour MPs head off for their summer holidays, few of their voters would give this government an A*.

Continue Reading

Trending