General secretary of the General Federation of Trade Unions GAWAIN LITTLE calls for support and participation in the national partnership organised to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 1926 general strike
Latest editorial
Inside the Mental Health Bill
PROFESSOR ANSELM ELDERGILL explains why this new piece of government legislation is giving cause for concern
12mentalhealth
After brutal police crackdowns on pensioners and the forced approval of secret IMF deals, trade unions are finally responding to grassroots pressure and fighting back against savage neoliberal reforms, reports BERT SCHOUWENBURG
Bizarrely, Trump’s latest attacks now include the National Zoo, but his real and racist agenda is to strip everything black from the country’s cultural institutions, writes LINDA PENTZ GUNTER
The transformation of a stable secular state into a fractured ruin largely ruled by Western-backed fundamentalists exposes the hollow nature of ‘multipolarity’ and the absence of principled anti-imperialism today, writes ZOLTAN ZIGEDY
Facing economic turmoil, Jim Callaghan’s government rejected Tony Benn’s alternative economic strategy in favour of cuts that paved the way for Thatcherism — and the cuts-loving Labour of the present era, writes KEITH FLETT
The economic value of disability benefits far outweighs their cost, argues Dr DYLAN MURPHY
As tensions rise in the Middle East, the role of Iran in the region’s political balance becomes ever more significant. STEVE BISHOP assesses the current situation
THE government’s Mental Health Bill is currently before Parliament. It amends the Mental Health Act 1983, which is the Act of Parliament under which people are “sectioned.”
The Bill is the culmination of a process which the then prime minister Theresa May begun in 2017 when she commissioned an independent review of the 1983 Act by a panel under Professor Simon Wessely. I chaired the Patient Safeguards and Mental Health Tribunals Working Group which formed part of that review.
The Bill is disappointingly limited in scope and ambition. The current system is 66 years old, as old as the Lunacy Act 1890 was when it was replaced by the present framework in the 1950s. We needed a new Act. Eight years on, we have an amending Bill that preserves the framework and much of the old legislation.
More from this author
In a legal system that is increasingly removing judicial discretion, the fundamental question remains whether justice requires a compassionate heart or a dispassionate application of Parliament’s will, writes ANSELM ELDERGILL
Removing unnecessary bureaucracy and other avoidable costs could save up to a quarter-billion, giving us painless solutions to protect legal aid, writes PROFESSOR ANSELM ELDERGILL
ANSELM ELDERGILL details the problems associated with the Assisted Dying Bill which has its second reading on Friday
