Alex Snowdon on protest, pay and the new authoritarianism

The extremely draconian prison sentences given to five Just Stop Oil activists have prompted shock and outrage. Roger Hallam was handed a 5-year sentence while his four co-defendants received 4-year sentences. The sentences were for planning disruptive but non-violent direct action on the M25 to highlight climate change. A UN special rapporteur, Michael Forst, called the sentences ‘punitive and repressive’.

The sentences are part of a wider tendency to state authoritarianism. For example, we have seen repeated efforts to curtail the mass movement for Palestine since the current genocide in Gaza began last October. These efforts have been accompanied by racist demonisation of those protesting. It is the sheer scale of the movement, and its intransigence, that has pushed back against these attempts, keeping open the space for protests.

The government has claimed that it cannot intervene because that would undermine the independence of the judiciary. This is disingenuous. While direct intervention by politicians in sentencing is inappropriate, it is politicians who have created the context in which judgements like these can be made. It is the responsibility of the new government to change those political conditions.

It is unlikely to do this. The current authoritarianism stems from the multiple crises in our society. The political establishment is more likely to resort to state coercion when it struggles to govern by consent. Labour rarely opposed Tory initiatives that attacked our rights and, now in office, it is unlikely to change direction.

I am not a fan of Just Stop Oil’s modus operandi. There is absolutely a place for direct action as part of a broader mass protest movement, but their high-profile stunts put the emphasis on a tiny number of dedicated activists at the expense of building big and broad. Their actions often needlessly alienate potential allies while generating discussion about tactics rather than the substantial issues.

I’m not convinced that ‘dramatising’ the climate crisis makes the impact its proponents think it does. There is already widespread awareness of the crisis – what’s needed is focused political demands and a mass movement to back them up, together with an anti-systemic perspective that locates capitalism as the source of the climate catastrophe.

Such political and tactical differences, however, are irrelevant to whether these activists deserve defending. Heavy-handed punishments make it harder for everyone to organise over the climate crisis, including those with very different tactics to Hallam and co. Indeed they risk being a deterrent to protesters on a range of issues.

This danger was expressed forcefully by Forst: ‘It’s a very dangerous ruling, not only for environmental protesters, but also for the right to protest as such, because we understand now that those who would like to go to the street to demonstrate, to organise a rally, they would consider twice before going out. That’s a deterrent for the right to protest in the UK.’

The new Labour government has opportunities to roll back authoritarianism. The Tories’ anti-boycott bill (targeting BDS tactics against Israeli apartheid) had to be abandoned when the early general election was called. Minimum Service Levels proposals – undermining workers’ ability to legally take effective strike action – appear to have been abandoned too.

In both cases, we should welcome the failure to drive through new attacks on our rights to protest, strike and campaign. But we cannot be complacent: there will be fresh attempts to erode our rights.

Reeves under pressure

The Times had a story on Saturday, based on a leak, claiming that pay review bodies for teachers and NHS staff are recommending 5.5% pay rises. This is significantly above current inflation and, for that reason, has surprised many people.

It is a result of three kinds of pressure. There is pressure from trade unions, with threats of strike action. The strike upsurge in 2022-23 is a reminder of what is possible.

There is also the pressure of pay rises in the wider economy – 5.5% is apparently the preferred figure because it matches average pay rises across the workforce generally. It is a curious paradox in 2024 that, while trade unions in general remain quite weak, workers’ indirect bargaining power is actually strong: a tight labour supply situation in many sectors is forcing up wages without the need for much strike action.

Finally, there is the pressure that arises from staff shortages in the NHS and education. The government really does need to recruit and retain staff to avoid collapse in core public services. Without pay rises, there will be a drastic crisis of labour supply.

This creates a dilemma for Rachel Reeves, the new chancellor of the exchequer. At the weekend, she remarked that there is “a cost to not settling” disputes about public sector pay. This has fuelled speculation that she will confirm the pay awards before the end of July. It is an intriguing turn of phrase, implying an awareness that strike action could be the result of failing to award increases. It also refers to the recruitment and retention crises in both the NHS and education.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that a similar pay rise extended to the whole of the public sector would cost £10 billion a year. This is causing alarm in government circles and among centrist commentators, keen to promote the supposed need for fiscal restraint.

Yet this is extremely misguided. The alternative to continued austerity is what has come to be known as ‘tax and spend’. This is one of those words or phrases – like ‘welfare’ and ‘benefits’ – that once had a more neutral or positive meaning, but after decades of right-wing propaganda has come to be viewed as A Bad Thing. It is taboo to propose higher taxes.

Despite this, increasing taxes to fund better services and infrastructure retains a lot of popular support – especially when it is clear that such tax rises are progressive in nature. That means things like higher corporation tax, a new wealth tax and an increase in income tax for the highest earners. In such a deeply unequal society as ours, redistribution of wealth is urgently needed. After years of Tory austerity, our public services and infrastructure desperately need investment.

Reeves, meanwhile, is continuing to resist calls for the two-child benefit cap to be scrapped on the basis of its cost. This is a measure that would single-handedly lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. The issue has become one of a number of flashpoints in giving a focus to opposition (from the left) to the new government’s agenda. It is the subject of an amendment tabled to the King’s Speech.

Billions of pounds every year would be freed up if Keir Starmer ditched his pledge to reach 2.5% of GDP going on military spending. It speaks volumes about Starmer and Reeves that they are willing to see children live in poverty while boosting spending on arms and war.