radiofree.asia

Category: poverty

  • Why the Republican Party Is Trying to Cut Healthcare to the Poor

    On May 7, the AP headlined “House GOP backing off some Medicaid cuts as report shows millions of people would lose health care,” and reported:

    House Republicans appear to be backing off some, but not all, of the steep reductions to the Medicaid program as part of their big tax breaks bill, as they run into resistance from more centrist GOP lawmakers opposed to ending nearly-free health care coverage for their constituents back home.

    This is as a new report out Wednesday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that millions of Americans would lose Medicaid coverage under the various proposals being circulated by Republicans as cost-saving measures. House Republicans are scrounging to come up with as much as $1.5 trillion in cuts across federal government health, food stamp and other programs, to offset the revenue lost for some $4.5 trillion in tax breaks.

    “Under each of those options, Medicaid enrollment would decrease and the number of people without health insurance would increase,” the CBO report said.

    The Republican President Donald Trump presented to Congress on May 2 his proposed federal budget for 2026.

    On May 2nd the U.S. White House — which has made clear that it’s beating the drums for war against China — headlined “Office of Management and Budget Releases the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Skinny Budget” and reported that “The Budget, which reduces non-defense discretionary by $163 billion or 23 percent from the 2025 enacted level, guts a weaponized deep state while providing historic increases for defense and border security. … Defense spending would increase by 13 percent, and appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security would increase by nearly 65 percent, to ensure that our military and other agencies repelling the invasion of our border have the resources they need to complete the mission.” His budget “guts a weaponized deep state while providing historic increases for defense and border security,” and health care for the poor is part of that “weaponized deep state” he is referring to, which Republicans say must be cut in order to provide these “historic increases for defense and border security.”

    All of those increases would go towards paying the suppliers (such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc.) to the enormously militarized police-state, at the very same time that the health, education, and welfare, of the voters, will be reduced by $165 billion or 23% below the current level.

    Here are some more details regarding what that “weaponized deep state” (to use the White House’s phrase for it) consists of:

    The White House’s May 2 “Major Discretionary Funding Changes” says that:

    For Defense spending [ONLY the Defense Department, NOT including the approximately $700 billion yearly of annual U.S. military spending that is being paid out from OTHER federal Departments], the President proposes an increase of 13 percent to $1.01 trillion for FY 2026; for Homeland Security, the Budget commits a historic $175 billion investment to, at long last, fully secure our border. Under the proposal, a portion of these increases — at least $325 billion assumed in the budget resolution recently agreed to by the Congress — would be provided through reconciliation, to ensure that our military and other agencies repelling the invasion of our border have the resources needed to complete the mission. This mandatory supplement to discretionary spending would enable the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, among others, to clean up the mess President Trump inherited from the prior administration and harden the border and other defenses to protect America from foreign invasion.

    Therefore, approximately $1.7T of total military spending is being sought by Trump (including the 13% increase to the Defense Department), while he is proposing to cut all other discretionary spending (which had previously constituted the other 47% of all U.S. Government annually appropriated federal spending (and which was previously around $800B per year) to be cut down now by $165B to around $635B total, or about 37% of all annually appropriated federal spending. Only the +13% for the Pentagon, and the +65% for the Department of Homeland Security, are increased, while everything else is getting cut drastically in order to make those increases possible.

    So, while around $1.7T will be going to the military, only around $635B will be going to pay all of the other discretionary spending (including any non-military portion of the DHS). That will cut the percentage of the Government’s discretionary spending on non-military purposes down from its prior approximately 47% of the federal budget, down to approximately 37% of all of the Government’s discretionary spending.

    Medicaid — health care to the poor — is on their chopping block so that the Defense Department portion of that $1.7T military cost that the U.S. Government will be paying in 2026 will be increased by 13% (and so that any non-military portion of the 65% increase to the DHS will also be paid).

    Looking further at WHAT is being cut the most, the White House document shows that the only part of the Department of Education that will be increased — by $60 million — is “Charter Schools,” the part that privatizes public-school education, which is the part that billionaires want to increase (since their hedge funds etc. will be owning much of it). Meanwhile, Title 1 and K-12 federal spending will be reduced by $4.535 billion; and the program to incentivize colleges to “to engage with low-income students and increase access” will be cut by $1.579 B.

    The Department of Health and Human Services will cut $4.035 from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), $1.970B from the Refugee and Unaccompanied Alien Children Program, $1.732B from AIDS and financial-assistance health programs, $3.588B from CDC and Prevention programs, $17.965B from NIH, $1.065B from programs working with addicts to help them reduce their addictions.

    The Environmental Protection Agency will be cut $2.460B for Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds, and under a billion dollars each for such programs as the Hazardous Substance Superfund.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development will be cut by $26.718B that goes to programs for the poor.

    The Treasury Department will be cut by $2.488B for the IRS.

    The National Science Foundation will be cut by $3.479B and by an additional $1.130B for “Broadening Participation.”

    Most of the other cuts will be below a billion dollars.

    Are these massive reallocations away from programs to the needy (and from some other areas such as scientific research), into instead the military and border security, reflections of the public’s will in a democracy?

    On February 26, I reported that:

    On February 14, the AP headlined “Where US adults think the government is spending too much, according to AP-NORC polling,” and listed in rank-order according to the opposite (“spending too little”) the following 8 Government functions: 1. Social Security; 2. Medicare; 3. Education; 4. Assistance to the poor; 5. Medicaid; 6. Border security; 7. Federal law enforcement; 8. The Military. That’s right: the American public (and by an overwhelming margin) are THE LEAST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on the military, and the MOST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on Social Security, Medicare, Education, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid (the five functions the Republican Party has always been the most vocal to call “waste, fraud, and abuse” and try to cut). Meanwhile, The Military, which actually receives 53% (and in the latest year far more than that) of the money that the Congress allocates each year and gets signed into law by the President, keeps getting, each year, over 50% of the annually appropriated federal funds.

    An important point to be made here is that both #s 4&5, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid, are “discretionary federal spending” (i.e., controlled by the annual appropriations that get voted into law each year), whereas #s 1&2 (Social Security and Medicare) are “mandatory federal spending” (i.e., NOT controlled by Congress and the President). So, Trump and the Republicans are going after the poor because they CAN; they can’t (at least as-of YET) reduce or eliminate Social Security and Medicare. However, by now, it is crystal clear that Trump’s Presidency will be an enormous boon to America’s billionaires, and an enormous bane to the nation’s poor. The aristocratic ideology has always been: to get rid of poverty, we must get rid of the poor — work them so hard they will go away (let them seek ‘refugee’ status SOMEWHERE ELSE).

    Trump is increasing the military and border security, and decreasing education, assistance to the poor, Medicaid, federal law enforcement, and even Social Security and Medicare (the latter two by laying off many of the people who staff those bureaucracies).

    Therefore, the Republicans’ effort to cut health care to the poor is merely a part of their overall effort to cut Governmental help to the nation’s poor; and all of this is being done in order to increase federal purchases of armaments from corporations such as Lockheed Martin, who make all or most of their profits only by selling to the U.S. Government and to its allied Governments.

    However, on many levels, the greatest amount of “waste, fraud, and abuse,” and sheer corruption, is actually in the only federal Department that has never been audited: the Defense Department. This means that Republicans are reallocating from the neediest to the greediest. (NOTE: I have equal contempt for both of America’s political Parties, but this reallocation is specifically a Republican specialty. So, this isn’t merely a matter of opinion. It is a historical fact.)

    The post Why the Republican Party Is Trying to Cut Healthcare to the Poor first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Keir Starmer just gave the most appalling response to spiralling inequality

    At Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) on Wednesday 7 May, Lib Dem MP Roz Savage challenged Labour Party PM Keir Starmer on inequality:

    Under the Conservatives, inequality has surged with now over 14 million people… living in poverty while the richest 1% see their incomes soar. Of the developed countries we are now the ninth most unequal. Will the prime minister listen to the Liberal Democrats, the public and many of his own backbenchers and commit to reversing changes such as PIP, the winter fuel allowance and two child benefit cap and introduce clear poverty reduction targets to ensure that any economic growth benefits those who need it most.

    Starmer: anti-anti-austerity

    Indeed, from 2024-2025 UK billionaires saw their wealth go up from an already staggering £170 billion to £181 billion. Meanwhile, the least well off 10% are literally in debt. Nonetheless, Starmer is upholding the Tories’ two child benefit cap (restricting benefits to two children). Analysis from Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) shows the cap will increase the number of children living in poverty from 4.5 million to 4.8 million.

    Starmer also cut the winter fuel allowance for some of the least well off pensioners. Yet the prime minister’s own government admitted that the cut will plunge 250,000 more elders into poverty by 2029-30.

    As if austerity 2.0 wasn’t already well on its way, Starmer is also cutting support for disabled people. Again, the government’s own analysis shows that this will impact 700,000 families who are already in poverty.

    Appalling response at PMQs

    Then, at PMQs, Starmer had the gall to say:

    Mr Speaker, we’re already delivering 750 free breakfast clubs boosting the minimum wage for over 3 million that’s the lowest paid workers in our country and the child poverty task force is looking at every lever that can be pulled
    Hold on, Starmer’s pulling the lever the other way with his continuation of austerity.
    The basic funding for free primary school breakfasts Labour initially offered is just 60p per pupil. That has resulted in schools taking part in the pilot either pulling out or paying the rest from existing budgets.

    Also, the status quo for free school meals is unhealthy sponsors such as Greggs and Kellogg’s.

    Starmer has raised the minimum wage by around 80p per hour. Does he expect that to solve the richest 1% owning more than 70% of us? And this approach arguably doesn’t make sense because it treats all employers as the same. When in fact, the UK’s top 100 FTSE companies make an average of £64,000 profit annually per employee. That’s a private tax of double the UK’s average yearly wage for every single employee at those corporations.

    Instead, Labour could make a company’s minimum wage relative to their profits. This would enable small and up and coming businesses to pay less and mean that employees aren’t being ripped off by big business. It would link employee pay directly to the company’s performance, driving up productivity.

    Starmer showed yet again at PMQs that he is taking us in the wrong direction.

    Featured image via House of Commons

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Cuban Exodus

    So long as Cubans’ rage and despair remain, the government cannot afford to curtail emigration. And there is no end in sight.

    This post was originally published on Dissent Magazine.

  • Poverty and hunger costs the UK economy £75.6 billion a year, landmark report finds

    The fact that people are facing hunger and hardship cost the UK economy, public finances and public services at least £75.6 billion in 2022/23, according to a new report from the Trussell Trust.

    Hunger: uncivil and economically backwards

    The charity broke down the figure. £38.2 billion is from the loss of productivity and employment, most prominently because people undergoing hunger and hardship are ‘scarred’ by the experience, whereby it’s more difficult to sustain a job.

    In turn, that loss of employment leads to lower tax revenues and higher welfare payments, costing £23.7 billion.

    Hunger and hardship further has an impact on public services, at a cost of £13.7 billion, with about half of that coming from increased healthcare costs. The Labour government should particularly listen here given their NHS plan is centred on ‘prevention’. Another portion of this figure comes from increased education spending and childcare spending. And £3 billion of this sum comes from increased spending on homelessness services.

    The report points out that a “widening gap between the rich and poor is creating divisions and tensions between people at a community level”. Indeed, Oxfam has found that 1% of the country has more money than 70%. Polling from the Fairness Foundation identified that 63% of Britons believe the super rich have too much power over politics.

    Solutions from Trussell

    Trussell offers p9 recommendations to remedy the impact and cost of hunger and hardship. One is the ‘Essentials Guarantee’, which a number of charities have been campaigning for. This would mean that no one in the country goes without the essentials they need to survive. It would bring 2.2 million people out of hunger and hardship by 2026/27 and drive £17.6 billion in economic benefits. It makes sense: if people receive what they need to live they will automatically spend that in the economy, driving growth.

    Another recommendation is scrapping the two child benefit cap. This would boost the economy by around £3.1 billion and lift 470,000 children out of hunger and hardship by 2026/27.

    The scale of the issue

    The Trussell report found that 9.3 million people, including 3 million children, faced hunger and hardship in 2022/23. Corresponding with an increase in inequality, 46% more children now experience hunger and hardship than a decade ago.

    Money equates to real material resources in the economy and if rich people’s portion of the wealth keeps growing, it’s at the expense of the poorest. Last year, UK billionaires saw their wealth increase by £35 million every single day. Meanwhile, Trussell estimates that an additional 425,000 people will face hunger and hardship by 2026/2027.

    The charity identified the rate of different groups that are facing hunger and hardship:

    • 31% of families with three or more children.
    • 32% of single parent families.
    • 70% of people facing the issue are renters.
    • People living in a disabled family are much more likely to experience hunger and hardship (17% compared to 11% for non-disabled people).
    • The issue is dramatically worse for minority ethnic groups, at up to 28% compared to 11% for white families.

    It’s clear that Labour’s planned welfare cuts to disabled people’s support is only going to make the issue significantly worse. As well as the human cost, there is a domino effect on the economy, delivering negative outcomes for us all.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Bill restricting North Carolina cities and counties from adopting guaranteed income programs advances.

    Original article here.

    By: Greg Childress

    A bill barring North Carolina cities and counties from adopting or enforcing guaranteed income programs won approval in the state House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development on Tuesday.

    House Bill 859 is sponsored by Rep. Cody Honeycutt (R-Montgomery). It would prohibit the establishment of guaranteed income programs without express authorization of “general or local law” — something that would require approval from the General Assembly. It was referred to the House State and Local Government Committee without discussion.

    Guaranteed income programs provide individuals or families with cash payments generally with no strings attached. The cash payments may be used for necessities such as food, childcare expenses, medicine and transportation.

    The goal is to provide low-income families or individuals with a steady income to increase financial stability.

    Supporters see such programs as a way to help lift families and individuals out of poverty and to address income inequality. Meanwhile, critics argue that such programs create a disincentive for work, are expensive and will not reduce dependency on welfare programs as some supporters claim.

    Under HB 859, programs under which an individual is required to seek reemployment, perform work or attend training as a condition of a cash payment would be exempt from the law.

    In North Carolina, the City of Durham launched a guaranteed income pilot program for formerly incarcerated individuals in March 2022 titled Excel. The pilot ended in August 2024.

    Assistant Durham City Manager Karmisha Wallace told NC Newsline that the city council allocated $1 million this fiscal year to continue the program, which the city would manage. A nonprofit administered the pilot program.

    Wallace said the city has neither determined the amount of the monthly stipend under the new program nor the number of participants. Under the pilot, 109 formerly incarcerated individuals received $600 a month for one year.

    She said training for justice involved individuals is already available through other city-run programs in which they participate.

    “We already have programming in place now that help justice involved individuals get IDs, get jobs, secure medical support, transportation and that sort of thing,” Wallace said.

    Wallace said HB 859 could be problematic.

    “I think it’s safe to say the city is concerned about any legislation that restricts our abilities to meet the needs of our constituents,” Wallace said.

    According to the Durham County website, the county is launching a guaranteed income pilot program called DCo Thrives that will provide $750 per month for one year to 125 randomly selected low-income families. That program is funded by the American Rescue Plan Act and will be administered by Durham Children’s Initiative, according to the website. 

    Guaranteed income programs gained steam during the pandemic. Large cities such as Los Angeles and Atlanta are among those that launched pilot programs.

    Michael D. Tubbs, founder and chair or Mayors & Counties for a Guaranteed Income, said last summer in a letter defending a program in Harris County (home to the city of Houston) that was blocked by the Texas Supreme Court that there were more than 100 pilot programs nationwide in-process or having concluded with “great success.”

    Tubbs is a former Stockton, California mayor who helped launch one of the country’s first guaranteed income programs in 2019.

    The Harris County program is still on hold due to the legal challenge. Last week, the Texas Senate approved a bill to ban local governments from adopting such programs.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Over two million families have been hit by DWP Universal Credit savings limit

    Universal Credit claimants are facing severe penalties under current Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) rules that slash benefit payments for those with savings above certain thresholds—forcing many struggling families into further hardship.

    According to a revealing report titled Saving Penalties the system is set up to cut benefits for anyone holding more than £6,000 in savings, with total loss of entitlement if savings rise above £16,000.

    DWP Universal Credit: denying over one million families support

    Between 2020 and 2022 alone, around two million families who should have qualified for DWP Universal Credit based on their income found their claims slashed or completely wiped out because of these punitive capital thresholds.

    Out of those, approximately 830,000 families faced partial cutbacks, while a staggering 1.2 million families were denied any Universal Credit support whatsoever due to their savings.

    This approach by the DWP directly hurts people already making tough decisions about managing their finances. Molly Broome, senior economist at the Resolution Foundation, said:

    Benefits are means-tested on both income and capital. But the long-term neglect of the capital rules in Universal Credit means they are now undermining wider Government efforts to encourage low-income families to save.

    Broome went on to highlight that valuable schemes aimed at helping poorer families build financial security—such as Help to Save and Lifetime ISAs—are strangely left out of the government’s exemption list. This means people actively trying to do the right thing by putting money aside are instead penalised for prudent saving.

    She argued;

    Important schemes such as Help to Save and Lifetime ISAs should be exempted from these capital rules so that families doing the right thing by saving into them aren’t penalised for doing so.

    Inflation has compounded the problems

    The problem is made worse because the DWP has not adjusted the Universal Credit savings thresholds for inflation.

    Figures show that while only 35% of UK families had savings over £6,000 between 2006 and 2008, this has jumped to nearly half the population (45%) by 2020-22. If the limits had been properly indexed to inflation, the thresholds would have risen to over £10,000 and £27,000 respectively, sparing many from losing vital benefits due to modest saving efforts.

    In its current form, the system creates sharp “cliff edges” where a tiny increase in savings can result in sudden and severe withdrawal of financial support.

    For example, a family entitled to £750 a month in DWP Universal Credit based on income alone would see their payments reduced to £576 if they had savings of exactly £16,000. But if their savings rose by just one penny above that figure, their entitlement would vanish completely.

    DWP Universal Credit: catastrophic cliff edges

    This draconian penalty system contradicts the official aim of DWP Universal Credit, which promised to smooth out such cliff edges and provide a more compassionate safety net for those struggling.

    The Saving Penalties report exposes the DWP’s failure to keep benefit rules fair and up to date, effectively forcing low-income families to choose between safeguarding their financial future and receiving essential support to meet day-to-day living costs.

    With millions caught in this no-win scenario, it is clear the government must urgently reconsider the capital rules within DWP Universal Credit to prevent punishing vulnerable people for saving what little they can.

    All this comes at a time when many families rely on DWP Universal Credit just to get by.

    The DWP’s stubborn refusal to adjust outdated savings thresholds and exemption lists risks undermining efforts to boost financial resilience among the most disadvantaged in society, leaving them facing impossible choices and unnecessary hardship.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour’s latest response to a vicious DWP policy is borderline sinister

    Charities such as Save the Children UK and Citizens Advice have warned that child poverty will rise to the highest level since records began unless Labour scrap the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) two child benefit cap. Labour’s response? Shocking.

    Labour: impoverishing children is a “matter of fairness”

    In a letter to the prime minister, they refer to analysis from Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) that shows the DWP two child benefit cap will increase the number of children living in poverty from 4.5 million to 4.8 million.

    In response, a Labour source told the Guardian that ministers have ruled out scrapping the cap because it’s

    popular with key voters, who see it as a matter of fairness

    That’s gross. How is it a matter of “fairness” that children grow up in poverty? That’s a turn of phrase you might expect from the Conservative party, but this is what Labour are doing in power.

    And apparently, if something is ‘popular’ it should be followed. Okay then: nationalise key utilities such as water and energy, because they are very popular policies across the electoral base.

    And there’s also a key difference here. Public ownership of essentials makes total sense because we all need to use them every day. So it’s more expensive to rent them from private companies, rather than owning them ourselves. Whereas, the DWP two child benefit cap defies all logic when you consider the realities of the UK job market. As of March, there are 781,000 vacancies in the UK. But there are 1.57 million unemployed people. And a further 9.22 million are economically inactive p4 (also unemployed, but not actively looking for a job).

    So Labour’s narrative over the DWP two child benefit cap is an alternative reality where there are 10 million more jobs in the country then there actually are. And that’s compounded when you consider that 59% of the 450,000 households impacted by the cap have at least one working parent.

    Scrap the DWP two child benefit cap

    Without a programme of training and job sharing, there is no alternative to unemployment DWP welfare. The growth at all costs mantra won’t solve it, given the job deficit is around 10 million. And besides, do we need to keep producing and consuming more and more stuff? Surely it’s a question of quality, with positives such as technological advancement and negatives such as tobacco and fast food (guilty pleasures for some, but not industries we want to see booming).

    In the letter to Starmer, the charities, including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Trussell, write:

    Ensuring that fewer children are in poverty at the end of this parliamentary term than at the start will require a direct investment in family incomes via the social security system. As the bare minimum, this must start with scrapping the two-child limit and the benefit cap. The two-child limit pushes more and more children into poverty every day and will act as a brake on any other action taken by government to reduce poverty.

    From the 2024 election to October, Labour’s maintenance of the DWP two child benefit cap had already plunged 10,000 children into poverty, previous analysis from CPAG shows.

    The charities also urged a long-term focus, given there are already 4.5 million children in poverty:

    The strategy will also need to set targets to reduce child poverty over the next 10-20 years, laying the foundations for further policy interventions to tackle child poverty across different parts of government, and helping to maintain focus throughout this parliament and beyond.

    The DWP two child benefit cap also has a negative impact on the economy through reducing demand for children’s products like books and toys. Scrapping it is a no-brainer, but the bureaucrats in government are ideologically wedded to a broken status quo.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Those Chinese Peasants

    Some would posit, “If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything.”

    US president Donald Trump is not beholden to that epithet and neither is his vice-president JD “I don’t like China” Vance.

    Previously, in January 2018, Trump was criticized for referring to Haiti and African countries as “shithole countries.”

    On 8 April 2025, Trump took pleasure in describing countries purportedly cowering at the prospect of US tariffs being levied on them:

    These countries are calling us up, kissing my ass. They are, they are dying to make a deal. Please, please sir, make a deal. I’ll do anything. I’ll do anything sir.

    The same lack of respectful discourse is followed by Vance. At a meeting in the White House on 28 February 2025, Volodomyr Zelenskyy found himself attacked on two sides. However unsavoury a character Zelenskyy is, and however improper his remarks might have been when he was at the White House, he was a guest. And the attack, in particular by Vance, on a guest was unbecoming.

    In March, Vance complained about Chinese oligarchs. Now it is Chinese peasants:

    We borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture.

    Decidedly, it was a boorish comment from the vice-president. China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian was not impressed:

    It is surprising and sad to hear such ignorant and impolite words from this vice president.

    Is Vance merely revealing his ignorance as well as rudeness? Is there any truth to the depiction Vance proffers on China?

    Today’s Chinese “peasants”

    China has eliminated extreme poverty. The US Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) and official poverty data report 5.3% of Americans (around 17.5 million people) as living in “deep poverty” (with incomes below 50% of the federal poverty line) (source: Census.gov – Poverty Tables [Table B-1, B-2]).

    An end to extreme poverty posits an end to homelessness. In the US, homelessness is rising in recent years. Ecofact.org reports:

    There were 771,480 people recorded as homeless in 2024 — or about 23 per 10,000 people. This represented an increase of over 18% relative to the numbers recorded in 2023. The data show that  36 percent of the homeless were unsheltered — that is, they lived in places not considered fit for human habitation …

    Chinese peasants live in the world’s largest economy expressed as GDP (PPP). Chinese peasants put up a space station on their own. Cars produced by Chinese peasants are dominating the world market. And Chinese peasants have developed (Chinese tech is stolen according to Vance) flying cars for the markets, when the markets are ready. These peasants are great at innovating and manufacturing: Comac C919 narrow-body airliner, Long March rockets, 30-satellite Beidou positioning system, molten salt thorium reactors, HarmonyOS, 5.5G, 3nm chips, robotics, AI, hypersonic weapons, etc, etc.

    And pertinently for peasants, China’s agricultural sector is undergoing significant transformation through technological innovation, while in the US, farmers are worried about China’s retaliatory tariffs.

    Many Americans, if presented the choice, might well opt for Chinese peasant status.

    The post Those Chinese Peasants first appeared on Dissident Voice.

  • Watch former Corbyn comms chief Schneider demolish ex Reform comms chief Towler on GB News

    Former director of communications for Jeremy Corbyn James Schneider took former communications chief for Reform Gawain Towler to task over inequality on GB News.

    James Schneider: “special pleading” for the super rich

    Gawain Towler was arguing against a wealth tax on the super rich with the classic myth that they will leave:

    If you punish people for success… you do that, people will leave and people will not come and invest in this country

    In response, James Schneider branded the angle “special pleading”:

    What you are saying is completely ludicrous and is special pleading… look who’s been doing well in the last 15 years. It’s not people who use the NHS it’s not people who… work in the NHS. But the wealth of billionaires has tripled in that time.

    Towler retorted with the same line:

    You launch into the rich in that way, they leave, then there’s no money.

    But Schneider said:

    Wealthy people in this country are wealthy because they own a lot of assets that are in this country. A person can leave the country – the assets are here. So the idea that assets can just be spirited out of the country and there’s nothing we can do about them, is nonsense.

    The myth of an ‘exodus’

    The idea that the super rich will leave if they’re taxed more has been parroted across the corporate media for a long time. For instance, a flurry of media reports from January claimed that there has been an “exodus” of the super rich since Labour came to power.

    Apparently, 10,800 millionaires have left. But that represents just 0.5% of the more than three million millionaires the UK harboured in 2023. The UK already has a proportionately very high number of millionaires.

    Tax Justice Network, meanwhile, has documented that just 0.01% of super rich households relocated after Norway, Sweden, and Denmark introduced increased wealth tax reforms.

    The organisation points out that there are many factors that prevent them from leaving:

    Research suggests that the majority of wealth holders have strong ties to their countries and a genuine desire to contribute as citizens. Factors such as family and social connections, access to education, and overall economic stability carry more weight than tax levels when it comes to their decision on whether to relocate

    Indeed, even 68% of millionaires themselves support a wealth tax, according to polling by Survation.

    Besides, economist Gary Stevenson has argued that the super rich who own valuable assets in the UK such as commercial property are the “least mobile” people in the world when it comes to tax. He distinguishes them from people who are paid to work for a living, because they could take a job abroad, whereas assets are based here.

    Stevenson further said

    Who owns your country? Who owns the wealth in your country? Look around you… Look at all of the land. Look at all of the buildings. Look at all of the property. Look at all the productive buildings and machinery and all of the natural resources. Somebody owns that. Who do you want to own it?

    The former city trader notes that we are “losing” the middle class because of spiralling inequality.

    The Labour government could bring in a wealth tax of 1-2% on assets worth over £10m. This would rebalance society by £22bn per year.

    James Schneider knows this – and so does Gawain Towler. But only one of them is willing to acknowledge it.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Poor Are Taking Power Back Into Their Own Hands in a “Survival Revival”

    The day after Donald Trump won the 2024 election, the 10 richest people in the world — including nine Americans — expanded their wealth by nearly $64 billion, the greatest single-day increase in recorded history. Since then, an unholy marriage of billionaire investors, tech bros, Christian nationalists, and, of course, Donald Trump has staged an oligarchic assault on our democracy. If the nation’s…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Two-child benefit cap forces mother into ‘buy now, pay later’ credit for food

    A North East mother has passionately called on the government to scrap the controversial Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) two-child benefit cap, arguing that the policy has unfairly restricted her family’s resources and left her children struggling to keep pace with their peers.

    This plea comes as new figures reveal that over 70,000 children in the North East are affected by the cap, with campaigners asserting that its removal could help lift many families out of poverty and inject more than £90 million into the region’s economy.

    The two-child benefit: forcing mothers to buy food on ‘buy now, pay later’ credit

    In a heartfelt letter addressed to chancellor Rachel Reeves, the Northumberland mother expressed the dire financial situation she faces. As Chronicle Live reported, she said due to the two-child benefit cap:

    I have found myself relying on credit cards and ‘buy now pay later’ for essential items like bills and fresh food, fruit and vegetables to feed three growing children.

    She further lamented that her children’s involvement in extracurricular activities—which contribute positively to education, social skills, and self-confidence—has been severely limited by financial constraints.

    During the recent pandemic, the mother reported that her children lacked access to crucial educational resources such as laptops and tablets, severely hindering their learning opportunities.

    She expressed concern for her son, who has additional needs, stating that he would greatly benefit from educational apps that are often inaccessible without certain devices that she cannot afford. “My son cannot keep up with his peers,” she concluded.

    Hitting the North East hard

    The End Child Poverty Coalition has pointed out that the two-child benefit cap affects a staggering 70,110 children in the region, with a significant number hailing from working households.

    The cap disproportionately impacts areas like Newcastle Central and West, Gateshead Central and Whickham, and Newcastle East and Wallsend, placing further strains on families already struggling to make ends meet.

    Beth Farhat, the chair of the North East Child Poverty Commission, shared her perspective on the pressing need for policy change:

    There is a growing mountain of evidence that there is absolutely no route to ending child poverty, both here in the North East and across the country, without scrapping the two-child benefit cap in full.

    Farhat believes that abolishing this policy could lead to an immediate reduction of poverty levels among tens of thousands of children, as well as provide a significant boost to the local economy through increased spending by families.

    Echoing these sentiments, Steph Capewell, founder of the Sunderland baby bank Love, Amelia, remarked:

    We see the deeply damaging impact of the two-child benefit cap every single day at Love, Amelia. This cruel policy leaves families—many of whom are in work—unable to provide essentials for their children, so they have to turn to charities like ours for vital support.

    Labour should – but won’t – scrap the two-child limit

    Capewell expressed that ending the cap would not only ease the financial burden on many families but also provide children with opportunities for growth and success that every child deserves.

    Introduced during the Conservative government in 2017, the two-child benefit cap restricts families from receiving financial support for their third child and any subsequent children. May consider the policy little more than Eugenics.

    Although Labour initially opposed this significant policy, in 2023, they confirmed their intent to maintain the two-child benefit cap – with DWP boss Liz Kendall even announcing the move behind the paywall of iNews.

    The consequences of the two-child benefit cap are evident, with families in need facing mounting hardships as they grapple with everyday essentials.

    The urgent calls for reform from campaigners, charities, and local leaders highlight the growing sentiment that such policies should be reassessed to ensure the well-being of children across the North East, many of whom find themselves at a disadvantage through no fault of their own.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The scandal of fuel poverty has just been mapped – and the results are shocking

    An alarming new interactive map has revealed the extent of ‘fuel poverty’ in England, exposing a grim reality for many households across the country. The research indicates that almost three-quarters of homes in some of the country’s most deprived neighbourhoods are falling below the fuel poverty threshold, highlighting the pressing crisis affecting millions.

    Fuel poverty: hitting 71% in some areas

    As of 2024, 2.73 million households, or approximately one in ten, are classified as living in fuel poverty. This is defined by officials as homes that possess a poor energy efficiency rating of band D or below, where the disposable income after housing and fuel costs is less than around £20,700. Birmingham has been identified as a particularly hard-hit area, with significant concentrations of fuel poverty.

    This dire situation is exacerbated by the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, where families are facing relentless increases in utility bills, making already struggling households even more vulnerable. Recent estimates suggested that ‘Awful April’ could see a staggering £233 increase in water and energy bills on average, adding to the financial strain.

    Simon Francis, co-ordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, emphasised the human impact of these statistics, noting that many individuals will be suffering without even realising they are in fuel poverty:

    This shows just how devastating the ongoing cost of living crisis is,” he said in his remarks to the Daily Mail. “The sad reality is that, behind these figures, many people will be suffering in fuel poverty and won’t even know it.

    An analysis breakdown revealed that 3.17 million households spend more than 10% of their income on energy bills, which is a metric used by the National Energy Action (NEA) charity to assess fuel poverty in contrast to the government’s definition.

    Astonishingly, seven of the ten worst-affected areas are located within Birmingham, specifically in the Bournbrook and Selly Park ward, where a shocking 71.2% and 63.5% of households respectively fall below the fuel poverty line.

    This area has a high student population, raising concerns about the struggles faced even by younger generations.

    The wider West Midlands region is the hardest hit, with 19 of the top 20 areas for fuel poverty clustered there. Stoke-On-Trent’s Hanley Park, Joiner’s Square & Shelton region follows closely, with 70.7% of its households struggling to meet fuel costs.

    A national scandal

    In light of these findings, Francis urged action from the chancellor to reform energy markets and provide immediate assistance to those in fuel poverty:

    We need a government willing to invest in the long-term solutions to the cost of living crisis – and the future of the country.

    The Labour Party government’s track record on addressing fuel poverty has been scrutinised, with Adam Scorer, the NEA chief executive, highlighting a lack of progress under the previous administration:

    These statistics show little progress was being made by the previous government to reduce the numbers in fuel poverty and therefore to meet its legal obligations.

    Scorer added that solutions need to address both immediate support and long-term prevention.

    Despite numerous households already feeling the impact of rising bills, the government will soon be unveiling a new fuel poverty strategy for England, alongside its Warm Homes Plan, reviewing how energy bill support can be managed in the winter.

    Criticism of Chancellor Rachel Reeves is mounting due to perceived punitive energy cost increases.

    Reports show that households on variable tariffs are facing a 6.4% increase in their annual energy bills from April 2025, which translates to an average rise of £111 a year, pushing the average household bill to £1,849. This rise is attributed to recent surges in wholesale prices as monitored by energy regulator Ofgem.

    Fuel poverty for us, not for them

    Importantly, these concerns over rising energy costs have not affected leading political figures like the chancellor and prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, who only pay a small portion of their utility costs from their salaries. The fixed caps on their ministerial expenses mean they are insulated from the financial strain felt by ordinary citizens as energy prices continue to rise.

    Moreover, all this is against the backdrop of Labour cutting winter fuel payments for millions of older people. It also comes as public anger around standing charges grows.

    As the government prepares to address fuel poverty with its new strategies, questions remain about whether these measures will adequately tackle the urgent needs of those most affected.

    With many households left to navigate the harsh realities of fuel poverty, the unfolding situation calls for a robust response to alleviate this growing burden on the nation’s vulnerable citizens.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • No, disabled people did NOT just get a pay rise today

    Browsing the corporate and social media, you’d be forgiven for thinking chronically ill, disabled, and non-working people were as sunny as the current British weather. Because apparently, they’ve all got (to quote the Sun) a “pay rise”. Of course, in reality what the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has actually given them is a real-terms pay cut – not a benefits increase

    DWP benefits increase – for who?

    As BBC News reported, the DWP on the face of it has put in place a benefits increase:

    The standard allowance of universal credit, the most common benefit, for a single person aged under 25 has gone up by £5.30 a month to about £317.

    For a couple aged over 25, the rise is £10.50 to £628 a month.

    Other benefits rising by 1.7% include all the main disability benefits, such as personal independence payment, attendance allowance and disability living allowance, as well as carer’s allowance.

    However, is this really the case?

    Of course it isn’t. As the House of Commons noted, “benefits increase lag behind real-time inflation figures, with the CPI rate of inflation rising by 2.8% in the 12 months to February 2025“. This is because the government sets the April DWP benefits increase at the rate of inflation (how much prices of things increase by) from the previous September. So, in the six months between those two points anything can happen with inflation; it actually just has, and often does, too.

    The House of Commons showed that actually, chronically ill, disabled, and non-working people will be at least £4.68 a month worse off from today:

    benefits increase DWP

    Moreover, with so many other bills having just gone up – the benefits increases are more than cancelled out.

    Awful April hitting benefit claimants the hardest

    As the Canary previously reported, from 1 April households saw a noticeable hike in several key areas:

    Energy Costs: The energy price cap, regulated by Ofgem, has increased, which translates to an added £9.25 monthly, or £111 annually, for the average household relying on direct debit payments. The cost of gas has surged from 6.34 pence per kilowatt-hour to 6.99 pence, while electricity has jumped from 24.86 pence to 27.03 pence per kilowatt-hour. With energy bills already reaching an average of £1,738, these increases will contribute significantly to the financial strain many families face.

    Or, as Dr Jay Watts put it regarding the benefits increase:

    Water Bills: In what has been described as “extortionate” by concerned advocacy groups, households across England and Wales can expect their water bills to increase by an average of £86 in just the next year—a staggering rise of 20%. Companies like Southern Water and Severn Trent will see increases soaring upwards of 47%, pushing many families deeper into financial difficulty.

    Council Tax: The anticipated surge in council tax will leave millions of households grappling with an increase. The projected new annual figure for a typical Band D property is set to reach £2,280. All councils across Merseyside, for instance, are imposing the maximum allowed increase. Families are encouraged to investigate any available support options from their local councils to help mitigate this financial hit.

    It continues…

    Mobile and Broadband: Added to the financial burden, broadband and mobile contracts are also seeing price hikes, with average increases of £21.99 and £15.90 respectively. Households that are locked into inflation-link contracts could be particularly affected, witnessing bills rise significantly without warning. There are suggestions that consumers should actively check their contracts to explore potential savings through switching providers.

    TV Licence Fee: In today’s increases, the standard price of a TV licence has risen by £5 to £174.50, further impacting household budgets. It remains crucial for eligible claimants, particularly those over the age of 75, to remember that they can still apply for exemptions under specific conditions, ensuring they do not miss out on necessary financial support.

    Car Tax: Lastly, an increase in car tax adds to the woes. New standard rate taxes for cars registered post-April 2017 will go up by £5, while owners of electric vehicles will no longer enjoy exemption from car tax. This is a notable shift, especially for those who switched to electric cars with the promise of being free from tax burdens.

    Benefits increase. What benefits increase?

    Citizens Advice has issued a stark warning, stating that even prior to these changes, individuals and families with the lowest incomes were already spending around 41% of their earnings on essential bills including water, energy, broadband, and car insurance.

    In contrast, those in the middle-income bracket were spending only 11%, and the wealthiest households a mere 5%.

    So, no – a 1.7% benefits increase is not going to make any difference to anyone claiming these – regardless of what the corporate media say.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • 74 children have died due to living in temporary accommodation – and politicians are to blame

    74 children have died while living in government-assigned temporary accommodation where a lack of permanent housing was listed as a contributing factor in their deaths.

    New insight from Inventory Base estimates that over 80,500 families with children are currently living in temporary accommodation across the UK. Without the protection of robust regulation or enforcement, these families face increased risks from unsafe, overcrowded, or unsanitary conditions

    A housing crisis of politicians making that’s killing children

    Social housing is supposedly regulated to safeguard families from known hazards like damp, mould, and overcrowding – although these regulations are often ignored by housing associations and councils.

    But as the supply of social housing falls far short of demand, thousands of families are being diverted into temporary accommodation where those same protections often don’t apply.

    As of Q3 2024, 126,040 households are living in temporary accommodation – up from 98,840 just two years earlier. This number continues to rise quarter after quarter.

    Yet temporary accommodation remains dangerously under-regulated.

    While technically covered by legal standards, temporary housing is not held to the same safety and suitability benchmarks as social housing. Inspections are often inconsistent, and enforcement is patchy at best. The consequences have been devastating.

    According to research from the Shared Health Foundation, between 2019 and 2024, 74 children died while in temporary accommodation with their environment recorded as a contributing factor.

    78.4% were under the age of one

    21.6% were under 18.

    Without urgent reform, more young lives will be lost.

    Of the 126,040 households living in temporary accommodation, 64% include children. That’s at least 80,530 children living in non-permanent, unsafe environments.

    Temporary accommodation regulation is not fit for purpose

    The law requires temporary accommodation to be ‘suitable’ under Section 206 of the Housing Act 1996; addressing factors like location, health impact, and overcrowding.

    Families with children or pregnant women should not be housed in B&Bs for more than six weeks. But only “where alternatives exist”, a loophole is too often exploited.

    Councils also have duties under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to inspect and act on serious hazards.

    But as Sián Hemming-Metcalfe, operations director at Inventory Base, explains:

    Many families remain in overcrowded or unsafe temporary accommodation due to housing shortages, and some councils simply don’t have the boots on the ground to inspect properties.

    It is unacceptable that temporary accommodation is less regulated than the social housing programmes families are waiting to access. The result has been nothing short of catastrophic.

    74 children have died, at least in part due to the poor living standards they were placed into. Temporary accommodation isn’t a safety net, it’s becoming a silent crisis and regulation only protects people if it is enforced.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour has already thrown an extra 30,000 children into poverty since July 2024

    The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has raised urgent concerns about the devastating effects of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) two-child limit policy. But crucially, the group has also shown that by not cancelling the policy, the Labour Party government has already thrown a further 30,000 children into poverty since it took power in July 2024

    The two-child limit: a ruinous policy

    The two-child limit, which came into effect on April 6, 2017, restricts households from claiming child tax credits or Universal Credit for more than two children, including those born after the policy’s introduction.

    CPAG’s recent research outlines a disconcerting trend, indicating that 350,000 children could be lifted out of poverty immediately if the limit were to be abolished, at a projected cost of £2 billion. Furthermore, the study highlights that the policy is fostering an increase in family hardship, with an estimated 109 additional children being pulled into poverty daily as a direct consequence.

    Another study put the figure nearer 600,000.

    This policy does not operate in a vacuum; a so-called “rape clause” creates exemptions for children born as a result of non-consensual conception, a feature that has drawn considerable criticism and controversy since it was rolled into the policy. Critics argue that such provisions do little to alleviate the suffering caused by the overarching restrictions of the two-child limit.

    The implications of the two-child limit are far-reaching, affecting families across all regions of the UK. The policy will continue to impact an increasing number of families until 2035 when the first children born under its restrictions will reach adulthood. Yet Labour has maintained it – even expelling MPs who voted against keeping it.

    Meanwhile, the Scottish government has vowed to bring an end to the two-child limit by April 2026, aiming to mitigate its adverse effects on families in Scotland.

    Labour: digging its heels in

    Despite the overwhelming evidence presented by CPAG, the Labour government has opted to retain the controversial policy It was initially introduced by former Tory chancellor George Osborne.

    In 2020, Starmer had previously called for its abolition, labelling it a critical gesture towards combatting child poverty. However, more recently, he has described the scrapping of the two-child cap as insufficient alone to resolve the broader issue of child poverty, suggesting a lack of urgency in addressing the immediate needs of families affected by this policy.

    CPAG’s chief executive Alison Garnham said:

    The government’s child poverty strategy will fall flat on its face unless it scraps the two-child limit. Every day, the policy forces families to go hungry and damages the life chances of children up and down the country.

    She asserts that while reducing child poverty requires multi-faceted strategies, abolishing the two-child limit is a necessary first step.

    As the Labour government gears up to release its long-awaited child poverty strategy this June, pressure from charity groups and families continues to mount.

    It could be scrapped

    The End Child Poverty Coalition has expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the forthcoming plan unless it actively dismantles the two-child limit. Reports indicate potential shifts in the policy, with discussions about a change to a three-child limit appearing on the table, but notably, this has yet to be substantiated with firm commitments or timelines.

    Research conducted by CPAG has revealed the stark financial reality behind potential alternatives to altering the two-child limit, indicating that addressing the same number of children at risk would be considerably more expensive.

    To completely offset the impacts of the policy, the child element of Universal Credit would need to be increased by £17 per week, costing £3 billion. Alternatively, raising the standard allowance by £25 a week would escalate costs to £8 billion.

    The issue remains pressing, as campaigners insist  that the two-child limit must be abolished outright. They caution that allowing exemptions to some families could result in a fragmented approach that would keep vulnerable families trapped in poverty, struggling to find a way out.

    Labour: everything it says rings hollow

    In the government’s response, a spokesperson claimed:

    No-one should be living in poverty, and we know that the best route out of poverty for struggling families is well-paid, secure work.

    This statement, however, rings hollow for many families affected by stringent welfare policies. It underscores the disconnect between Labour rhetoric and the harsh realities faced by the nation’s most vulnerable children.

    As the crisis persists, the two-child limit continues to be a source of pain, hardship, and increasing deprivation.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Ongoing Influence Of Slavery And Jim Crow In The South

    The Southern economic development model leaves many workers and families across the region struggling to provide for themselves and their families. They have less access to adequate nutrition, safe and stable housing, and fewer other sources of support to nurture the growth and development of their children. Many children and families in persistently high-poverty areas across the South will not have access to opportunities outside their neglected communities, further reducing the likelihood that their children will achieve economic prosperity.

    The post Ongoing Influence Of Slavery And Jim Crow In The South appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Resistance Grows as Proposed Cuts Threaten Health Care for Over 79 Million in US

    Kelly Smith, a 57-year-old New York City resident, is part of the Nonviolent Medicaid Army (NVMA), a growing national movement of poor people who are organizing to stop proposed cuts to Medicaid and promote health care as a human right. “The need for health care unites us all,” Smith told Truthout. “Right now, I’m terrified of losing Medicaid and being unable to get injections for pain…

    Source

  • Trump’s Tariffs Won’t Reverse Globalization

    While it was not technically a tariff, the 1808 law prohibiting the importation of enslaved people to the U.S. from Africa and the Caribbean had the same effect, protecting domestic industries—in this case the breeding of the enslaved for commercial trade—from foreign competitors. For everyone but the enslaved of course, the ban worked like a charm, raising significantly the sale price that slaveholders could demand for a bondswoman or bondsman.

    In the half-century that followed the embargo on international slave trafficking, the number of enslaved in the U.S. quadrupled from one to four million by the time the first shots of the Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter in 1861.

    The post Trump’s Tariffs Won’t Reverse Globalization appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • DWP will NOT scrap the two-child benefit cap – and Kendall goes behind a PAYWALL to reveal it

    In a recent interview with iNews, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) boss Liz Kendall doubled down on the Labour Party’s refusal to commit to scrapping the controversial two-child benefit cap—despite conceding the dire toll it has taken on children and families.

    Her statements, cloaked in promises of future action, reveal a troubling unwillingness to address one of the UK’s most harmful DWP policies. Moreover, it comes just as the government is set to throw even more children into poverty with its cuts to welfare.

    The DWP two-child benefit cap: the most cruel of policies

    Kendall declared “child poverty will be going down,” and admitted it would be a “personal failure” if poverty levels rise under her tenure.

    Yet these assertions ring hollow when set against her refusal to abolish a DWP policy directly linked to rising deprivation. The two-child benefit limit, introduced under David Cameron’s coalition government, prevents families on DWP Universal Credit or Tax Credits from claiming additional support for a third or subsequent child. It disproportionately penalises larger families, often already living in hardship, and drives many deeper into poverty.

    Kendall insisted:

    Our whole approach is to say we will only make promises if we show we can afford it and how we’re going to commit to them. I’m not into a wing and a prayer, I’m into solid action. People deserve that and you’ll just have to wait until we publish our child poverty strategy.

    However, this financial caution fails to grapple with the ethical and economic cost of child poverty. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), lifting the cap would raise 540,000 children above the absolute poverty line at a cost to the DWP of £2.5 billion annually.

    That cost pales in comparison to the long-term societal and fiscal costs of poverty-related outcomes: poor health, lower educational attainment, and reduced lifetime earnings.

    An admission of guilt

    Kendall’s defensive stance is all the more galling given her own acknowledgment of the cap’s devastating consequences.

    She told iNews:

    I’ve seen the impact in Leicester that it’s had – that and a whole series of things – on child poverty. I’ve got one in three kids in my constituency growing up poor, and the lifelong consequences of that are unacceptable. It is one of the reasons I came into politics.

    Yet even this deeply personal framing did not translate into policy commitment.

    Her additional assertion—“I campaigned my whole life to give children an equal start, and that is what I’m determined to deliver on”—feels disingenuous when weighed against the current DWP trajectory.

    Recent welfare cuts, also spearheaded by Kendall, are expected to push an additional 50,000 children into poverty. However, even this figure is not accurate, as it’s from the DWP itself – and it likely to be far higher.

    Blah, blah, blah

    Her defence that a £1bn employment support package “is absolutely designed to give people an opportunity and a pathway out of poverty” does little to allay concerns, especially when the direct benefits of removing the DWP two-child limit are so clearly measurable.

    Moreover, the decision to grant iNews an exclusive interview—on a site that places content behind a paywall—raises questions about transparency and accessibility.

    Low-income families most affected by these DWP policies are the least likely to have access to such subscription-based media. If Kendall is sincere in her claim that “people deserve” solid action, the messaging—and more importantly, the decision—should be available to all.

    The DWP’s vague line that the cap will be lifted “when the economic situation allows” is equally unconvincing. After nearly a decade of economic damage inflicted on families through austerity, this indefinite postponement seems less like fiscal responsibility and more like political cowardice.

    The DWP two-child benefit cap: regressive and cruel in the extreme

    The two-child limit is not only cruel, it is inefficient and self-defeating. It punishes children for the size of their families, undermines efforts to reduce child poverty, and exacerbates inequality. That Labour refuses to commit to reversing it, despite prior opposition and overwhelming evidence of harm, is a betrayal of its own values.

    Liz Kendall may talk about “solid action” and “equal starts,” but until she commits to lifting this regressive DWP cap, her words are just that: talk.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Asda is stooping to new lows to try and stop shoplifters – putting us all at risk

    In a move that epitomises corporate overreach and a blatant disregard for civil liberties, Asda has initiated a trial of live facial recognition technology in five of its Greater Manchester stores. This intrusive surveillance tactic not only infringes upon customer privacy but also sets a dangerous precedent for the normalisation of Orwellian monitoring in everyday life.

    Asda: intruding on all our privacy with its facial recognition

    Asda justifies this invasive measure by citing a rise in retail crime, reporting approximately 1,400 assaults on staff in the past year. While the safety of employees is undeniably important, resorting to mass surveillance is a disproportionate and ethically questionable response. Moreover, none of this addresses the root causes of shoplifting: poverty and capitalism.

    The approach by Asda punishes the vast majority of innocent shoppers for the actions of a few, treating every customer as a potential criminal under the unproven guise of deterrence.

    The implementation of facial recognition technology in public spaces raises profound ethical and legal concerns. The indiscriminate scanning of individuals’ faces without explicit consent is a gross violation of privacy rights.

    Moreover, the accuracy of such technology is highly questionable, with numerous studies highlighting significant biases and error rates, particularly affecting minority communities. Misidentifications can lead to unwarranted confrontations, humiliation, and potential legal consequences for innocent individuals.

    Blatant civil liberties violations

    Asda’s decision to integrate this technology into its existing CCTV network lacks transparency and public consultation.

    There is minimal information on how data will be stored, who will have access, and what measures are in place to prevent misuse. This opacity fuels concerns about data security and the potential for function creep, where surveillance tools are repurposed beyond their original intent without public knowledge or consent.

    Civil rights organisations and privacy advocates have rightly condemned Asda’s actions. Campaign group Big Brother Watch noted that:

    We are being regularly contacted by people who have been wrongly accused of being a shoplifter after facial recognition in a shop has got it wrong. We’ve supported dozens of people already – but this expansion will mean many more people will be impacted.

    It is running a campaign to stop Asda from rolling out facial recognition permanently. It wants people to:

    1. Copy and paste the text below onto your social media post.

    2. Save the image below to include in your post.

    3. Post the message.

    🚨 Will you STOP spying on customers with live facial recognition cameras @asda?

    I will no longer shop at #Asda supermarkets if you continue to use this rights-abusive surveillance tech.

    #StopAsdaSpying | @BigBrotherWatch

    Big Brother Watch noted the story of:

    Sara, a teenager who was falsely flagged by a facial recognition camera in Home Bargains.

    She was wrongly called a criminal whilst doing her shopping, searched, forced to leave the store and told she was banned from shops and supermarkets using this technology up and down the country.

    The shop admitted they got it wrong – but took no action to stop shoppers being scanned and falsely accused in future. They’re still using the live facial recognition cameras.

    Asda facial recognition must not be normalised

    The normalisation of facial recognition in retail settings paves the way for a surveillance state where individuals are constantly monitored and analysed. This not only erodes public trust but also chills free expression and movement, as people alter their behavior due to the omnipresence of surveillance.

    Asda’s trial of facial recognition technology is a reckless and unjustifiable assault on personal freedoms. The purported benefits do not outweigh the significant risks and ethical dilemmas posed by such invasive surveillance.

    It is imperative for consumers to voice their opposition to these measures and for regulatory bodies to scrutinise and restrict the use of facial recognition in public and commercial spaces. Privacy is a fundamental right, not a commodity to be sacrificed at the altar of corporate interests.

    Featured image and additional images via Big Brother Watch

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • If Labour followed the SNP’s lead, 700,000 children would be lifted out of poverty

    In a striking revelation from the London School of Economics (LSE), a newly published analysis highlights significant disparities in child poverty between Scotland and the rest of the UK, sparking critical discussions about the government’s role in alleviating economic hardship. The findings come after recent announcements of Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) cuts by the UK government, which, according to their own impact assessment, are projected to exacerbate poverty levels.

    Scotland: lifting children out of poverty

    The report, spearheaded by Professor Ruth Patrick and involving collaboration with experts from the University of York, urges a re-evaluation of the current approach to child poverty in the UK.

    It posits that an investment strategy akin to Scotland’s could dramatically alter the landscape for families struggling with poverty. According to the analysis, implementing similar measures throughout the UK could lead to a reduction in child poverty rates by a staggering 700,000 children, essentially lifting them out of economic deprivation overnight.

    Currently, the Scottish government’s proactive measures, including the Scottish Child Payment, stand in stark contrast to Westminster’s actions. The weekly payment of £26.70 per child provided to low-income families in Scotland translates to a substantial annual benefit.

    For a family with three children, this could mean nearly £5,500 more in household income compared to families in England who do not receive similar levels of support.

    As the report outlines, if the UK government were to match this investment, providing an equivalent of approximately £400 per child per year, the impact could be significant. The assessment suggests that this shift in policy could lower child poverty rates by an impressive five percentage points across the country.

    The statistics reveal a troubling trend: not only is child poverty a pervasive issue, but the gulf between Scottish children’s poverty rates and those in the rest of the UK is widening.

    The DWP and Labour: consigning kids to the dustbin

    The implications of this analysis could serve as a catalyst for change, compelling the UK government to reconsider its social security strategy and address the urgent needs of families with children living in hardship.

    Speaking to the LSE, Professor Patrick emphasised the need for the UK government to adopt proactive measures aimed at families on low incomes, stating that “the current trajectory is failing children and families in poverty,” and calling for an “urgent reassessment” of policies to reflect a commitment to tackling poverty effectively.

    While the Scottish government is lauded for its child support initiatives, critics argue that the UK government’s continued cuts to social security undermine these efforts and leave vulnerable families facing an uphill battle against poverty.

    The outreach of these policies reaches individual lives, with parents left worrying about how to provide for their children due to the lack of adequate financial support mechanisms.

    The Westminster government must act

    These developments serve to highlight the contrasting approaches between the two governments and raise questions about the extent of political will to combat poverty.

    The ongoing analysis by the Changing Realities collaboration sheds light on a pressing social issue and calls into question the effectiveness of current government policies when the welfare of children hangs in the balance.

    As the debate continues to unfold, this report could potentially reshape discussions around social security investment in the UK, pushing for a paradigm shift that prioritises the wellbeing of children—particularly those living in poverty—over budgetary cuts.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As Elections Near, Ecuador’s Working Poor And Colonized Under Siege

    As Ecuador heads into a very important run-off election on April 13, the issues of security, state violence and the economy remain at the forefront for many Ecuadorians. Dollarization, submission to U.S. dictates, the proliferation of arms shipments through privately owned ports, and the expansion of international drug cartels to justify military presence have all combined to make the living conditions of the poorest unbearable, especially for African and indigenous communities with a constant war directed at them from the militarized structures of the state, like the case of the Guayaquil Four.

    The post As Elections Near, Ecuador’s Working Poor And Colonized Under Siege appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Yet another DWP policy is under fire as the stark reality of it becomes clearer

    The ongoing debate over the UK government’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has reached a critical point, with increasing calls for the abolition of the controversial two-child limit and the overall benefit cap.

    The two-child limit: embedding misery across the country

    Since the Labour Party government took charge in summer 2024, pressure has been mounting to address the alarming rise of child poverty, which is being exacerbated by it and the DWP’s restrictive measures. As the Canary previously reported, child poverty has officially increased under Labour by 200,000 children.

    At the heart of this discourse is a stark reality: families struggling to make ends meet are facing hurdles that many outside their situation find difficult to comprehend.

    For millions of children across the UK, poverty is not just a statistic; it’s a lived experience impacting their everyday lives. The DWP two-child limit, which restricts Universal Credit support for families to only two children, has left many large families desperate for assistance.

    This rule, introduced in 2017, effectively bars families from receiving necessary financial aid when they need it most, often leading them to choose between essential items such as food, clothing, and heating.

    Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been under consistent fire. Critics argue that tinkering around the edges, such as proposing a DWP three-child limit or exemptions for younger children, is inadequate. Writing in the Conversation UK, researchers Kate Andersen and Kitty Stewart highlight the reality that such changes would continue to leave vulnerable families at a disadvantage, failing to address the core issue of child poverty enduringly embedded in the UK’s welfare framework.

    The personal stories of those affected by these policies illustrate the profound impact on families.

    Personal stories

    Jessica, a single mother of four, has seen her situation worsen after losing her business during the pandemic. Her struggle to afford new school shoes for her daughter resulted in her being put into isolation for not complying with the school’s dress code.

    “I got the phone call to say she had to go into isolation… it was kind of a bit public shaming her really, taking her away and putting her in isolation,” Jessica recounted, shedding light on the emotional toll these financial constraints can inflict on both parents and children alike.

    Moreover, the emotional ramifications ripple throughout families, children included.

    Christina, a mother grappling with the DWP two-child limit, explained how her son has internalised the family’s financial struggles:

    He won’t say he needs new clothes and he won’t say his shoes don’t fit anymore… I think he’s got it into his head now that we can’t go out and spend or he can’t ask, and I feel so bad for that.

    In a society where children should be encouraged to express their needs, this suppression of basic desires reflects a deeper societal issue tied to poverty and a lack of resources.

    In tandem with the two-child limit, the benefit cap further compounds these families’ struggles by imposing a maximum limit on DWP benefits available to households with no working adults. This is the so-called benefit cap.

    DWP: the cruelest department of them all

    This DWP policy has effectively barred thousands of vulnerable families from receiving the support they need, leaving many trapped in a cycle of poverty that is difficult to escape. With nearly two-in-five larger families currently affected by the two-child limit, and projections suggesting this could rise to 61% in the near future, the need for substantial policy reform is increasingly urgent.

    As the government hammers chronically ill, disabled, and poor people, people urge for a complete abolition of both the two-child limit and the benefit cap, asserting that half-measures will only prolong the suffering of low-income families and further entrench poverty.

    Time continues to tick away as families are caught in the web of inadequacy, hoping for a shift in DWP policy that will allow them the dignity and support they deserve.

    Waiting for a strategy to be developed by Labour is a luxury that vulnerable families no longer possess; the damage inflicted by these restrictive policies is already evident and growing by the day, affecting the lives of countless children across the nation.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The damning statistic that just turned Rachel Reeves Spring Statement into a national disgrace

    Government figures released on 27 March show 200,000 more children were plunged into poverty from 2023-24. That’s an increase from 4.3m to 4.5m children in poverty.

    Labour’s latest “national shame”

    It comes just as chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered a Spring Statement that will take the situation further backwards. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) admitted on 26 March that its own estimation shows that fresh government austerity will push 250,000 people, including 50,000 more children into poverty by 2029/30. That’s because of cuts to welfare including support for disabled people. The impact assessment found that 3.2m families will lose an average of £1,720 per year.

    Yet the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has challenged the government’s assessment and said that in fact 400,000 people would fall into poverty following the spring statement.

    The official poverty statistics further showed that 28% of children experienced material deprivation in 2024, meaning they can’t afford the essentials for living. According to surveys, 300,000 more children were reliant on food banks compared to the year before.

    In response to the figures, Save the Children took aim at successive governments:

    These figures are a source of national shame. The rise in child poverty to 4.5 million is a direct consequence of political choices. Ministers may have inherited these figures from past UK Governments, but they must now take immediate action to ensure more children do not fall into poverty next year. If they don’t, this could be the first Labour Government that oversees a significant rise in child poverty – a record no one wants. The two-child limit and benefit cap must be scrapped, and child related benefits locked to rise in line with wages or average earnings, whichever of the two is higher.

    Speaking on Sky News, Reeves ignored the estimations from JRF and even those from her own government. The word shameless springs to mind:

    I came into politics, I joined the Labour party when I was at school because I wanted children from all backgrounds, including the poorest backgrounds, to have a good start in life. I didn’t see that happening under the Conservative government when I was at school or under the Conservative government of the last 14 years

    Why is she continuing the Conservative legacy of austerity then?

    Rachel Reeves: for shame

    In December, Keir Starmer relaunched his premiership with a focus on living standards. He claimed he will achieve:

    Living standards raised, people better off, more cash in their pocket

    But it looks like the opposite is the case. In response to the official figures, Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) said:

    Today’s grim statistics are a stark warning that the government’s own commitment to reduce child poverty will crash and burn unless it takes urgent action. The government’s child poverty strategy must invest in children’s life chances, starting by scrapping the two-child limit.

    CPAG previously found that, for the first time since research started in 2008, all families on low or modest incomes are unable to meet their costs or achieve a basic standard of living.

    In July 2024, Starmer suspended seven Labour MPs for voting to scrap the two child limit that Tory George Osborne introduced. It’s worth remembering that Starmer purged left wing MPs ahead of the 2024 general election, instead surrounding himself with ‘yes men’ who will vote through his toxic agenda. This included pro-Starmer members of Labour’s ruling body (the NEC) simply selecting themselves as candidates, rather than a democratic process.

    Clive Lewis MP made this point on Sky News, saying:

    A lot of my colleagues have been chosen for loyalty

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • £65 MILLION in cost of living payments have NOT been claimed – and Labour wants to make DWP cuts???

    Households across England are being urged to hurry and claim vital cost of living payments before the looming deadline at the end of March. Recent data obtained from a Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed that a staggering amount of money from the government’s Household Support Fund remains unclaimed, leaving many households in dire need without the support they qualify for.

    As high costs persist, the Labour Party government extended the Household Support Fund for another year, adding an extra £421 million to ensure families have the necessary support to navigate these challenging financial times.

    However, as time runs short, many are still unaware of the assistance available to them. You should contact your local council if you think you are entitled to the cost of living payments.

    The payments, which amount to various sums depending on specific criteria, have been designed to provide crucial aid to struggling families. In Manchester, for instance, the city council is currently offering up to £200 for eligible households. With just days remaining to apply, individuals are encouraged to act swiftly.

    Manchester: an example of varying cost of living payments

    According to the criteria established by Manchester City Council, there are three distinct groups that can receive cost of living payments.

    Group 1 allows eligible households—those in receipt of Council Tax Support, with at least one person receiving disability benefit like Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or Personal Independence Payments (PIP)—to receive £100. This group must not fall under either Group 2 or Group 3.

    Group 2 can claim £150 and includes households receiving Council Tax Support or Housing Benefit, but who have not qualified for a government Winter Fuel Payment based on their income and were aged between 66 and 79 as of September 23, 2024.

    Finally, Group 3 is for those who are 80 or older and similarly receiving Council Tax Support or Housing Benefit, also not having qualified for the Winter Fuel Payment based on income, allowing them to receive £200.

    Staggering amounts left unclaimed

    Sadly, recent revelations indicate that approximately £65.2 million of the cost of living payments fund is still unclaimed across councils in England.

    Among these staggering figures, over £20 million remains unallocated from just ten councils. This situation raises concerns about whether vulnerable individuals, struggling with the pressures of rising costs, are aware of their entitlements.

    All this comes amid a backdrop of Labour cuts to the DWP.

    As the Canary previously reported, the DWP under Labour is changing the eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payment (PIP). It is also freezing chronically ill and disabled people’s Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity (LCWRA) elements of Universal Credit, at £97 a week – and reduced them to £47 a week for new claimants – with only people with the most severe conditions able to apply for LCWRA. People under the age of 22 will no longer be able to claim these top-ups under Universal Credit at all.

    Initially, the government had claimed that Reeves’ proposed cuts would save them £5 billion. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has had to clarify that the savings will actually be £3.4 billion – hence the freeze in LCWRA rates.

    Neil Kadagathur, CEO and co-founder of Creditspring, expressed the urgency of the matter, stating:

    It’s been another punishing winter for household finances. Schemes such as the Household Support Fund can provide a lifeline for those struggling to afford rising bills, but with millions left unclaimed, it is clear that vulnerable people are missing out on much-needed support.

    Cost of living payments are still not enough

    His comments highlight the pressing need for better communication from local authorities to ensure that those who qualify for cost of living payments do not miss out.

    As the deadline approaches, councils across the country continue to offer various forms of support. It is essential for residents to check their local authorities’ websites or to contact their offices directly to understand the options available to them. Given the current economic climate, the funds are necessary and could make the difference for many households experiencing financial strain.

    However, the sheer volume of unclaimed cost of living payments also raises questions over Labour’s plans to cut DWP benefits for chronically ill and disabled people. It should also not be forgotten that the support packages – like the Household Fund – from previous Tory governments, were not adequate in the first place.

    The ongoing challenge remains that while funds are available, ensuring that those who qualify are made aware and able to claim is a task that still requires attention. As millions struggle to make ends meet, the effectiveness of the Household Support Fund is overshadowed by the number of unclaimed payments, pointing to a vital gap in communication from the government and the DWP.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • What Comes After Globalization?

    Donald Trump is back in power, and, to put it mildly, he’s no fan of globalization. The president has publicly “rejected globalism and embraced patriotism” and said that “it’s left millions and millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache.” To better understand the current era of globalization that he’s trying to bring to an end and its track record, it’s useful to compare it with the globalization that took place between 1870 and the outbreak of World War I.

    Both globalizations represent pivotal periods — watershed years that shaped today’s world. And both saw the largest expansions of global economic output to date.

    The post What Comes After Globalization? appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • 213 MILLION children will need humanitarian aid this year

    In a world where significant changes are unfolding, the situation for many remains dire, especially for the most vulnerable populations. The pressing issue of hunger and malnutrition is worsening, as important supports are being withdrawn, particularly for children.

    Hundreds of millions of children suffering thanks to the Global North

    The United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) has recently highlighted a concerning trend: declining financial aid from governments and other supporters for programs that tackle malnutrition and hunger in children. This reduction in funding is alarming, leading to what humanitarian organisations are describing as a global financing crisis for essential aid.

    One stark example provided by Unicef’s Deputy Director, Kitty van der Heijden, addresses the severe conditions faced by children in Ethiopia and Nigeria. In these regions, 1.3 million children under the age of five are reportedly lacking access to necessary assistance, putting their lives at significant risk.

    The unfurling crisis stems from multiple factors, including agricultural failures due to prolonged droughts that have plagued various regions, further jeopardising food security. Unicef has reported that over 213 million children are projected to require humanitarian aid this year directly as a result of these compounding issues.

    The statistics are harrowing: 148 million children under five are currently malnourished, with 45 million suffering from acute starvation. Alarmingly, nearly a quarter of all children worldwide are classified as chronically undernourished. After seeing some improvements in past years, these numbers are again on the rise.

    The situation is particularly pressing given the context of austerity measures and a noticeable indifference from wealthier nations, which have occasionally failed to support those facing dire circumstances.

    As conditions deteriorate, the urgent need for aid and a reevaluation of support systems becomes increasingly clear amidst the ongoing global upheaval. This development raises questions about the responsibility of wealthier countries in addressing the root causes of hunger and malnutrition, particularly in the Global South, where the impacts are often most severe.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

  • Tax the super-rich: protest breaks out over Spring Statement right at Rachel Reeves’ front door

    Around 300 people gathered outside the Treasury in London yesterday evening, ahead of chancellor Rachel Reeves’ controversial spring statement, to demand the government raises taxes on the wealth of the super-rich instead of slashing public spending.

    Rachel Reeves: throwing countless people into further poverty

    The government sparked fury ahead of the budget, by announcing deep cuts in disability benefits and international aid spending, while boosting investment in the military.

    Author and economist Gary Stevenson, Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer, and Labour peer Prem Sikka addressed the crowd, alongside the leaders of union, environmental groups, and anti-poverty organisations:

    “This is the only way to save the majority of the country from poverty” Stevenson told the crowd:

    I know that we can win this one. But we don’t win it today, and we don’t win it tomorrow, and we don’t win it this week, and we don’t win it next year. We need to build this and build this and build this, because this is the issue that unites this country and people all over the world that are being squeezed out of a quality of life that their parents and their grandparents had.

    The protest was organised by War on Want, Oxfam, Greenpeace, and others.

    There have been mounting calls for the government to raise taxes on the assets of the super-rich. The Trades Union Congress endorsed one last summer, and in October, a dozen Labour MPs broke ranks to support the call.

    Yesterday, Oxfam published research revealing that three quarters of Brits back a tax increase on the richest over cuts to public spending.

    The richest 1% of Brits own more wealth than the poorest 70%, and the world could see multiple trillionaires within a decade. Levying even a 2.5% tax on assets over £10 million could raise £36bn annually, according to Greenpeace.

    ‘Cruel and misguided’

    Nuri Syed Corser, Senior Economic Justice Campaigner at War on Want, said:

    Inequality is soaring, the climate is collapsing, and public services are at breaking point. We need huge public investment to tackle these crises. But instead, the government is gearing up to deliver lethal cuts to welfare, international aid and green investment, claiming there is not enough money to fund these life-saving policies. Meanwhile, the obscene wealth of the super-rich is surging and going largely untaxed. It’s time to tax it.

    Matilda Borgström, UK Campaigner at 350.org, said:

    Rachel Reeves’ decision to slash welfare while refusing to tax the super-rich is both cruel and misguided. Instead of making billionaires like Jim Ratcliffe – who profits from fossil fuels that drive the climate crisis – pay what they owe, she is choosing to side with the ultra-wealthy at the expense of ordinary people. A wealth tax on billionaires could fund vital support for those struggling with the cost of living – accelerating the transition to renewable energy could slash energy bills, insulate homes and create future-proof jobs. Instead, Reeves is prioritising the interests of a handful of elites over the well-being of millions. This is not just an economic failure – it’s a moral one.

    Rachel Reeves: failing us all – except the super-rich

    Hannah Dewhirst, Head of Campaigns at Positive Money, said:

    Too many wealthy corporations and individuals have seen their riches rise because the last government failed to prevent profiteering during a cost of living crisis. This government must rectify the inequality caused by this by taxing back some of that wealth and using it to support the struggling households it was squeezed from.

    Caitlin Boswell, Head of Advocacy at Tax Justice UK:

    Across the country, inequality is soaring and people are being left behind, struggling to make ends meet and dealing with broken public services, all while the very richest get richer. Choosing to make cut after cut to the poorest and most marginalised, while leaving the vast resource of the extreme wealth of the super rich untouched, is immoral, harmful, and will not deliver for our communities or the economy. Instead, this government could choose to tax the wealth of the very richest people and corporations. This would raise tens of billions annually to address the cost of living crisis and deliver the long-term investment our country needs.

    Featured image and additional images via Andrea Domeniconi/War on Want

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • New research shows 73% of DWP Universal Credit claimants go whole days without eating

    New research has unveiled a distressing reality for individuals relying on Universal Credit in the UK, highlighting a growing crisis of food insecurity that casts a long shadow over their well-being. Of course, amid the Labour government’s plans for £5bn of cuts to chronically ill and disabled people’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) benefits, the new research is even more concerning.

    DWP Universal Credit is leaving people in severe food insecurity

    Conducted by the University of Nottingham’s Division of Food, Nutrition and Dietetics, the Benefits and Nutrition Study (BEANS) presents alarming statistics that reveal the severe challenges people claiming DWP Universal Credit face in accessing adequate nutrition.

    The study, which surveyed 328 adults aged 16 to 65 across the UK, found that a staggering 85% of DWP Universal Credit claimants experience food insecurity, meaning they struggle to get enough food consistently. This troubling figure suggests a broad spectrum of inadequacies in the food supply available to the most vulnerable in society.

    Shockingly, 73% of DWP Universal Credit claimants reported going whole days without eating, raising serious concerns about their health and nutrition.

    The results, published in the European Journal of Nutrition, indicate a particularly alarming trend: 39% of respondents did not eat fruit at all, while 16% reported never consuming vegetables.

    These figures are indicative of a dire situation where households are forced to make unbearable compromises when it comes to their food choices. Notably, the study revealed a reliance on what participants described as a “beige diet,” primarily consisting of bread and devoid of essential nutrients.

    Not surprising

    Dr. Simon Welham, who led this research, remarked on the dire findings – which, for anyone with experience of DWP Universal Credit will not be a surprise at all. Welham said:

    Although we know that there is a link between food insecurity and poverty, we were surprised by the results as it showed clearly that nearly everyone claiming Universal Credit faced food insecurity over the period of the study.

    His comments underline the acute health risks that accompany such food deprivation, with vital micronutrients like vitamin A, iron, selenium, potassium, iodine, and magnesium often falling far below the recommended dietary requirements.

    Worryingly, the report highlighted the specific deficiency of selenium, an essential micronutrient that plays a crucial role in protecting the body from oxidative stress. Welham noted that “almost 70% of Universal Credit recipients consumed below this lower reference nutrient intake level,” leading to concerns about long-term health issues including heart disease and certain cancers.

    Economic factors exacerbated the problem, as the loss of the £20 per week uplift to Universal Credit during the COVID pandemic resulted in an almost doubling of dependence on food banks.

    For those households subsisting on less than £200 per week, the threat of food insecurity is particularly acute. These individuals often find themselves at the mercy of limited resources, further compounded by geographical barriers to affordable grocery stores, which can force them to rely on over-priced local shops.

    DWP Universal Credit is broken

    Dr. Welham also emphasised the importance of addressing the root causes of food insecurity, stating:

    This is a complex issue to solve, and there are many reasons why people can’t access better food. But this study shows that interventions are needed to ensure that everyone can obtain an appropriate diet at an affordable price, or large numbers of society’s very poorest people will experience a rapid decline in health.

    Of course, it’s not really that complicated. Give people enough money to live comfortably on, do not force them into jobs or a system that makes you jumps through hoops for a pittance, and provide people with something to live for – and people’s diets will invariably improve.

    The findings from the BEANS study come at a critical time when the rising cost of living puts further strain on vulnerable groups. Yet now, Labour want to cut even more money from people’s DWP benefits.

    The research not only illustrates the harsh realities faced by DWP Universal Credit claimants but also raises pressing questions about the effectiveness of current policies in combating food insecurity and promoting health and well-being for all citizens.

    Ultimately, it shows that far from supporting claimants, the DWP is effectively abandoning them to a life of poverty and misery – and sometimes even death.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Time is running out to take action on standing charges

    There’s less than 24 hours left to respond to energy regulator Ofgem’s latest consultation on unfair standing charges on energy bills.

    Campaign group Fuel Poverty Action is urging the public to take action and call on it to finally scrap the unjust flat-rate levy. This is because, despite Ofgem’s warm words on a “zero standing charge option” – that’s not at all what the energy regulator is actually putting forward.

    Ofgem standing charges: consultation set to close soon

    As the Canary previously reported, Ofgem is currently running a consultation on the standing charge it applies to people’s energy bills.

    Ofgem explains that this is a cost:

    that is included in your electricity and gas bill. It is also included in the energy price cap.

    Your energy supplier will charge you a standing charge cost each day, even if you do not use any energy on that day. The amount you pay will depend on your supplier, how you pay for your energy and where you live within England, Scotland or Wales.

    However, the standing charge is an extremely unfair flat-rate levy on customers, disproportionately impacting the poorest households. Crucially, the charge is cementing fuel poverty.

    It’s why many people think Ofgem should abolish the standing charge altogether – and have demanded it do so in a number of previous consultations.

    The ‘strength of feeling’ against cruel standing charges

    Since late 2023, Ofgem has been consulting on these. Over 30,000 members of the public responded to its first consultation, which the regulator itself acknowledged:

    demonstrated the strength of feeling among the public for change

    On top of this, in September 2024, more than 20,000 people again flooded Ofgem’s inbox calling for change on the standing charge component of consumer energy bills.

    Crucially, prominent among these changes was for Ofgem to completely scrap the standing charges. Instead, respondents said it should shift:

    these costs to energy suppliers to absorb using profits

    Now, this is exactly what campaign group Fuel Poverty Action is asking it to do – and wants to public to join them in demanding.

    The regulator is once again consulting on standing charges.

    It has put forward an alternative proposal which it’s calling a “zero standing charge energy price cap variant”. However, the name is deceiving, because it amounts to little more than moving money around. In reality, it’s only offering to shift this cost onto the unit price of customers’ bills – so in effect, the standing charge will still exist.

    Third time’s the charm?

    So Fuel Poverty Action has put together a template letter for people to fill out and send to Ofgem in response to its latest consultation. However, Ofgem is closing its consultation on 20 March – so people will have to hurry to respond.

    And notably, it sets out how Ofgem can do-away with standing charges and indeed force profiteering energy companies to shoulder the costs. Notably, it lays out that the energy system could do this with a Rising Block Tariff in the form of its Energy For All proposal. This would:

    everyone a share of the free and cheap renewable energy we generate.

    And crucially, this would be funded by:

    the £billions in excess profits, subsidies and costs of energy firms.

    So now, you can join the campaign group in telling Ofgem that there is a better way forward than its sham “zero standing charge option”.

    Fuel Poverty Action has pointed out to supporters that their:

    record-breaking response to Ofgem’s last two consultations on energy bill standing charges helped to force Ofgem and Government to agree to reform the standing charge.

    There’s still time to add your letter to the tens of thousands of people holding the regulator to account. And maybe, third time might actually be the charm.

    You can use and adapt Fuel Poverty Action’s letter here to respond to the consultation. There’s no time to waste.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.