radiofree.asia

Category: poverty

  • A Global Minimum Wage Would Reduce Poverty And Corporate Power

    In today’s world of widespread poverty and unprecedented wealth, how about raising the wages of the most poorly-paid workers?

    This October, the World Bank reported that “8.5 percent of the global population―almost 700 million people―live today on less than $2.15 per day,” while “44 percent of the global population―around 3.5 billion people―live today on less than $6.85 per day.” Meanwhile, “global poverty reduction has slowed to a near standstill.”

    In early 2024, the charity group Oxfam International noted that, since 2020, “148 top corporations made $1.8 trillion in profit, 52 percent up on 3-year average, and dished out huge payouts to rich shareholders.”

    The post A Global Minimum Wage Would Reduce Poverty And Corporate Power appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The Walmart Effect

    No corporation looms as large over the American economy as Walmart. It is both the country’s biggest private employer, known for low pay, and its biggest retailer, known for low prices. In that sense, its dominance represents the triumph of an idea that has guided much of American policy making over the past half century: that cheap consumer prices are the paramount metric of economic health, more important even than low unemployment and high wages. Indeed, Walmart’s many defenders argue that the company is a boon to poor and middle-class families, who save thousands of dollars every year shopping there.

    The post The Walmart Effect appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Despised: The Poor white Trash Manifesto, Part I

    There is a material reality behind this human schism and this mutual hatred, that of the privileged white versus that of the downtrodden white. It dates back centuries and hemispheres. Whoever is not a billionaire and groups us together, erasing our class differences, does so at their own peril, and our peril as well. 

    To group all whites together is the priority of the ruling class. We poor whites have different resentments, spiritualities and worldviews from those of our class oppressors, though we often don’t recognize it, much less know how to express it. Leftist identity politics conflate us with the foreign reality of another social class. Whose agenda does this serve? 

    The post Despised: The Poor white Trash Manifesto, Part I appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The Global South Is On The Brink Of A Disastrous Debt Crisis

    Countries across the Global South are experiencing climate, poverty and development crises — all made worse by the unbearable costs of debt servicing. Indeed, according to Development Finance International, “Citizens of the Global South now face the worst debt crisis since global records began.” Low-income countries, which have seen the amount paid on foreign debt payment increase by 150 percent since 2011, are being hit especially hard.

    In the exclusive interview for Truthout that follows, Ilene Grabel, a leading economist in global finance and global financial governance, sheds light on the roots of the Global South debt crisis and offers specific strategies for easing the debt burden of developing countries.

    The post The Global South Is On The Brink Of A Disastrous Debt Crisis appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Starmer chaos leaves a million older people hungry as even Labour MPs warn worse to come

    When the new Labour Party government immediately went after older people, the Canary and many others warned that their needless assault would cause harm for many. Tragically, Labour didn’t listen, and we’re now seeing the results:

    To make things worse, commentator Dan Hodges claims Labour MPs are warning him there’s likely ‘worse to come’:

    A million hungry and cold older people

    In September 2023, Age UK released data on how many pensioners could feel the brunt of Labour’s harsh policy change:

    Age UK analysis reveals 2.5 million older people on low incomes are set to lose their Winter Fuel Payment as a result of the Government’s means-testing decision and will struggle without it – an appreciably higher number than the Charity’s initial estimate of 2 million.

    This new figure also excludes the unknown number of pensioners with higher incomes who are sick or disabled and who face unavoidably high energy bills as a result. For example, their homes may need to be especially warm to keep health conditions under control, or they may have to run the washing machine every day because of incontinence.

    Age UK analysed data from The Department for Work and Pensions and found that:

    • 1.6 million older people who are living in poverty will lose their WFP as they are not receiving any of the qualifying benefits.
    • A further 900,000 older people whose incomes are just above the poverty line[ii] will also lose the WFP. These people have incomes which are no more than £55 per week above the poverty line.

    Winter has arrived in the UK now, and as a result we’re starting to see the effects. This is clear from a new Age UK report, as covered by the Observer:

    More than 1 million people aged 66 or over have been skipping meals, according to Age UK’s data. Again, vulnerable groups are seriously affected, with 620,000 pensioners suffering long-term conditions estimated to be missing meals.

    Similar numbers were found to be reducing the number of hot meals they had. Four in nine pensioners – about 5.5 million people – said they were worried that they would not be able to heat their home enough this winter. More than 900,000 pensioners with long-term conditions said they were worried about getting into debt.

    Labour politicians including Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting have claimed that pensioners will actually be better off under them because of the party’s broader political platform. These claims have been disputed and pulled apart, with the iPaper noting that measures such as maintaining the pension ‘triple lock’ was actually signed off by Jeremy Hunt earlier this year.

    What we’re seeing now is that many pensioners are demonstrably not doing better. There’s also chaos; even those who are still entitled, as the Observer reports:

    The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, announced a huge scaling back of winter fuel payments in July – a measure designed to save £1.4bn and help close a black hole in public spending this year.

    Under the new system, only those who qualify for pension credit will receive the allowance.

    However, there are now warnings that some of those eligible for the payments will not receive them until the end of the winter because the government is struggling to cope with the number of claims, which are running at about 10,000 a week.

    In other words, switching from a universal system to a means-tested one hasn’t just excluded many at-need pensioners; it’s also created a layer of bureaucracy which is preventing those who are still entitled from getting what they deserve. Who could have seen that coming? Not Labour, apparently, as they claimed to have not done an impact assessment of their own policy:

    The Observer provided further comment from Age UK, highlighting the monumental fuck up that Labour have created:

    “There are long delays now waiting for pension credit,” said Caroline Abrahams, Age UK’s director. “The problem is the whole system has been overwhelmed. I understand they’re about 12 weeks now. Somebody could apply today for pension credit and be eligible, but if you work it out, they’re not going to hear even if they are successful until the back end of the winter.

    “It’s really worrying that people with long-term health conditions are going to be badly hit because they are the most vulnerable. That is extremely bad news for the NHS. We could have avoided this. If this disaster has shown anything to the government, us and the public, it is that the idea that all older people are doing fabulously well and are all very affluent is, sadly, not the case.”

    Official figures show that the government has received about 150,000 claims for pension credit in the 16 weeks since Reeves’s announcement in July – a 145% increase in claims in the previous 16 weeks.

    And as bad as things seem right now, it’s reportedly the opinion of several Labour MPs that the worst is yet to come.

    Labour: ‘bonkers’

    Commentator Dan Hodges published a piece on 7 December carrying the comments of several unnamed Labour politicians for the Mail on Sunday. We agree that the Mail outlets are terrible and that Dan Hodges is among the dumbest commentators the UK has ever produced, but they’re also exactly the sort of people that modern Labour MPs would speak to, so of course that’s where the story ended up.

    According to Hodges, one minister ‘confided’ in him:

    It’s only a matter of time until we get some terrible case… It happens every year, some tragedy where a pensioner dies alone. But this year it will be blamed on us – for winter fuel allowance cuts. And then we’re going to be in the midst of a full-blown crisis.

    You’ll notice a theme in the comments Hodges received, which is that these politicians are more concerned about the impact on Labour’s electability than the impact on pensioners. Another MP told him:

    Our own analysis shows 100,000 pensioners could be driven into poverty by this. Yet the saving is tiny – just over £1 billion. In the scheme of things, that’s peanuts. Rachel’s supposed to be a smart economist and politician. But where’s the cost-benefit analysis? For the hit we’re going to take politically, it’s bonkers.

    A somewhat deluded ‘Labour official’ told Hodges:

    People don’t like it. But they understand it

    Have you met anyone who ‘understands’ this policy? It’s doubtful if public outcry is anything to go by:

     

    Some are pointing out that Labour is going after the elderly to spare the rich:

    Chaos with Keir Starmer

    In the run up to the 2015 election, David Cameron infamously tweeted the following:

    The tweet came back to haunt Cameron and the chaotic year which followed – a year which ended with his resignation. At the same time, though, we likely would have had chaos with Ed Miliband for the same reason we’re experiencing it with Keir Starmer; namely because these people prioritise the rich over everyone else, and doing so is eroding the foundations of our society.

    Featured image via PickPik / Sky News

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Two parents working full time cannot even meet the bare minimum standard of living, CPAG finds

    A couple with two children working full time on the minimum wage are still £138 short per week of a basic standard of living, research has revealed. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has released its annual report on the ‘Cost of a Child’ that shows, 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.

    Triple crisis: low wages, high inflation, high wealth inequality

    This reflects the fact that we have lower real wages in the UK since the financial crash, with workers facing the longest pay squeeze in 200 years, according to the TUC. And as CPAG notes:

    from 2021 to 2024, headline inflation was much higher, and there were particular pressures on low-income families as areas where they spend a greater share of their income (food, energy), saw sharp price rises higher than overall inflation

    Indeed, a report from the Education Policy Institute (EPI) recently highlighted that food prices were generally up 19% from March 2022 until March 2023. And some key foods such as pasta and vegetable oil rose by at least 60%.

    Using research from the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University, CPAG calculated that a two parent family with two children working full time on the minimum wage are still around one fifth below meeting a basic standard of living.

    This stands in contrast to 2008 where the equivalent family could cover 93% of costs. At the same time, the wealth of just the top ten billionaires in the UK has increased from £47.77bn in 2009 to £182bn in 2022 – an increase of 281%.

    Labour isn’t helping

    CPAG’s findings come at a time where prime minister Keir Starmer has 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 so far he has failed to announce any significant policies that address the rampant inequality between parents working full time – who can’t even make ends meet – and the super rich.

    And that’s before you get to single parents and those out of work. People may be unable to work or – another factor – is that there are far less vacancies in the country than there are unemployed people. And that’s without accounting for whether people have the skills for the job.

    A lone parent working full time on the minimum wage can only meet 69% of costs, while a lone parent on the median wage can meet 80% of costs. Meanwhile, a couple not working can only meet 39% of costs and, for a lone parent out of work, it’s 44%.

    It’s not wonder the poverty rate is so high in the UK. As the Canary previously reported:

    Despite numerous promises from successive governments, the poverty rate in 2022/23 has climbed to 24% – the highest recorded this century. This equates to 16 million people, including 5.2 million children, living in poverty.

    In its ‘Cost of a Child’ report, CPAG also points out that Labour’s decision to keep the two child benefit cap has exacerbated the cost of living crisis further for those with three or more children. A couple with three children working full time on the minimum wage can only meet 70% of their costs. And a lone parent with three children on that full time salary can only meet 61%.

    CPAG: “urgent policy reform” needed

    Chief executive of Child poverty Action Group Alison Garnham said:

    The PM can see that families are struggling against the tide but a reset will need action not just words. Investment in children through the social security system is guaranteed to improve living standards for kids and would be a vital down-payment on the future of the country. Families need to feel improvements, and a crucial place to start is with scrapping the two-child limit.

    Dr. Juliet Stone of Loughborough University, who did the calculations for the report, said:

    Our updated analysis of the cost of bringing up a child shows that parents living on low incomes are increasingly unable to provide their families with a decent standard of living, even if they are in full-time work. The findings add further evidence of the need for urgent policy reform – including removing the two-child limit – to ensure that all children can grow up in households with enough income to allow them to live with dignity.

    The report also found that the cost of raising a child from birth to 18 is £260,000 for couples and £290,000 for lone parents. Given children are the future, we should ensure parents have enough to raise them through addressing inequality, along with price controls or public ownership of essentials.

    Featured image via Channel 4 News – YouTube

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • DWP strips severely chronically ill mother and disabled son of £8k a year in Universal Credit migration

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Universal Credit mandatory managed migration has stripped a severely chronically ill and largely bedbound mother of her benefits for her disabled son. Now, as temperatures drop, and energy bills rise, she can no longer afford the heating to keep her home a safe temperature for their health.

    Her experience illustrates the real-world impact of the DWP’s shambolic process that has now denied vital benefits to over 380,000 people. Crucially, it displays the DWP’s blatant systemic ableism, misogyny, and classism at work as it has shunted people over to Universal Credit.

    DWP managed migration chaos continues

    The DWP began rolling out managed migration in July 2019, as a pilot scheme. This is where the department forces people who have not yet moved to Universal Credit, either voluntarily or because of a change of circumstance, onto it. This is because the new benefit is replacing old ones like Tax Credits.

    This forced migration involves the DWP issuing notices, with a three month deadline for claimants to make the move to Universal Credit. It officially began this process in July 2022. Since then, the department has progressively stripped claimants of their benefits.

    In November, the Canary revealed the latest figures for all this. For data going up to the end of September 2024, we detailed that:

    • The DWP had sent a total of 1,369,367 individuals, or 943,343 households migration notices between June 2022 and September 2024.
    • 318,834 people had lost their benefits (29%)
    • 185,076 were women (58%)
    • 69% of these were Child Tax Credit or working Tax Credit claimants

    Crucially then, we pointed out how this was disproportionately impacting women. Alongside this, it’s having a significant toll on households with children. We wrote that:

    the data revealed that the DWP has stripped benefits from 151,927 households with children. In other words, it means at least 150k children have seen their parents lose their benefits in the process of the DWP’s mandatory migration.

    A reader who saw the article reached out to the Canary about this. She told us that:

    I am one of those people stripped of benefits.

    Ann wanted to speak out about her appalling experience of the DWP process, and how it has impacted her. Notably, Ann is obviously among the 185,076 women who made up more than half the claimants that the DWP has left without their benefits. Moreover, Ann has a disabled son too – so he’s one of over 150,000 children who’ve had parents lose their benefits in this process.

    Ann and her twelve-year-old son

    Previously, Ann was a chartered civil engineer. However, due to serious chronic ill health, she is now unable to work. As such, Ann has been claiming contributory Employment Support Allowance (ESA).

    She falls into the ‘support group’ for this, because her long-term health condition severely limits what she can do. Alongside this, she gets Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to help with the costs of managing her chronic health condition. Separately, she also receives a small ill health occupational pension.

    Her twelve-year-old son is disabled, so also claims Disability Living Allowance (DLA). Crucially, the government had been issuing Ann Child Tax Credits (CTC) to help with costs for her son, since she’s unable to work, and on a low income.

    CTC comprises of the following (2024 rates):

    1. Up to £545 (just under £10.50 a week) as the basic amount – known as the ‘family element’
    2. Up to £3,455 (around £66 a week) – the ‘child element’
    3. Up to £4,170 (approx. £80 a week) on top of this if the child is disabled. Specifically, this applies to children under 16 claiming DLA, or over 16 claiming PIP.

    There are particular rules around this latter one, such as the requirement for them to be still in full-time education, or approved training (up to the age of 20).

    Ann would have claimed somewhere close to the full amount of these, as her CTC equated to circa £8,000 a year. Since her son claims DLA, she was eligible for the extra CTCs for this too.

    Of course, CTC is one of the benefits that the DWP has been phasing out in its forced migration to Universal Credit. And it was this that the department has now stopped for Ann. But notably, she was unable to make the move over to Universal Credit in time. So now, Ann has completely lost her CTC, and has no Universal Credit in its place.

    Most significantly though, it was the DWP’s own incompetent services and half-baked process that was to blame for Ann losing out.

    DWP managed migration helpline hopelessly uninformed

    The DWP had sent Ann a migration notice letter towards the end of February. Obviously, it signified the impending cut-off of her CTC. As with all people the DWP is forcing over to Universal Credit, it gave her three months to do this.

    In April, she phoned the DWP migration helpline for advice. This was to enquire how migrating her CTC over to Universal Credit would impact, if at all, her contributory ESA.

    In theory, the DWP managed migration process doesn’t apply to people on either new style or contributory ESA. It is only mandating that people on income-related ESA shift over to Universal Credit. As such, shifting from CTC to Universal Credit shouldn’t affect contributory ESA. However, the DWP deducts the contributory ESA from Universal Credit payments.

    In other words, while Ann’s CTC move to Universal Credit wouldn’t have impacted her contributory ESA, her contributory ESA would impact the Universal Credit she would receive. Technically, the DWP would bring her contributory ESA under its Universal Credit system. And to do this, it would convert it to new style ESA. There’s no material difference between these in practice, so moving over to Universal Credit shouldn’t affect Ann’s contributory ESA.

    However, the problem was that no one at the DWP could tell her any of this. She explained to the Canary how an advisor had:

    escalated the matter up her chain of command by many levels, speaking to seven or eight different advisors in the process, and was able to confirm that they had no knowledge of how it would be affected and that it was likely that it hadn’t yet been considered.

    And despite being unable to confirm the possible impacts, they offered Ann no further resolution to this. Notably, they also failed to inform her that she could apply for an extension for her move over to Universal Credit.

    Losing thousands in income and the Warm Home Discount

    It meant that the three months elapsed without Ann getting any information on this from the DWP. So, by the close of May, her CTC came to an end, but she hadn’t been able to apply to Universal Credit for fear it could impact her ESA.

    While Ann could now make a new claim for Universal Credit, she has lost her transitional protection. This was supposed to ensure she’d be no worse off after the forced move. Of course, in practice, this isn’t actually necessarily the case. Many chronically ill and disabled people moving over will in reality face a cut to their benefits through a series of regressive rules around transitional protection.

    Nonetheless, the DWP staff’s ignorance meant that the department effectively denied Ann benefits in its managed migration process altogether.

    Ann has now gone half a year without CTC, with nothing replacing them. So, she has so far lost around £4,000 in benefits for her disabled son. CTC had also meant she could get free dental care, as well as the government’s Warm Home Discount (WHD). Now, she has lost both these on top of the substantial cut in income.

    So right as energy bills have risen by on average £149, Ann will have lost up to virtually the same amount – £150 – off her electricity bill.

    Of course, to be eligible to receive the WHD in the first place with CTC, you have to be living on a low income anyway. For instance, a single parent household with one child would need to have an income below £24,479 for 2024/25 to qualify. The government set this threshold to maximise the number of people in fuel poverty on a low income getting the rebate on their electricity bill. In other words, people claiming Tax Credits below this threshold were significantly likely to be fuel poor.

    Heating or eating: poor households hit hardest by loss of WHD

    Notably also, that threshold equates to less than the 2024/25 national minimum wage (NMW) rates for 40 hours a week (high end of full-time). So it means that it’s people living on an income that’s lower than a NMW full-time role who this applies to. Conversely then, it also means that people living on the equivalent of a NMW full-time role won’t receive the WHD.

    The point is, it’s only Tax Credit claimants on income equivalents below the UK’s legal pay floor that are eligible for it. And given the NMW isn’t even enough to meet the basic costs of living anyway, all Tax Credit claimants who’ve been getting it are likely struggling to afford even the essentials.

    So, many of the poorest households on Tax Credits would also be losing out on the WHD when the DWP stopped their benefits during its forced migration.

    Moreover, this threshold is also well below the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s ‘Minimum Income Standard (MIS)’. Essentially, this is the minimum income a person needs to meet a decent standard of living. In other words, not just the basic needs to survive, but what they need to participate fully in society. In 2024, for a single person, this was £28,000. So, in other words, every single person household with a child on CTC eligible for WHD, is living on substantially less than the MIS as well.

    It’s little wonder then that Ann told the Canary that she is now unable to afford to use the heating most of the time.

    Making Ann’s myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) worse

    This is just one of the devastating impacts of the DWP’s managed migration. However, if all this weren’t bad enough, it’s the impact on Ann’s health that really drives home the injustice the DWP has baked into the mandatory move.

    Significantly, Ann lives with moderate to severe myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). It is a devastating chronic systemic neuroimmune disease that affects nearly every system in the body. ME causes a range of debilitating symptoms that hugely disrupts patients’ daily lives.

    In Ann’s case, she lives between the moderate to severe end of the scale for ME. Typically housebound, moderate ME patients have significantly reduced mobility and are often highly restricted in all daily living activities. Those with severe ME are mostly, if not entirely permanently bed-bound or hospitalised. They are often unable to digest food, communicate, or process information, and are fully dependent on others for their care.

    In all its severities, post-exertional-malaise (PEM) is the hallmark feature of ME. This entails a disproportionate worsening of many, if not all other symptoms after even minimal physical, social, or mental activities.

    Unsurprisingly then, Ann’s interactions with the DWP had significant consequences for her ME. She told the Canary that:

    As for the impact, well, my illness is severely exacerbated by stress, as many are. So my health is worse, my pain is significantly worse. I am trying my best to at least manage my illness to keep it stable and mitigate the long term impact of being largely bed-bound with moderate to severe CFS/ME, but every contact with DWP undermines this and prompts another set back.

    That is, the DWP persistent failures in Ann’s managed migration has actively exacerbated her symptoms. And that puts it lightly. The reality of this for Ann will likely be prolonged periods of PEM.

    Layer upon layer of health harms through DWP managed migration

    Of course, there are multiple layers to this in terms of how the DWP has put her health at risk.

    For one, the DWP’s processes themselves would have each caused her ME to flare. Ann had to expend her limited energy to engage with managed migration over to Universal Credit in numerous ways that would have had ramifications for her health.

    Firstly, the very fact Ann had to move over to Universal Credit in the first place, without any form of support from the DWP, is appalling enough in itself. Ann’s experience draws attention to the fact that little attention, if any at all, has been paid to the additional burden the process would have on chronically ill and disabled individuals claiming old-style benefits.

    Nothing in the process takes into account that many chronically ill and disabled claimants wouldn’t be able to do this without support. Nor that many may not have access to support either. Many people with severe ME couldn’t do this – not least due to the cognitive impairment that typically comes with the condition. But also quite simply because they might live in constant, sometimes excruciating pain with serious sensitivities to light and sound that triggers any number of severe symptoms.

    Even when some can physically and mentally manage the process – as with Ann – it doesn’t mean they should have to. The fall-out from doing so can lead to similarly severe health consequences, sometimes long-term. As ever, the DWP hasn’t thought about the most vulnerable people in its design for this mandatory requirement.

    Systemic ableism baked into the DWP

    However, it’s not just the design either that’s a problem. At every stage, and in a multitude of ways, the DWP threatened Ann’s health.

    Ann could have got an extension to transition to Universal Credit, but no one told her about this. Plus, the onus would always have been on her to initiate it. That’s more bureaucracy that Ann would have to deal with – leaving her less energy and wellness for more urgent daily care needs, and potentially causing PEM. She’d also have to do this once every four weeks – and each time would compound this impact.

    Speaking on the phone to the managed migration advisors would also have drained Ann of vital energy and relative moments of wellness. And once again, this could have triggered more possible PEM.

    Additionally, the distress that losing her CTC would have had on Ann’s health is incalculable. Now, the financial strain it has placed her under will make managing her ME even harder as well. She’ll be forced to divert finances she needs for her health, to other basic daily living expenses for her and her son.

    Not to mention that disabled people already have on average over £1,000 in extra disability-related costs to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. Put another way, the additional costs of disability account for on average 67% of household income after housing costs. So, Ann’s sudden enormous drop in income due to the DWP stripping her of her CTC will invariably intensify this glaring disparity for her too.

    And crucially, ME is a chronic health condition made worse by fluctuating and extreme temperatures. Ann mused to the Canary that:

    At least being stuck in bed means that I can get away with never having the heating on if my son isn’t at home or is with his dad…

    ME patients typically need specifically regulated temperatures to keep their symptoms in check, and prevent or manage PEM. It’s not a matter of if, not being able to afford the heating this winter WILL harm Ann. Again, this has every potential of tipping her into more frequent, or even constant severe ME.

    In short, the DWP’s shambolic process that has denied her benefits is putting both her and her disabled child’s health at risk. Most concerningly, the DWP’s unconscionable catalogue of failures, and built-in inaccessibility and ableism risks pushing her more permanently into severe ME.

    DWP managed migration – but errors all round

    However, these also haven’t been the only issues Ann has had with the DWP in recent months. Alongside its failure to inform her in time for her to make the move over to UC, the DWP had previously levied another debt on Ann too. This was in relation to her contribution-based ESA. She expressed to the Canary that they’re now chasing her CTC debt:

    at the same time as I am still paying off debt from the LAST mistake they made with my payments

    This prior debt is for around £100 – which she owes to the DWP. And as Ann implied, it concerns a DWP error. Specifically, it’s over its failure to reduce her ESA. This relates to a small occupational ill health pension Ann is also claiming since she stopped being able to work.

    Each April, Ann’s pension had risen with inflation. This is because, with contribution-based ESA, pension income above £85 a week affects how much of the award a claimant gets. Specifically, the DWP will reduce the ESA by half the value of any pension income over that amount.

    Ann explained that:

    Some years the adjustment was literally pennies per week due to low inflation, but then the cost of living crisis happened and inflation went through the roof.

    DWP drops the ball, then pushes the onus on claimants

    Every year, the DWP had liaised with her pension provider directly to confirm the amount it had risen by. The department would then adjust her contributory ESA accordingly. However, in April 2023, the DWP didn’t do this. So, Ann said that:

    Come November the threatening letters start arriving demanding back pay and also a penalty fine on top.

    Notably though, the DWP hadn’t at any point informed Ann that it hadn’t contacted her provider as usual, or made the adjustments to her contributory ESA. As such, Ann had no knowledge that the onus would be on her to inform the DWP of her pension’s increase. And as Ann pointed out, it also meant she wouldn’t have known to look out for this either. She expressed how:

    This was the year that my son was sitting his KS2 SATs, finishing primary school, transitioning to secondary school and also undergoing various assessments etc for his own health issues for which he now receives DLA and which made all of these events very trying for him. Needless to say that with all this going on I didn’t notice that they had done their usual adjustments, not least because the timescale when they did them varied anyway.

    Taking more of a toll

    However, despite all this, Ann said that the DWP had “refused to listen” when she called them. She explained that she:

    had expected them to act as they always have. That their behaviour has set a precedent etc, and they just keep shouting that “it’s in the legislation” and that it’s my responsibility.

    Given the department’s obstinance with the penalty, Ann initiated legal action. She told the Canary that:

    When they saw the case I was presenting they conceded before it went before a judge.

    Ann still owes the DWP the overpayment itself. Now however, she explained that her win on the penalty meant she had:

    reduced the debt by about 30%.

    But, the whole process had taken a toll on Ann’s ME as well, causing her symptoms to flare. Once again, the DWP’s cock-ups, and its punitive and ableist system had put her health at risk.

    Another limit the DWP hasn’t updated in years

    It’s also worth noting that the DWP hasn’t updated this £85 threshold since it introduced contribution-based ESA in 2001.

    Ann pointed this out in the context of the Carer’s Allowance upcoming earnings limit increase. While this too is still inadequate, it’s rising to £196 – or 16 hours on NMW from £151. It means more carers will be able to claim the benefit.

    If we’re to take a similar approach with the pension income limit for contributory ESA, then:

    • In 2001, the NMW was £4.10, meaning the limit was equivalent to over 20 hours of employment.
    • Now, NMW is £11.44, so it’s only worth 7.4 hours of employment.

    Effectively, the pension limit’s income value has eroded as the cost of living has increased over the past 23 years. In 2023, the DWP-sponsored non-departmental Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) recommended that the department should scrap this limit entirely. Crucially, it also noted how:

    The rationale for means-testing a contributory benefit against unearned income is not clear.

    So, the DWP has also foisted this debt on her due to a seemingly arbitrary limit. Most gallingly, this is a limit it hasn’t once up-rated in over twenty years.

    Department of wrecking people’s health

    All told, Ann is now around £8,000 worse off a year. The government has lumped her with two benefits-related debts, together worth over £1,000. Alongside this, she has lost free dental care, and her WHD worth up to £150 off her electricity bill.

    Her contributory ESA, PIP, small pension, and son’s DLA won’t be enough to meet even their basic needs. That’s without even factoring in the extra costs for disabled people’s daily living. This is the real-world reality of the DWP’s so-called managed migration process. As it turns out, the DWP isn’t ‘managing’ this well at all.

    Ann told the Canary that:

    I am trying, as best as I am able, to be a parent and rebuild some form of life in between tussles with HMG in one form or another. Obviously every health assessment and/or issue like this writes off at least a year, but I am slowly trying to learn what I can and cannot do without my body going into shock and shutting down, which is what happens when I do too much!

    And among the 380,000 people the DWP has stripped benefits from in this forced move, there are likely to be many more Ann’s. This is the callous human cost behind the DWP’s money-saving migration exercise to Universal Credit.

    Introduced under the Tories, Labour has ploughed ahead with it since. It has done so knowing full-well the staggering scale of people the DWP process is denying vital benefits to. Ann’s story should be the wake-up call the new government needs to halt DWP managed migration to Universal Credit in its tracks. If it fails to do so, Labour is saying that it’s content continuing a process. that’s irrevocably harming poor, chronically ill and disabled people, women, and children. Ann most certainly isn’t alone in going through this, but let her appalling experience be one of the last.

    Then, Labour must fix this too. And make damn sure that Ann and every other person the DWP has cruelly ripped vital benefits away from, have these properly restored, backdated, and fairly funded to meet their needs – not just to survive – but truly thrive.

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Inequality Street: the charity that’s giving the finger to homelessness this Christmas

    Birmingham based homelessness charity SIFA Fireside is rewriting the rules of Christmas with its latest campaign — Inequality Street — amid fears that homelessness is set to soar across the UK.

    Inequality Street

    The charity’s satirical Christmas chocolate box has been created to shine a light on a historic problem of poverty and homelessness. From ‘The Last Penny’ to ‘The Debt Triangle’, it’s a reminder of an unpalatable issue during the festive season.

    The scale of homelessness in the UK can be difficult to quantify, but according to The Big Issue there has been a 10% increase in the number of households in England living in temporary accommodation which has reached 112,660, including 146,800 children.

    The Inequality Street campaign is the charity’s take on everyone’s favourite festive chocolates, shining a light on the complexities of homelessness and factors which lead to people experiencing and becoming stuck in a cycle of homelessness.

    The Debt Triangle

    People experiencing homelessness are often trapped in a cycle of poverty and debt. When trying to work their way out of homelessness, many are unable to afford supported shared accommodation when they secure employment, due to the enhanced rates that landlords receive once benefits are withdrawn.

    The lack of intermediary support to facilitate this transition into employment and housing leaves people without the means to keep themselves from slipping back into poverty and homelessness.

    The Credit Crunch

    The cost-of-living crisis, where the cost of rent, food and other essentials has increased significantly, is forcing thousands of people to become increasingly reliant on food banks, charities, or other means of survival.

    A knock-on effect of the cost-of-living crisis is the impact on charities like SIFA Fireside, which has seen donations to the charity reduce as the crisis continued and households have had to prioritise where to spend their money.

    The Hidden One

    When we think of homelessness, we often think of rough sleeping. However, the sheer scale of homelessness in the UK goes unnoticed due to the lack of understanding about what homelessness actually is.

    There are hidden types of homelessness, such as sofa surfing and temporary, precarious housing options like hostels, shelters and squats which ultimately means that tens of thousands of people are without a fixed address.

    Caramel Whirl

    Whether it’s a result of homelessness in earlier life, poor mental health or discrimination, many people can become stuck in a revolving door of precarious housing. Due to the lack of quality or suitable housing options available, from HMOs to shelters, it can be difficult to find a permanent solution.

    Whilst living in precarious housing, there can be challenges with safety, particularly with those with a history of addiction or domestic violence. This can result in accommodation becoming unsustainable and triggering a cycle of rough sleeping and precarious housing arrangements.

    Milk Choc Tower Block

    There are many misconceptions about homelessness, one of which includes the idea that people sleeping rough usually end up in council housing within tower blocks in cities across the UK.

    However, due to the lack of suitable social housing available, there is an increasing amount of people stuck in precarious housing options, like HMOs, which can also be situated in relatively affluent areas. This reality is an important reminder that homelessness is not restricted to impoverished areas.

    The Last Penny

    What would you spend your last penny on?

    With limited finances available, this is an everyday question for those experiencing homelessness.

    Whether it’s warm clothing, sanitary essentials or food, everyday a choice has to be made about how to survive without a home.

    Welfare Éclair

    When experiencing homelessness, it can be hard to understand what you are entitled to. There is a lack of awareness about the support in place, such as housing and unemployment benefits, which leaves people without the support they are entitled to.

    A secondary issue is the criteria for benefits and other support, meaning that refugees and undocumented immigrants are unable to access the support they need.

    Landlord’s Delight

    No fault evictions are a huge reason why people fall into a cycle of homelessness, leaving people without a home or sufficient time to find alternative accommodation.

    Another factor is the lack of responsibility among “rogue landlords” for the maintenance of their properties, resulting in properties that aren’t fit for purpose and creating yet another trigger for a sequence of precarious housing.

    Orange Dream of a Forever Home

    Whether they’ve experienced a lifetime or a short period of poverty and homelessness, clients at SIFA Fireside often refer to their journey as the search for a “forever home” where they can live a healthier and happier life.

    What the Fudge?

    So, what is going on and why isn’t more being done to reduce the levels of homelessness in the UK?

    76 charities that are all affiliated with Homeless Link, including SIFA Fireside, are calling for the government to act now.

    There is currently a £1 billion shortfall in the funding needed to tackle the issue of homelessness, which is set to rise to record levels without intervention.

    Giving the Finger to homelessness

    This Christmas, SIFA Fireside is giving the finger to homelessness.

    SIFA Fireside is just one charity supporting people who are facing, at risk of, or in recovery from the effects of homelessness, and on average, carry out 85 unique interventions each day and over 6,000 each year.

    It is a mammoth task and one they cannot do alone.

    Robb Sheppard, Communications Manager at SIFA Fireside comments:

    Our Inequality Street Christmas campaign is a tongue-in-cheek way to shine a light on this hidden epidemic. We call on both the public and the government to take action this Christmas, do what you can to help those in need, and join us in giving the finger to homelessness.

    On Wednesday 11 December, SIFA Fireside will be taking Inequality Streets to the streets of Birmingham to raise awareness and much-needed funds for this important issue.

    Passersby will be invited to donate only what they can afford, and in thanks will be gifted some of the charity’s limited-edition Inequality Street chocolates.

    This activity will be taking place in Birmingham City Centre between 11:30 and 2:30 on Wednesday 11 December.

    There are a variety of ways to support the charity, including donations, fundraising and volunteering. To find out more, visit https://sifafireside.co.uk/ways-to-give/

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • One in four households with very young children are in food poverty. Labour has no excuse.

    A new report from the Education Policy Institute (EPI) has highlighted that a quarter of children under four are experiencing food poverty. The EPI also found that children under five are 25% more likely to experience food poverty than other children.

    Cost of living crisis – Labour is making it worse

    The authors noted that the cost of living crisis has exacerbated issues for low-income families, with food prices generally up 19% from March 2022 until March 2023. But some key foods such as pasta and vegetable oil are up by at least 60%. Indeed, in 2023, 61% of the poorest fifth of households reported cutting back on food.

    And it looks like the crisis isn’t going anywhere. Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) shows that Labour’s budget will leave the majority of people worse off.

    Nick Harrison, chief executive of the Sutton Trust, said:

    It’s a national disgrace that a quarter of families with children under four are experiencing food poverty. The UK is one of the world’s richest nations so there’s no excuse for allowing any child to go hungry, let alone those who are at such a crucial stage of their growth and development.

    In 2022, the Food Foundation found that the cost of healthy food is more than three times that of unhealthy food. This further impacts negative outcomes for low income families.

    Shocking choices from the government

    EPI further noted in the report that families with young children are more likely to experience food poverty partly because they are less likely to have both parents in full time work and partly because of cuts to benefits, like the two child cap.

    In July, only seven of Labour’s 411 MPs voted against the Conservative-issued cap. Not only that, but Keir Starmer suspended the seven MPs who did so. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) says removing the cap would lift 300,000 children out of poverty. This is a figure that is steadily rising.

    The EPI authors also pointed out that food poverty has negative psychological and physiological outcomes. It can lead to obesity, tooth decay, and mental health issues for parents. They note than when children under five experience food poverty they are more likely to have worse educational outcomes.

    Labour could address food insecurity through introducing price controls to curb corporate profiteering on essentials. Switzerland shields itself from high inflation levels in food and beyond through price controls on 30% of goods and services. The EPI report, meanwhile, recommends an ‘Essentials Guarantee’ to ensure families on social security have sufficient income.

    Food poverty: an ongoing scourge

    Dr Kerris Cooper, senior researcher in early years and inequalities at the EPI, said:

    This research highlights the urgency of addressing food poverty for children under five. We know that the first five years is a critical period of development, yet we also know that children of this age are more likely to experience food poverty.

    The evidence is clear on how damaging food poverty is for young children’s outcomes. For the government to achieve its mission of breaking down barriers to opportunity it needs to take action to reduce food poverty for under-fives.

    We have an opportunity with the upcoming child poverty strategy to address the disadvantage faced by the youngest children who have been overlooked in food poverty policy and debate.

    Featured image via BBC News – YouTube

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Many in the US Were Suffering Before Trump Was Reelected. What Will Happen Now?

    Before November 5th, millions of us were already struggling with poverty, extreme storms, immigration nightmares, anti-trans bills, criminalized reproductive health, the demolition of homeless encampments, the silencing of freedom of speech on campuses… and, of course, the list only goes on and on. Since Donald Trump and J.D. Vance were elected, more of us find ourselves in a state of fear and…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Labour’s latest admission on winter fuel payment cut is most damning yet

    Keir Starmer has said the winter fuel payment cut “makes sense”, just as his government admits it will push 250,000 pensioners into poverty by 2029-30.

    Starmer said many pensioners are “relatively wealthy” and didn’t need the allowance. But this leads to the question as to why he made the threshold so low for those who can claim it. From this winter, winter fuel payment allowance is only available to those who claim pension credit.

    50,000 more in poverty per year thanks to the winter fuel payment cut

    Labour Party work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall admitted in a letter that analysis shows that:

    compared to the numbers that would have been in poverty without this policy, it is estimated that in each year in question there will be an additional 50,000 pensioners in relative poverty after housing costs in 2024-25, 2025-26 and 2027-28, instead.

    The modelling also shows that an additional 100,000 pensioners are estimated to be in relative poverty after housing costs in 2026-27, 2028-29 and 2029-30. For all other measures of poverty, it is estimated that there will be an additional 50,000 pensioners in poverty each year from 2024-25 to 2029-30.

    Labour’s winter fuel payment cut admission reduces numerous comments from its ministers to, frankly, garbage. For instance, in October, culture secretary Lisa Nandy claimed that “no pensioner will be worse off this year”.

    Earlier in November, the union Unite announced it will challenge the winter fuel cut in court unless the government reverses its decision. This is on the grounds that Labour failed to properly consider the policy particularly for disabled people, people in Wales and those just above the threshold for pensions credit.

    The outcome that hundreds of thousands more pensioners will be in poverty from 2024-30 thanks to the winter fuel payment cut comes just as the energy regulator Ofgem announced a further increase of 1.2% on the energy price cap, following a 10% increase in October.

    Green New Deal could keep pensioners out of poverty

    Labour should be thinking big and long-term on how renewables could address both the climate and energy bills for pensioners. Instead, the government seems to be in the pocket of fossil fuel lobbyists and dirty energy donors. In July, the party accepted its largest ever donation (£4m) from a Cayman Island’s registered hedge fund with huge investments in fossil fuels.

    Aside from the moneyed toxicity in our political system, the overall strategy makes zero sense. Government contracts for offshore wind energy have been under 5p per kilowatt hour.

    That’s less than a quarter of typical household electricity bills that consumers are facing. A renewable energy transition would not only address spiralling climate disaster, it would greatly bring down our energy bills and keep pensioners and others out of poverty.

    Also, it would benefit the economy and households further if the renewable sources are in public ownership. That’s because it would remove profit from an essential every business and person needs daily.

    This is contrary to the Labour government’s current lip service, where it says it will crowd in private investment for renewables through very minimal public funding. Research shows that a Green New Deal would also bring us energy security and independence, protecting us from volatile global gas markets that drive up inflation.

    In short, instead of subsidising fossil fuel companies further with benefits for expensive gas and oil sources, along with obscene levels of profiteering, the government should bring in a publicly owned Green New Deal to drastically slash energy prices across the board.

    But until then, it’s irresponsible of Starmer to drive so many more pensioners into poverty through the winter fuel payment cut.

    Featured image via Shehab Khan – X

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Kia kaha Lebanon: NZ media only tell half your story of struggle

    The United States has vetoed a UN Security Council ceasefire resolution — for the fourth time — in Israel’s war on Gaza, while Hezbollah demands a complete ceasefire and “protection of Lebanon’s sovereignty” in any deal with Israel. Amid the death and devastation, Joe Hendren reflects on his time in Lebanon and examines what the crisis means for a small country with a population size similar to Aotearoa New Zealand.

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Joe Hendren

    Since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon I can’t help but think of a friend I met in Beirut.

    He worked at the Regis Hotel, where I stayed in February 2015.

    At one point, he offered to make me a Syrian dish popular in his hometown of Aleppo. I have long remembered his kindness; I only wish I remembered his name.

    At the time, his home city was being destroyed. A flashpoint of the Syrian Civil War, the Battle of Aleppo lasted four long years. He didn’t mention this of course.

    I was lucky to visit Lebanon when I did. So much has happened since then.

    Economic crisis and a tragic port explosion
    Mass protests took over Lebanese streets in October 2019 in response to government plans to tax WhatsApp calls. The scope of the protests soon widened, as Lebanese people voiced their frustrations with ongoing economic turmoil and corruption.

    A few months later, the covid-19 pandemic arrived, deepening the economic crisis and claiming 10,000 lives.

    On 4 August 2020, the centre of Beirut was rocked by one of the largest non nuclear explosions in history when a large amount of ammonium nitrate stored at the Port of Beirut detonated. The explosion killed 218 people and left an estimated 300,000 homeless. The government of Hassin Diab resigned but continued in a “caretaker” capacity.

    Tens of thousands of protesters returned to the streets demanding accountability and the downfall of Lebanon’s political ruling class. While some protesters threw stones and other projectiles, an Al Jazeera investigation found that security forces violated international standards on the use of force. The political elite were protected.

    In 2021, The World Bank summarised the situation:

    “The Lebanon financial and economic crisis is likely to rank in the top 10, possibly top three, most severe crises episodes globally since the mid-nineteenth century. This is a conclusion of the Spring 2021 Lebanon Economic Monitor (LEM) in which the Lebanon crisis is contrasted with the most severe global crises episodes as observed by Reinhart and Rogoff (2014) over the 1857–2013 period.

    “In fact, Lebanon’s GDP plummeted from close to US$ 55 billion in 2018 to an estimated US$ 33 billion in 2020, with US$ GDP/capita falling by around 40 percent. Such a brutal and rapid contraction is usually associated with conflicts or wars.”

    The Lebanon Poverty and Equity Assessment, produced by the World Bank in 2024, found the share of individuals in Lebanon living under the poverty line more than tripled, rising from 12 percent to 44 percent. The depth and severity of poverty also increased over the decade between 2012 and 2022.

    To make matters worse, the port explosion destroyed Lebanon’s strategic wheat reserves at a time when the war in Ukraine drove significant increases in global food prices. Annual food inflation in Lebanon skyrocketed from 7.67 percent in January 2019 to a whopping 483.15 percent for the year ending in January 2022. While food inflation has since declined, it remains high, sitting just below 20 percent for the year ending September 2024. The World Bank said:

    “The sharp deterioration of the Lebanese pound, which lost 98 percent of its pre-crisis value by December 2023, propelled inflation to new heights. With imports constituting about 60 percent of the consumption basket (World Bank, 2022), the plunging currency led to triple-digit inflation which rose steeply from an annual average of 3 percent between 2011 and 2018, to 85 percent in 2019, 155 percent in 2020, and 221 percent in 2023 . . .

    “Faced with falling foreign exchange reserves, the government withdrew subsidies on medication, fuel, and wheat further fuelling rising costs of healthcare and transport (Figure 1.2). Rapid inflation acted effectively as a highly regressive tax, striking hardest at the poor and those with fixed, lira-denominated incomes.” 

    The ongoing crisis of the Lebanese economy has amplified the power of Hezbollah, a paramilitary group formed in 1982 in response to Israel’s invasion and occupation of Lebanon.

    “Hezbollah is famous for entrenching its power in an elaborate social infrastructure of Islamic welfare. The social grip of those structures and services is increased by the ongoing crisis of the Lebanese economy. When the medical service fails, desperate families turn to the Hezbollah-run health service,” says Adam Tooze

    As banks imposed capital controls, many Lebanese lost confidence in the financial system. The financial arm of Hezbollah, the al-Quad al-Hassan Association (AQAH), experienced a significant increase in clients, despite being subject to US Treasury sanctions since 2007.

    The US accuses Hezbollah of using AQAH as a front to manage its financial activities. When a 28-year-old engineer, Hassan Shoumar, was locked out of his dollar accounts in late 2019, he redirected his money into his account at AQAH: “What I care about is that when I want my money, I can get it.”

    While Hezbollah portrays itself as “the resistance”, as a member of the governing coalition in Lebanon, it also forms an influential part of the political elite. Adam Tooze gives an example of how the political elite is still looking after itself:

    “[T]he Lebanese Parliament in a grotesque act of self-dealing in January 2024 passed a budget that promised to close the budget deficit of 12.8 of GDP by raising regressive value-added tax while decreasing the progressive taxes levied on capital gains, real estate and investments.

    “For lack of reforms, the IMF [International Monetary Fund] is refusing to disburse any of the $3bn package that are allocated to Lebanon.”

    While the protest movement called for a “technocratic” government in Lebanon, the experiences of Greece and other countries facing financial difficulties suggest such governments can pose their own risks, especially when they involve unelected “experts” in prominent positions.

    One example is the political reaction to the counterproductive austerity programme imposed on Greece by the European Commission, European Central Bank and IMF in the aftermath of the 2007-2008 financial crisis. This demonstrates how the demands of international investors can conflict with the needs of the local population.

    Lebanon carries more than its fair share of refugees
    Lebanon currently hosts the largest number of refugees per capita in the world, despite its scarce resources. This began as an overflow from the Syrian conflict in 2011, with nearly 1.2 million ‘displaced’ Syrians in Lebanon registered with UNHCR by May 2015.

    When I visited Lebanon in 2015, I tried to grasp the scale of the refugee issue. In terms of population, Lebanon is comparable to New Zealand, with both countries having just over 5 million people.

    I imagined what New Zealand would be like if it attempted to host a million refugees in addition to its general population. Yet in terms of land area Lebanon is only 10,400 square kilometres — about the size of New Zealand’s Marlborough region at the top of the South Island.

    Now, imagine accommodating a population of over 5 million in such a small space, with more than a fifth of them being refugees.

    While it was encouraging to see New Zealand increase its refugee quota to 1500 places in July 2020, we could afford to do much more in the current situation. This includes creating additional visa pathways for those fleeing Gaza and Lebanon.

    On top of all that – Israeli attacks and illegal booby traps
    Since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the ongoing Israeli invasion of Gaza, Israel and Hezbollah have exchanged fire across Lebanon’s southern border.

    Israel makes much of the threat of rocket attacks on Israel from Hezbollah. However, data from US based non-profit organisation Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) shows Israel carried out 81 percent of the 10,214 attacks between between the two parties from October 7, 2023, and September 20, 2024.

    These attacks resulted in 752 deaths in Lebanon, including 50 children. In contrast, Hezbollah’s attacks, largely centred on military targets, killed at least 33 Israelis.

    Hezbollah continues to offer an immediate ceasefire, so long as a ceasefire also applies to Gaza, but Israel has refused these terms.

    While the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) disputed these figures as an “oversimplification”, the IDF do not appear to dispute the reported number of Lebanese casualties. Hezbollah continues to offer an immediate ceasefire, so long as a ceasefire also applies to Gaza, but Israel has refused these terms.

    In a further escalation, thousands of handheld pagers and walkie-talkies used in both civilian and military contexts in Lebanon and Syria suddenly exploded on September 17 and 18.

    Israel attempted to deny responsibility, with Israeli President Isaac Herzog claiming he “rejects out of hand any connection” to the attack. However, 12 defence and intelligence officials, briefed on the attack, anonymously confirmed to The New York Times that Israel was behind the operation.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later boasted during a cabinet meeting that he had personally approved the pager attack. The New York Times described the aftermath:

    “Powered by just a few ounces of an explosive compound concealed within the devices, the blasts sent grown men flying off motorcycles and slamming into walls, according to witnesses and video footage. People out shopping fell to the ground, writhing in agony, smoke snaking from their pockets.”

    The exploding devices killed 42 people and injured more than 3500, with many victims losing one or both of their hands or eyes. At least four of the dead were children.

    Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikatri called the explosions “a serious violation of Lebanese sovereignty and a crime by all standards”.

    While around eight Hezbollah fighters were among the dead, most of those killed worked in administration roles and did not take part in hostilities. Under international humanitarian law targeting non-combatants is illegal.

    Additionally, the UN Protocol on Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices also prohibits the use of “booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material”. Israel is a signatory to this UN Protocol.

    Israel’s decision to turn ordinary consumer devices into illegal booby traps could backfire. While Israel frequently stresses the importance of its technology sector to its economy, who is going to buy technology associated with Israel now that the IDF have demonstrated its ability to indiscriminately weaponise consumer devices at any time?

    International industry buyers will source elsewhere. Such a “silent boycott” could give greater momentum to the call from Palestinian civil society for boycotts, divestments and economic sanctions against Israel.

    The booby trap pagers are also likely to affect the decisions of foreign airlines to service Israel on the grounds of safety. Since the war began in October 2023, the number of foreign airlines calling on Ben Gurion Airport in Israel has fallen significantly. Consequently, the cost of a round-trip ticket from the United States to Tel Aviv has risen sharply, from approximately $900 to $2500.

    Israel targets civilian infrastructure in Lebanon
    Israel has also targeted civilian organisations linked to Hezbollah, such emergency services, hospitals and medical centres operated by the Islamic Health Society (IHS). Israel claims Hezbollah is “using the IHS as a cover for terrorist activities”. This apparently includes digging people out of buildings, as search and rescue teams have also been targeted and killed.

    Israel accuses the microloan charity AQAH of funding “Hezbollah’s terror activities”, including purchasing weapons and making payments to Hezbollah fighters. On October 20, Israel attacked 30 branches of AQAH across Lebanon, drawing condemnation from both Amnesty International and the United Nations.

    Ben Saul, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism maintains AQAH is not a lawful military target: “International humanitarian law does not permit attacks on the economic or financial infrastructure of an adversary, even if they indirectly sustain its military activities.”

    Where the author ate his Za’atar man’ousheh - Pigeon’s Rock, Corniche, Beiruit
    Where the author ate his Za’atar man’ousheh – Pigeon’s Rock, Corniche, Beiruit. Image: Joe Hendren

    On top of all that — an Israeli invasion
    In 1982, Israel attempted to use war to alter the political situation in Lebanon, with counterproductive results, including the creation of Hezbollah. In 2006, Hezbollah used the hilly terrain of southern Lebanon to beat Israel to a stalemate. Israel risks similar counterproductive outcomes again, at the cost of many more lives.

    Yet on 1 October 2024, Israel launched a ground invasion of Lebanon, alongside strikes on Beirut, Sidon and border villages. The IDF confirmed the action on Twitter/X, promising a “limited, localised and targeted” operation against “Hezbollah terrorist targets” in southern Lebanon. One US official noted that Israel had framed its 1982 invasion as a limited incursion, which eventually turned into an 18-year occupation.

    Israeli strikes have since expanded all over the country. According to figures provided by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Heath on November 13, Israel is responsible for the deaths of at least 3365 people in Lebanon, including 216 children and 192 health workers. More than 14,000 people have been wounded, and more than one million have been displaced from their homes.

    Since September 30, 47 Israeli troops have been killed in combat in Southern Lebanon. Around 45 civilians in northern Israel have died due to rocket fire from Lebanon.

    So, on top of an economic crisis, runaway inflation, unaffordable food, increasing poverty, the port explosion and covid-19, the Lebanese people now face a war that shows little signs of stopping.

    Analysts suggest there is little chance of a ceasefire while Israel retains its “maximalist” demands, which include a full surrender of Hezbollah and allowing Israel to continue to attack targets in southern Lebanon.

    A senior fellow at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, Mohanad Hage Ali, believes Israel is feigning diplomacy to push the blame on Hezbollah. The best chance may come alongside a ceasefire in Gaza, but Israel shows little signs of negotiating meaningfully on that front either.

    On September 26, the Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdallah BouHabib summarised the mood of the country in the wake of the pager attack:

    “[N]obody expected the war to be taken in that direction. We Lebanese—we’ve had enough war. We’ve had fifteen years of war. . . .We’d like to live without war—happily, as a tourist country, a beautiful country, good food—and we are not able to do it. And so there is a lot of depression, especially with the latest escalation.”

    In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Māori phrase “Kia kaha” means “stand strong”. If I could send a message from halfway across the world, it would be: “Kia kaha Lebanon. I look forward to the day I can visit you again, and munch on a yummy Za’atar man’ousheh while admiring the view from the beautiful Corniche Beirut.”

    Joe Hendren holds a PhD in international business from the University of Auckland. He has more than 20 years of experience as a researcher, including work in the New Zealand Parliament, for trade unions and on various research projects. This is his first article for Asia Pacific Report. His blog can be found at http://joehendren.substack.com

    Where I ate my Za’atar man’ousheh – Pigeon’s Rock, Corniche Beiruit

     

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Guardian whitewashes a damning report into poverty for Black, brown, and disabled people

    In a stark indictment of decades of institutional racism, ableism, and classism by governments, the Social Metrics Commission (SMC) 2024 report has laid bare the deepening poverty crisis in the UK.

    Despite numerous promises from successive governments, the poverty rate in 2022/23 has climbed to 24% – the highest recorded this century. This equates to 16 million people, including 5.2 million children, living in poverty.

    These figures underscore a national failure to address structural issues within capitalism that perpetuate inequality and deprivation.

    However, it also shows institutional neglect and persecution by governments of chronically ill and disabled people, Black and brown people, and those living in social housing. Because it it those groups which have been some of the hardest hit. Yet the limited corporate media coverage – namely by the Guardian – of the Social Metrics Commission report failed to recognise this.

    Disabled people once again hit hardest by poverty

    Over the last two decades, poverty in the UK has stubbornly hovered above 21%, and the recent surge to 24% reveals a worsening crisis. This means an additional 2.4 million people now live in poverty compared to pre-pandemic levels.

    The situation is even more dire for children, with over one-third (36%) living in poverty, a 5% increase since 2019/20.

    However, disabled people and their families bear the brunt of this crisis. The report reveals that 8.7 million people in poverty are disabled or live with someone who is. This demographic now accounts for a staggering 54% of all those in poverty. This is up from 6.9 million in 2019/20 – representing a 26% increase.

    Meanwhile, poverty rates for working-age adults have risen to 23%, and pensioners, traditionally more shielded, are not immune: 13% of pension-age adults are now impoverished.

    Black and brown people thrown under the bus

    The Social Metrics Commission’s 2024 report highlights severe and disproportionate levels of poverty faced by Black, Brown, and dual heritage communities in the UK. The data reveals that institutional and systemic racism has entrenched poverty within these groups, despite the overall wealth of the nation.

    Among families where the head of the household identifies as Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British, a staggering 42% live in poverty. This is more than double the rate for families with a white head of household, where the poverty rate stands at 20%.

    Similarly, Asian or Asian British households face a 38% poverty rate, while families from mixed or multiple ethnic groups report a 29% rate. These disparities underline deep systemic failures to address income inequality and access to resources.

    Notably, families led by individuals from “other ethnic groups” experience the highest poverty rate, at 43%. This statistic encapsulates the experiences of various minority groups, further emphasizing the challenges they face in accessing economic stability.

    Poverty among minority groups has been a persistent issue. While poverty rates for White-headed households have remained stable at around 20% since 2014/15, minority groups have consistently recorded significantly higher rates. For example, Black households saw a slight increase from 40% in 2021/22 to 42% in 2022/23, while Asian households experienced a rise from 36% to 38% over the same period.

    A tale of two nations

    The geographical distribution of poverty is a damning reflection of systemic neglect. In London and the West Midlands, poverty rates stand at 27%, contrasting sharply with the 17% rate in the East of England. Wales has the highest poverty rate among the UK nations at 24%, with Northern Ireland and Scotland faring slightly better at 21%.

    Children remain the most vulnerable across all regions, with 43% of children in the West Midlands and 42% in the North West living in poverty. Such disparities highlight the failure of national strategies to address regional inequality effectively.

    The narrative that employment is a guaranteed escape from poverty is increasingly debunked. While the poverty rate among families with full-time workers has remained steady at 9%, part-time workers face a poverty rate of 58%. Alarmingly, 75% of individuals in workless families live in poverty, a seven-percentage-point increase since 2019/20.

    This shift also highlights a disturbing trend: 62% of people in poverty now live in families where at least one member works. This figure exposes the inadequacy of wages and the rising cost of living, particularly in housing and childcare.

    Deep poverty and persistent challenges

    While overall poverty rates have risen, there is a slight reprieve in deep poverty – defined as those living on less than 50% of the poverty line. The number of individuals in deep poverty decreased marginally by 100,000 since the pandemic. Yet, deep poverty levels remain alarmingly high, with 4.1 million people enduring this severe deprivation.

    Persistent poverty, another crucial metric, has risen slightly to affect 57% of those in poverty. This means a majority face prolonged struggles, making upward mobility nearly impossible without significant policy intervention.

    While the data paints a grim picture, individual experiences reveal the human cost of governmental failure.

    A disabled single mother shared her harrowing account of juggling part-time work while relying on food banks to feed her children. Despite her efforts, she remains trapped in poverty due to soaring rent and childcare costs.

    Her story is emblematic of a broader issue: the inability of social safety nets to adapt to the realities of modern life. Inadequate disability support and childcare subsidies have left millions in a cycle of dependency and despair.

    Housing, education, and social isolation

    Housing remains a significant determinant of poverty. The report finds that 68% of people in poverty live in either social or private-rented accommodations. Poverty rates for these groups are markedly higher, with 56% in social housing and 38% in private rentals affected.

    The data also reveal a worrying trend: the proportion of people in poverty living in privately rented homes has doubled since 2000/01, from 15% to 31%. This shift reflects both rising rental costs and the failure of successive governments to address the housing crisis.

    The cascading effects of poverty extend beyond finances. Educationally, families in poverty are more likely to lack formal qualifications, with 16% of impoverished households reporting no qualifications compared to 5% of non-impoverished families. Health outcomes are similarly bleak, as families in poverty report higher rates of poor mental health (33%) and smoking (35%).

    Social isolation compounds these challenges. Nearly half (45%) of people in poverty live in single-adult households, compared to 29% of those not in poverty. Additionally, 62% of impoverished families lack organisational memberships, highlighting reduced access to communal support networks.

    Government responses show institutional failure

    The SMC’s findings underscore the chronic failure of successive governments to implement effective poverty reduction strategies. Promises to “level up” and invest in the nation’s most vulnerable have repeatedly fallen short. The persistence of poverty rates above 21% for two decades reveals a systemic unwillingness to tackle the root causes of inequality.

    The report even lauds the potential of the Department for Work and Pension’s (DWP) ‘Below Average Resources’ measure to provide more accurate poverty statistics. However, accurate measurement alone is insufficient without decisive action. The absence of comprehensive childcare reforms, adequate disability benefits, and living wages reflects a lack of political will to address poverty’s structural causes.

    To reverse these trends, bold policy interventions are essential. Expanding social housing, reforming Universal Credit, scrapping the two-child benefit cap, uprating disabled people’s benefits, and implementing a robust real living wage are critical first steps.

    Additionally, targeted support for disabled individuals and single-parent families could alleviate the disproportionate burden borne by these groups.

    A damning report on poverty

    The Social Metrics Commission’s 2024 report serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing poverty crisis in the UK. Despite years of rhetoric, the failure of successive governments to address structural inequality has left millions trapped in poverty.

    The cost-of-living crisis, coupled with inadequate policy responses and capitalism’s in-built inequality and racism have exacerbated vulnerabilities, particularly for children, disabled people, Black and brown people, and renters.

    Without immediate and transformative action, the UK risks cementing a legacy of neglect and inequality. The statistics demand more than acknowledgment – they demand change. Until then, the poorest in society and those that are systemically marginalised will continue to pay the price for political inaction and capitalism’s failures.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The DWP has now stripped over 150,000 CHILDREN of benefits due to Universal Credit migration

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has now stripped more than 318,000 people of their benefits via the managed migration process. Alarmingly, the DWP is leaving disproportionately impacting women through its forced migration process to Universal Credit – as well as a huge number of households with children.

    Of course, the Canary’s Steve Topple first highlighted that this would likely be the case well over a year ago. Once again, the latest statistics have proven the Canary’s warnings were, unfortunately, correct.

    DWP Universal Credit: more mayhem with its so-called managed migration

    The DWP began rolling out managed migration in July 2019, as a pilot scheme. This is where the department forces people who have not yet moved to Universal Credit, either voluntarily or because of a change of circumstance, onto it. This is because the new benefit is replacing old ones like Tax Credits.

    Specifically, this forced migration involves the DWP issuing notices, with a three month deadline for claimants to make the move to Universal Credit. It officially began this process in July 2022. Since then, the department has progressively stripped claimants of their benefits.

    Previously, the Canary has calculated the staggering number of people the DWP had been denying benefits to through this.

    Most recently, in August, the Canary’s Steve Topple crunched the numbers running up to June 2024 and found that:

    • 1,140,810 people had been sent managed migration notices from July 2022 to June 2024.
    • 284,660 people had lost their benefits (24.9%).
    • 165,720 were women (58.2%).
    • 99% were Tax Credits claimants – and of those, 32% of the total number of Tax Credits claimants lost their benefits.

    And as he pointed out, this was roughly as he had projected a year prior, using statistics at that time.

    More than 318,000 people lose their benefits

    So now, the figures are once more following along these same lines. On 12 November, the DWP released its latest Universal Credit managed migration statistics. The data goes up to the end of September 2024. This showed that:

    • The DWP had sent a total of 1,369,367 individuals, or 943,343 households migration notices between June 2022 and September 2024.
    • 318,834 people had lost their benefits (29%)
    • 185,076 were women (58%)
    • 69% of these were Child Tax Credit or working Tax Credit claimants

    Obviously, the data shows that the forced move has disproportionately left women without benefits.

    On top of this, the data revealed that the DWP has stripped benefits from 151,927 households with children. In other words, it means at least 150k children have seen their parents lose their benefits in the process of the DWP’s mandatory migration.

    Before it even began its roll-out, the parliamentary Work and Pensions select committee (WPSC) warned the process could leave many claimants destitute.

    Get its own misogynistic house in order

    And notably, it also means that the DWP has denied benefits to more old-style claimants than it had estimated too. In November 2023, it calculated that it would leave 26% of Tax Credit claimant households, and 4% of households on other benefits, without social security.

    However, it has turned out to be much higher than this. It transpired that the DWP has now in fact stripped 30% of Tax Credit claimant households of their benefits.

    Meanwhile, it’s not possible to fully compare the DWP’s prediction for other legacy benefit types. The reason for this is that the department only provides the information on other old-style benefits also in combination with Tax Credits. This figure showed that the DWP has stopped benefits for 11,216 households – or 3.39%.

    Overall, the point is, the DWP has ignored all the warnings from the start. Now, the new Labour government has continued with the roll-out. This is despite repeated red flags at every new statistic release over the past year. Knowing that the process had already stripped more than 180,000 people of their benefits as it entered government, it could have paused this.

    Instead, it seems committed to ploughing ahead – and now, more than 300,000 people – mostly women, and many households with children, are losing out. So not only is it refusing to lift the two child limit on benefits, it’s actually continuing to strip women and households with children of their benefits altogether.

    It also comes after the government boasted about its Child Poverty Taskforce gearing up to tackle the causes of child poverty. Evidently though, the Labour-led DWP needs to get its own house in order first – because there’s clearly a systemic problem with the Universal Credit managed migration process, and the misogynistic DWP at large.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • 300 people a DAY are dying in poverty – and they’re more likely to be working at the time

    110,000 people died in poverty last year, according to a report from end of life charity Marie Curie, with research from Loughborough University. That’s up 19% from 2019 where the dying in poverty figure stood at 93,000.

    18% of the total people who died in 2023 did so in poverty. That’s 300 people every day. It’s a ‘cost of dying crisis’, as the charity suggests.

    Shocking stats

    In fact, working age people are proportionately much more likely to die in poverty than pensioners. 28% of working age people who died did so in poverty, compared to 16% of pensioners. This suggests that inequality is leading to particularly premature death in the UK, where 1% of the population own more wealth than 70% of people.

    The charity points out that this difference is likely because the poverty rate among working age people is generally higher at 21.8%, compared to that of over 65s at 13.2%. This disparity is potentially an outcome of how we’ve gone backwards since today’s pensioners earned most their living. That’s through austerity, privatisation of essential services (higher bills) and student debt along with the housing bubble and renting crisis. The Labour Party isn’t committed to delivering the “change” it promised, at present.

    It’s also the case that working age people who fall ill can lose their income and the benefits available aren’t as sufficient as a pension.

    Further, there are startling differences when it comes to ethnicity and dying in poverty. Compared to 25% of white people between the ages 20 and 64 who died doing so in poverty, it’s 47% of black people and 43% of Asian people. Regional differences are also acute with people in the north more like to die in poverty, for example at 44.5% in Middlesborough and 42.3% in Manchester.

    Dying in poverty – an example

    The report highlights individual stories such as that of Simona and her late husband David. He died in June 2024 from a stage four glioblastoma, six months after he was diagnosed.

    She said:

    David had to stop working straight away after his diagnosis, because he couldn’t walk or move. And I had to stop work to be his full-time carer. The amount of money we had through state benefits was barely enough to get us to the end of the month.

    His condition meant that he was constantly cold, so we had to keep the heating on all the time. We discussed this with our energy companies, and the only things they provided was an electric blanket and a discount of £200 – it wasn’t enough.

    All the medical equipment David needed was electric. It really raised the cost of our energy bills, and I still have an outstanding bill of £5,000 from the energy company.

    When David was on oxygen towards the end of his life, I spoke to the provider as the oxygen machine needed to be on all the time. They told me they would refund the cost of running the equipment, and later I had a cheque through the post from them for £13.

    Marie Curie’s solutions

    Marie Curie argues that providing end of life social security would be a solution to people dying in poverty. The charity is calling on the Labour government to provide pension level welfare for people who have less than a year to live. It’s also calling for a social tariff that halves energy bills for people with a terminal illness. The report calculates this tariff could lift p36 54,000 dying people out of fuel poverty and alleviate it for many more.

    Dr Juliet Stone, Research Fellow from the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University, said:

    The sharp rise in poverty at the end of life reflects the increasingly difficult financial circumstances faced by low-income households over the past four years.

    It is clear that poverty at the end of life cannot be fully tackled without efforts to address poverty more generally, but people in the last year of life face additional obstacles to achieving an adequate standard of living.

    Changes to the social security system, especially addressing the inadequacy of state benefits for people working age with a terminal illness, could go some way to reducing the risk of poverty at the end of life.

    But there is also a need to address the additional costs that people face when diagnosed with a terminal illness.

    We know that disability benefits regularly fall far short of covering these additional costs. But broader policy reform, including improvements to the availability of affordable services, including those related to social care, could help to bridge this gap, and allow for a dignified death without the additional burden of financial hardship.

    Featured image via the Independent – YouTube

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Parent’s school dinner debt SURGING by 50% is the thin end of another wedge

    A new report shows that school dinner debt has increased by 50% in the last two years. Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) published its cost of school meal debt report which shows the impact on school budget, relationships with families, and stigma faced by children.

    School dinner debt: a growing problem

    Their survey of 176 primary schools in England found that the average dinner money debt at the end of the 23/24 academic year was £1,000. It noted that not all schools reported debt, but the ones that did it ranged from £3 to £22,000.

    Over the last two years, 39% of schools increased their dinner debt – some by as much as 100%. Only 12% of schools reported a decrease. The report also highlights that 33% more families are struggling compared to previous years.

    Some schools have resorted to capping the level of debt a family can rack up, while others do not allow debt at all. Other schools are encouraging packed lunches but 98% of these fail to meet the same nutritional standards as school dinners.

    The report also highlights the challenges schools are facing the means-tested allowance. From the time it takes to identify eligible students, to track payments and reaching out to families for debt collection. Schools could be making far better use of this time.

    Stephanie Slater, founder and chief executive at School Food Matters, said:

    This report is extremely important to help bring attention to the additional stress families are experiencing when they can’t afford to pay for school food. Often, a school lunch is a child’s only hot meal during the day, and allowing families to plunge into debt so their child can access one is devastating.

    This is a clear example of why we are calling for the government to end means-testing and ensure every child has access to a hot healthy meal during the school day.

    Increasing child poverty

    All of this comes as 4.3m children in the UK are growing up in poverty – around 31% of all children. Shockingly, 900,000 of these children miss out on free school meals because of Universal Credit’s tight rules around free school meals. The current system also fails to cover children from working-poor families who earn just above the threshold. This results in many children missing out. 

    Government action in England is severely lacking behind Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland – devolved governments deciding to provide more children with free meals.

    Urgently extending free school meals to all school-aged children would cost only £2bn while providing numerous benefits. In comparison, in the Autumn Budget Rachel Reeves committed £3bn per year to Ukraine. These extra meals would ensure that every child is able to learn.

    Universal Credit

    CPAG’s report noted that restrictive rules around free school meals eligibility and Universal Credit is part of what’s driving parents’ challenges paying for school dinners.

    Specifically, to be eligible, parents claiming Universal Credit must have an annual household income below £7,400. There are some exceptions. For instance, if children were receiving free school meals before the roll out of Universal Credit, then for now they continue to do so. This is the case even if their household earnings rise above this threshold.

    However, this also means that households who weren’t already claiming free school meals wouldn’t now be eligible if they’re earning more than this.

    Obviously, for one, £7,400 annual earnings is an extremely restrictive threshold. There’ll be many households earning little over this living in poverty. What’s more, the threshold hasn’t changed since 2017, even as the cost of living drastically has.

    The point is, this harsh rule is stopping children from getting free school meals. As a result, CPAG’s report points to it being a key factor in pushing parents into school dinner debt.

    Of course, this is all as the new Labour Party government is keeping people on Universal Credit in poverty through the two-child benefit limit as well.

    School dinner debt: the thin end of another wedge

    Ultimately, the free school meal threshold is acting somewhat like yet another cap too on top of this. It’s preventing children from getting nutritious, hot meals, and pushing households into even more debt. The staggering scale of school dinner debt shows that anything short of universal free school meals is not going to cut it.

    If Labour is genuinely committed to tackling child poverty, this new report should be a wake-up call.

    Feature image via Centre for Homelessness Impact /Liam McBurney/PA

    By HG

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The poorest people will be £600 a year WORSE OFF thanks to the Budget

    The poorest 10% of people will see their tax burden increase by £600 a year as a consequence of the Labour Party chancellor Rachel Reeves’ Budget freeze of the personal tax thresholds until April 2028, according to the latest quarterly UK economic outlook by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR).

    Labour’s Budget: hitting the poorest households

    While the NIESR expects aggregate real personal disposable income to grow in 2024-25 and 2025-26, living standards for average UK households will not return to pre-2022 levels before the end of 2025-26.

    The hit to living standards is already being felt, with households in the bottom-income decile worse off by around 20% this year compared with the year before the cost-of-living crisis, which amounts to approximately £2,500.

    And, whilst the NIESR expects real wage growth to remain strong at around 2.2% in 2025, the effect on the living standards for the bottom 40% of households will be smaller because the costs of rents and mortgages largely cancel out any gains from the real wage growth:

    Inflation is likely to exceed 3% at the beginning of 2025 and remain above target throughout the first half of the year before coming down again. Looking further ahead, the NIESR expects CPI inflation to be volatile but to stay close to the Bank of England’s target of 2%.

    In light of this, the NIESR anticipates a slightly slower unwinding of monetary policy, and forecast a further cut of 25 basis points in November this year, followed by three additional rate cuts in 2025 of equal magnitude. Over the medium run the base rate may settle at around 3.25%.

    As for economic growth, despite a strong start in the first half of the year we expect GDP growth to remain around its trend rate of 1% over 2024 as a whole. Looking ahead, the NIESR anticipates growth of 1.2% in 2025 and 1.4% in 2026 as the spending measures announced in the budget lead to an expansion of demand.

    Rachel Reeves should have taxed the richest, more

    Professor Stephen Millard, deputy director for Macroeconomic Modelling and Forecasting, said:

    Last week’s landmark budget – the first by a Labour Chancellor in 14 years – will boost demand over the next couple of years implying higher GDP growth and inflation, as well as slow down the fall in interest rates. And the rise in the employer rate of National Insurance Contributions will act to reduce job creation over the coming years, which will lead to greater unemployment.

    More positively, the change in debt target has allowed some increase in public investment, which should help growth. But exactly when and by how much remains to be seen. My hunch is that more needs to be done.

    Professor Adrian Pabst, Deputy Director for Public Policy, said:

    The government’s focus on faster growth through greater investment is welcome, but some of the tax decisions risk discouraging more business investment while penalising low-income households. Keeping the personal tax thresholds frozen for another 3 and a half years will make the bottom 10 per cent of earners about £600 per year worse off.

    It would be better for the living standards of those households that have been hit hardest by the shocks over the past few years if the government raised income tax for top earners while unfreezing the thresholds. It’s time to throw off the self-imposed fiscal straitjacket and do the right thing for the economy and society.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The numbers are in. Rachel Reeves’ budget will manufacture a fresh cost of living crisis.

    Chancellor Rachel Reeves failed to use her budget to address out of control inequality nor to bring about significant or redistributive growth, meaning Labour has ushered in a fresh cost of living crisis.

    Rachel Reeves: taking us backwards

    Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) shows literally everyone except pensioners will be worse off. JRF modelling found that the average family will have £770 less in real terms by October 2029.

    But those with the least broad shoulders will relatively lose more. This can only be described as true red Tory-style inequality. The poorest third of households will see their disposable income drop by 3.3% by October 2029. And the richest third will only see a drop of 1.7%.

    Rachel Reeves’ failure to introduce significant redistributive and meritocratic taxation policies, nor to address how money is distributed at its creation source, are the root cause of this fresh cost of living crisis.

    Despite what the charity has found about the real world impact of Reeves’ budget, she trumpeted in her speech:

    The prize on offer is immense… An economy that is growing, creating wealth and opportunity for all because that is the only way to improve living standards.

    Paul Kissack, Chief Executive at JRF said:

    [The chancellor’s] actions… won’t be enough to fix the foundations for millions who struggle winter after winter in devastating hardship. The Chancellor is right that change must be felt. The people who needed to feel the most change are those living in and at risk of hardship.

    The budget will also plunge more people into poverty, according to JRF.

    By October 2029, 100,000 more children are set to be in poverty along with 300,000 more working age adults. This trend is consistent with research from the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG). CPAG found Labour’s decision to keep the two child benefit cap has already put 10,000 more children into poverty since the election.

    Increase in cost of essentials, increase in inflation, increase in inequality

    Labour isn’t cutting down bills through bringing essential services into public ownership. Instead, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are overseeing an increase in bills for sectors such as energy and water.

    When every business has to pay more in essentials, that means higher costs across the board, which can lead to price rises throughout or, in other words, inflation.

    Water companies have a cosy relationship with the water regulator and they are lobbying for bills to go up by a huge 40% by 2030. Ofwat has already confirmed a rise of 21% over the five year period.

    The so-called energy regulator is also raising the price cap. This year, Labour is overseeing a rise of 14% for gas and 10% for electricity with more price hikes expected in the course of this parliament.

    Public spending – mixed bag, but maintenance of Tory austerity

    For the NHS, Reeves’ budget was better than people expected with spending increases beyond what was pledged in Labour’s manifesto.

    But Reeves has cooked the figures here because each government department is also expected to ‘find savings’ (meaning a cut) of 2% of their budget for next year. That means the £22.6bn increase in NHS day-to-day spending over two years is actually offset by a £6bn cut, leaving it at a £16.6bn increase.

    The 2% cut also impacts the headline figure of a £4bn increase in education spending. This is offset by a £2.3bn cut, leaving it at a much lower increase.

    Remember that under the Tories, education spending per pupil in England faced a 9% cut from 2010-2020.

    Featured image via Channel 4 News – YouTube

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • DWP Universal Credit debt deductions is a half-baked half measure

    Unsurprisingly, the Labour Party government’s headline Autumn Budget plans to address the woeful state of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) welfare system amounts to little more than tinkering around at the edges of much bigger problems. This was nowhere so blatant as its half-assed plans for DWP Universal Credit debt deductions.

    DWP Universal Credit: deductions announcements

    In Labour’s pre-budget leaks to the mainstream media, it had already indicated its plans to change Universal Credit debt deductions.

    The DWP makes these deductions to claimants’ payments for a series of things, including:

    • Advance payments of Universal Credit
    • Rent arrears to landlords
    • Utility bills like gas, water, and electric
    • Tax Credit overpayments

    Crucially, until now, it could take up to 25% of a claimant’s monthly Universal Credit payment to pay off these debts. Of course, it has meant the DWP pushing people on woefully inadequate Universal Credit rates already, into even greater hardship.

    However, an anonymous Whitehall source went to Labour bootlickers the Guardian ahead of the budget to break the news that the government is gearing up to change this. It had reported how Labour would reduce deductions the DWP can take on monthly payments to 15%.

    As it wrote, this also means that:

    The move would in effect allow claimants to repay debts over a longer period.

    However, it will extend claimant’s periods of indebtedness, instead of simply removing the debt:

    What’s more, dutiful lapdog that it is, the Guardian crooned over the so-called £420 “budget boost” it signalled for claimants. In reality of course, it’s no such thing:

    Now, Reeves has laid this out to parliament in her Autumn Budget announcement – as the party should really have done all along.

    So, like clockwork, she said that:

    I can today announce that we are introducing a new Fair Repayment Rate to reduce the level of debt repayments that can be taken from a household’s Universal Credit payment each month from 25% to 15% of their standard allowance.

    This means that 1.2 million of the poorest households will keep more of their award each month lifting children out of poverty and those who benefit will gain an average of £420 a year.

    Half-measures on debt deductions

    Some anti-poverty campaign groups have welcomed the DWP Universal Credit debt deductions move. It will of course mean claimants in debt arrears will have more of their Universal Credit each month.

    However, it’s not exactly something to write home about. This is because in reality, it does nothing to address the issues at the heart of DWP Universal Credit debt deductions – or in fact, the problematic deductions themselves.

    For one, there’s the ridiculous five-week wait. That is, the fact claimants have to wait a minimum of five weeks for their first Universal Credit payment. Unsurprisingly, it’s one of the key factors putting people into this debt arrears in the first place.

    Things the Labour government probably wouldn’t want you to be shouting about on this right now? The findings on the five-week-wait and debt in its sudden 30-odd report drop earlier this month I imagine.

    One of these the Canary looked at concerned uptake of the Universal Credit advance payment. This is in effect, an interest-free advance loan on the benefit, which it forces claimants to pay back over the course of two years. Partly of course, this is what its new lowered deductions and longer-term payment options will address.

    However, the DWP report underscored how the five-week wait itself shortchanged claimants. In particular, even with these advance payments, people didn’t have enough to afford BASIC necessities. This was because, while the advance payment could be anywhere up to a full months DWP Universal Credit – this would have to last them a minimum of five weeks. And after all that, the DWP would apply deductions to claw back the payment as well.

    What’s more, it highlighted how the DWP’s mandatory migration over to Universal Credit was forcing claimants to take it up as well. And that’s another issue too. As the Resolution Foundation’s Alex Clegg highlighted on X, the DWP is also wielding deductions to hit legacy Tax Credit debts when people shift over:

    So, where was Reeves on the DWP’s OWN machinery saddling benefit claimants with this debt in the first instance? Tumbleweed.

    Shambolic and punitive DWP processes still in place

    In fact, Reeve’s budget also said nothing on the catastrophic shamble that is the DWP’s managed migration process at all. Essentially, this is the department’s disastrous decision to drive people over to Universal Credit from old-style benefits. This is because it is phasing these out.

    However, as the Canary’s Steve Topple had predicted, it has meant the DWP stripping nearly a quarter of old-style claimants – over 280,000 people – of their benefits. Nothing to redress this, nothing to suggest it’s going to pause the continuing roll-out while it figures out how to fix the DWP and Tory government’s gargantuan cock-up.

    Other notable omissions included the two-child limit on benefits, naturally. Of course, after months of refusing to budge on this, it was pretty much a given. However, there was no small amount of irony that during the preceding PMQs Starmer answered a question on tackling the causes of child poverty with his usual stock guff about the upcoming Child Poverty Taskforce. Evidently, lifting kids out of poverty isn’t the urgent order of the day.

    Nor did Reeve’s deign to mention the punitive benefit cap pushing people into poverty. The department’s own latest figures showed that as of May 2024, it had capped 123,000 households benefit payments. Significantly, 87% of these – 110,000 households had children living in them.

    Moreover, it was a 61% increase on the three months leading up to that. Largely, this was down to the government’s failure to uprate the cap in line with inflation. In other words, the cap stayed the same, but the cost of living went up.

    And that’s not to mention that it’s leaving some families with as little as £3 per person to live on a day. That’s not even enough to buy you a standard coffee at Costa. But again, Labour offered no plans for ditching this callous policy.

    DWP Universal Credit: cold comfort from a callous chancellor

    In short, Labour’s DWP Universal Credit deduction shake-up is a piss-take when all these issues are staring them right in the face:

    It could also, you know, make DWP Universal Credit enough for people to live on in the first place. After years of the Tories failing to raise this with inflation, claimants can’t even afford the basics, let alone a decent quality of life:

    Nope, a 2% rise in April – so more paltry increases that do nothing to address years of real-terms paycuts.

    CEO of anti-poverty charity Turn2us Thomas Lawson called the government out on all this:

    Today’s Budget doesn’t go far enough. Our broken social security system is trapping millions of us in poverty…The government needs to act. Scrap the two-child limit, scrap the 5-week wait, and raise Universal Credit to cover essentials. It’s time for a social security system that’s compassionate, free from stigma, and shaped by people with lived experience.

    In short, Reeves’ speech was cold comfort to claimants its DWP continue to hit with the needless five-week wait, the two-child benefit limit, and the benefit cap. As for the now over 280,000 people its brutal mass migration process has left without benefits?

    Not a word.

    On top of this, it’s planning to plough ahead with cruel WCA reforms. This will deny benefits to nearly half a million chronically ill and disabled people.

    Of course, it’s not really surprising that this neoliberal austerity government hasn’t the balls for meaningful action. Needless to say, it certainly wasn’t ready to admit that it’s the DWP and welfare system itself that’s fundamentally not fit for purpose.

    Featured image via the House of Commons and the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Andy Burnham just SHAMED the Labour government over the bus fare cap rise

    Mayor Andy Burnham has slammed the brakes on Keir Starmer raising the bus fare cap in Greater Manchester.

    Of course, there’s no small amount of irony that it was a Labour Party mayor showing up a Labour Party government for the short-sighted austerity-obsessed zealots they are.

    Bus fare cap: Burnham slams the brakes on the Labour government

    In the first Labour budget for over a decade, predictably, it’s all about hammering marginalised working class communities. On Monday, a smarmy Starmer set this in motion with the announcement the government would raise the bus fare cap. As the Canary’s HG reported:

    At a speech in the West Midlands, the prime minister said that he will allocate £240m to roll-out services to help people get back to work. Meanwhile, he’s making it harder for poor people to get to work in the first place by increasing the £2 bus fare cap to £3

    Invariably, the rising fares will hit poor people the hardest. Of course, with this neoliberal Labour government, it’s not anything surprising. But that 50% increase is going make bus journeys unaffordable to people already living on the breadline.

    Obviously, the announcement was the car crash you’d expect. Politicians across the spectrum were levying criticism at the move.

    One politician in particular – and a Labour mayor at that – took it one step further. Enter Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham.

    Burnham put out a post on X to assure his residents that the combined authority would keep the £2 bus fare cap:

    Greater Manchester’s busy bus Bee Network

    However, Burnham did temper this with the acknowledgement that Greater Manchester is in a unique position to do this. Why? Because in 2023, Greater Manchester took bus services back under public control:

    It’s not nationalisation, because private bus companies still operate the services. However, it means the combined authority has control over fares, distribution of services, and who operates them, among other things.

    This was possible due the Bus Services Act 2017. It gave mayoral authorities the power to franchise bus services.

    So, as the Labour government lifts the bus fare cap, Burnham can step in for Greater Manchester’s bus services. In other words, thanks to bus franchising, the combined authority is in a position to keep the £2 fare cap, where other areas aren’t able to.

    In September, transport secretary Louise Haigh announced new legislation to enable every council to do as Burnham has.

    Someone pointed out that the Labour government could have waited to lift the cap until it had greenlit greater franchising across the country:

    Privatisation of public transport = bus fare cap

    Much of the problem then revolves around profiteering bus companies.

    That is, Thatcher’s privatisation of bus services in the 1980s took the public for a ride – just not on accessible, affordable buses.

    Instead, it greased the wheels of big private operators. Because like all privatised services, public money has propped up shareholder profits. In fact, an eye-watering 40% of bus operator revenue derives from public funding.

    This includes local authority (LA) funding, reimbursement for concessionary fares, and national grant schemes. Moreover, it’s government and LAs that pay for bus lanes, shelters, and real-time passenger information.

    In other words, they’re subsidising bus operators with infrastructure upgrades too. And during the height of the pandemic, the public purse kept bus companies afloat to the tune of £2bn.

    Meanwhile, it has been peddle to the metal on shareholder dividends. In the decade up to 2019, the top four bus companies together accounting for 70% of bus passengers paid out an average of £149m to shareholders.

    It has all meant soaring fares, fewer, and less reliable services for passengers. So, it’s the usual story: a racket on fares, serial underinvestment, and transport deserts in small rural towns where there’s less money to be made.

    The cap has kept fares down from commercial rates. However, these companies shouldn’t be able to charge extortionate fares in the first place.

    Steering buses back into public hands?

    The fact is though, as it currently stands, nowhere can go full-throttle on full-scale nationalisation. That’s because, the very same 2017 Act also banned councils from setting up new bus companies.

    At Labour’s 2022 conference, Louise Haigh – then shadow transport secretary – promised the party would overturn the:

    ideological ban on communities establishing their own municipal bus companies.

    Do we see a U-turn incoming? It seems likely from the party in bed with big business.

    Reporting on the news, the Telegraph referenced a March 2024 report from consultancy titan KPMG. It produced it for the Confederation of Passenger Transport – the trade body that represents bus operators. Specifically, the article honed in on the cost of keeping the cap, and extending it at £3.

    Tellingly, the KPMG’s report’s final line concluded:

    Those who hold revenue risk should be able to control fares, whether that is the operator or franchise/tendering authority to support longer term efficiency and investment.

    That is, the £2 fare cap hampers bus companies charging exorbitant fares and raking it in. Naturally then, privately, corporate bus operators likely want to see an end to this.

    Maybe it’s coincidence, maybe it’s not, but this is of course, the same KPMG that has met with senior Labour figures multiple times in the past year.

    Ultimately, the bus fare cap rise is yet more proof the Labour government isn’t the driver of “change” it boasted to be.  Yet, while it’s gearing up to hit public transport users, the party’s mayor in Greater Manchester is bringing this to a stop there. He has shown what’s possible when you put public ownership behind the wheel, instead of parasitic private corporations.

    One thing’s for sure, Starmer and co sure won’t be getting a welcome reception in 2029, when they roll-up in their battle bus. This is another disastrous policy the electorate won’t soon forget.

    Feature image via Youtube – Bee Network

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UK wealth inequality skyrockets by 50%. Neoliberalism is to blame.

    The gap in absolute wealth between the poorest 10% and richest 10% of people in the UK increased by 48% between 2011 and 2019, according to a new report from the Fairness Foundation. That is, wealth inequality is out of control.

    There’s also been a relative decline of the middle class through the neoliberal practices of government. The wealth gap between the middle 10% and the richest 10% rose by 49% over the same period.

    Inequality: laid bare

    In 2011, the richest 10% held £7.5 trillion in wealth and by 2019 that had increased to £11 trillion. The wealthiest 1% owns not far off half of this, in both cases. By contrast, the poorest 10% went from £12bn in debt to £11bn in debt during that time. ‘Trickle down’ economics has never been more of a joke, but we still carry on with the same policies.

    The wealth of the middle 10% rose from £7.3bn to £10.8bn over the eight years. But that’s still dwarfed by the gains of the super rich. The wealth gap between middle earners and the top dramatically increased.

    Unearned wealth

    The Fairness Foundation notes that a lot of the wealth accumulation from the top 10% is through an increase in the value of assets, which is unearned income. It’s entirely not the case that they are working harder than those at the middle or bottom on the wealth scale. Indeed, the majority of private wealth is inherited – at 60%, according to the report.

    Tax Justice Network made a similar point in their research arguing for a wealth tax and a balancing of income tax with capital gains tax so people aren’t contributing less from passive income. This could also address the rampant inequality.

    Homes as assets – a driver of inequality

    The Fairness Foundation also regards treating homes as constantly inflating assets as a key driver of inequality. That’s instead of delivering homes at cost price as a product of necessity. Disparity in home ownership also plays a decisive role in the wealth gap between minority ethnic households and their white British counterparts.

    The report notes that since the 1980s (the premiership of Margaret Thatcher and the following capitulation of Labour under Tony Blair), home ownership has gone from a driver of distributed wealth to something that increases inequality. Millennials spend about 28% of their income on housing costs. Whereas, people of a similar age in the 60s and 70s spent around 5-10% of their income on housing.

    Inequality limits the potential of society

    Broadly, the poorest half of the UK owns just 9% of the wealth. The research challenges the idea that such stark inequality is good for society:

    Contrary to the orthodox idea that inequality is necessary for a dynamic economy, growing evidence suggests that wealth concentration significantly undermines productivity and growth. A lack of wealth creates barriers that prevents people from fully participating in the economy. This limits the potential pool of talent and innovation that contributes to economic growth. It can especially limit entrepreneurship, since wealth allows people to take the risks that are an inevitable part of building a new business

    The report offers a variety of solutions, including “sharing wealth”:

    Sharing wealth is another approach. Wealth concentration in the UK has been facilitated by an economic system that often incentivises and rewards the extraction of value from existing financial and corporate wealth, rather than encouraging the creation of new economic value. Mechanisms to prevent this, such as public wealth funds, would ensure that income-generating assets are shared more equitably, allowing all citizens to benefit from economic development. These funds would provide access to excellent investment returns for everyone and mitigate the effects of differential returns, where the wealthy enjoy superior rates of return compared to average savers, exacerbating existing inequalities.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour’s latest DWP plans are a ‘Post Office scandal waiting to happen’

    The Labour government’s latest plans at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is a Post Office scandal-scale disaster waiting to happen. Specifically, the department – with a rapsheet of failures to its name – now wants to not only snoop on benefit claimant bank accounts, but snatch money straight from them. It’s over DWP benefit fraud. Merchant of death and demonising rhetoric Liz Kendall was hinting at all this in the Telegraph – but obviously hasn’t put the wheels in motion on it – at least not yet.

    However, it would be completely in character with this callous continuity Conservative government.

    DWP benefit fraud: another dangerous idea

    Of course, anyone who knows the DWP, knows what a catastrophically horrendous idea this is. That’s not least because the department hasn’t exactly got a track record of getting things right:

    Take housing benefit claimants for instance. It was only in June that campaign group Big Brother Watch exposed how the DWP had wrongfully forced 200,000 housing benefit claimants through fraud investigations.

    What’s more, as the Canary has repeatedly pointed out – benefit fraud is a fiction – fabricated by successive austerity-obsessed governments and fanned by right-wing corporate media shills to scapegoat marginalised communities.

    The Telegraph was getting in on the punching down action, with it’s little puerile ‘gotcha’ moment that isn’t. Fraud has soared (soared they tell you) during the pandemic to, wait for it, a whole 4%. Except, it really hasn’t anyway. For one, that includes its own errors too. YES, it lumps its OWN mistakes in these statistics.

    Furthermore, the Canary’s Steve Topple has spelled out the nonsense that is the DWP’s categorisation of benefit fraud before. Specifically, he’s underscored how much of it is based on “assumptions and guesswork”. It includes people who have forgone their benefit, rather than engage with benefit reviews for example. We can’t possibly think of another reason people would choose not to deal with the DWP than to commit fraud. Nothing to do with its degrading, punitive, and inaccessible processes at all.

    So even if we’re to take the fraud stats in isolation – a sizeable chunk of that isn’t actually fraud at all. Then, let’s talk Personal Independence Payment (PIP). Fraud rates were so infinitesmally small last year, the DWP literally rounded it down to zero. Zilch. Nada.

    When things go wrong…

    Naturally, none of these facts will stop the Labour government and Liz Kendall from ploughing ahead with this despicable DWP benefit fraud plan.

    However, as ever, it’ll be chronically ill, disabled, poor, and other oppressed communities at the sharp end of this:

    Some raised the fact that the DWP draining people’s bank accounts could leave people out of pocket. Crucially, this will be people already living in poverty thanks to the paltry support the DWP has provided anyway:

    Of course, it’s not all that different from the way the DWP has conducted disgraceful benefit deductions. That is, the DWP has long been raiding benefit claimant bank accounts on behalf of utility companies and landlords.

    So now, Labour look to be gearing up to roll out yet another scheme that could so very easily go tits up. Obviously, it’s a terrifying prospect.

    This is especially so when we also know it has a penchant for demonising disabled people as fraudsters. And most significantly, its blame and shame culture is invariably denying, removing, and accusing them of fraud –  completely wrongly.

    The fear over DWP benefit fraud is the point

    But of course, the fear is part of the point. It’s all wrapped up with a nice little bow in its back to work coercion agenda more broadly. In other words, it doesn’t want people to claim in the first place – and acting as a deterrent is what the DWP does best. Naturally, it’s all to save the government money it prefers to funnel off to the private sector.

    However, its new fraud pet project could cost many claimants their lives – and Labour knows it. After all, the fear the DWP instils already has actively made claimants physical and mental health worse:


    It’s a fucked up welfare system when it’s more focused on a cracking down on miniscule rates of fraud than providing people the support they need to live. Unfortunately, so far, that’s been Labour and Liz Kendall’s approach to DWP benefit fraud writ large. This would be the next Post Office scandal were it not for one appalling fact – the DWP’s “systemic violations” of people’s human rights pretty much already is.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Half a million people demand Labour STOP callous winter fuel payments cut

    Campaigners have delivered a petition to parliament from over half a million people. It calls for the Labour Party government to scrap its cruel winter fuel payment cut to millions of pensioners.

    This was on the same day new charity polling revealed that the policy will put nearly half of those pensioners now losing out on the benefit’s health at risk.

    Winter fuel payment: putting pensioners health at risk

    As the Canary has previously detailed, the government’s means-testing of the winter fuel payment will mean it will now deny the benefit to:

    • 1.6 million -84% of pensioners in poverty
    • 1.6 million – 71% of disabled pensioners

    These statistics came from the government’s own data and Equality Analysis.

    Therefore, the loss of the benefit will likely have far-reaching ramifications for pensioners’ health this winter. Now, non-profit Independent Age has surveyed older people to find out just how pensioners expect it to impact them. And the results are damning. It found:

    • 44% of older people (65+) in England think losing the winter fuel payment will negatively impact their physical health.
    • 49% of older people in England who will lose their winter fuel payment said they were planning to only heat and spend time in one room. 20% were already planning to do this but now an additional 29% said they will resort to this measure because of the change.
    • 43% of older people in England who will lose their winter fuel payment said they were planning to wear outdoor clothes indoors, for example hats and coats. 15% were already planning to do this and now an additional 28% said they will make this change, which they hadn’t expected to do before losing the winter fuel payment.

    In short then, Labour slashing the winter fuel payment is going to force people into these unconscionable situations this winter. Of course, it’s little wonder nearly half of people its denying the payment to think it will harm their physical health. That’s because, the rest of the responses highlighted that many of these will struggle to afford to heat their homes.

    Given all this, more than 500,000 people signed a petition demanding the government reverse its policy. A coalition of groups headed to Westminster to deliver these to the government’s front door.

    Winter fuel payment petition goes to Westminster

    On Wednesday 16 October, campaigners took the signatures to Downing Street and the Treasury:

    These were from a series of combined petitions and open letters by charities and campaign groups including Independent Age, 38 Degrees, Silver Voices, and Organise:

    Chief executive of Independent Age Joanna Elson said that:

    Tying the Winter Fuel Payment to Pension Credit now will see far too many older people fall through the cracks. Pension Credit still has a stubbornly low take up and in addition there is a large group of older people living just above the entitlement’s threshold, sometimes by just a few pounds. People in this situation will now have this vital money taken away from them. That’s why we are heading to Downing Street to urge the UK Government to protect the payment for those in later life living on low incomes.

    With winter around the corner, now is the time to bring older people on a low income back in from the cold.

    Matthew Mcgregor, CEO of 38 Degrees echoed this, stating that:

    The message to the Government today is clear: don’t let vulnerable people fall through the cracks of our economy this winter

    That’s why so many hundreds of thousands of us have come together to demand that Chancellor Rachel Reeves doesn’t scrap winter fuel payments for struggling pensioners, just as energy bills have risen again.

    This petition hand-in should be a wake up call for the Prime Minister and Chancellor. Use this Autumn Budget to prove whose side you’re on.

    Campaign groups come together to call Labour out

    Other organisations also supported the hand-in. This included the Warm This Winter campaign:

    Fuel Poverty Action’s Jonathan Bean recorded a message to politician outside of Parliament:

    Age UK showed its support for the campaign on X:

    The End Fuel Poverty Coalition, and Uplift were also among the groups backing the petition hand-in.

    Half a million voices the government cannot ignore

    Cornwall resident 68-year old Robert Trewhella was there to hand in the box of signatures to Downing Street. He said that:

    It’s not right that so many older people will have money taken away from them this winter. My State Pension puts me just £2 above the Pension Credit threshold, meaning I will lose the Winter Fuel Payment. I only have a small income and in the past the extra money has helped keep my flat warm.

    Hopefully the UK Government listens and decides to protect the Winter Fuel Payment for older people that can’t afford to lose it. I am worried about the winter ahead, I hope it doesn’t get too cold as I don’t think I will be able to turn the heating on often

    Fuel Poverty Action’s Jonathan Bean summed up the callousness of the government’s move over the winter fuel payment:

    Over half a million people have joined the call to axe this cruel policy – and no wonder. The health and lives of low-income pensioners will be put at risk. As a direct impact of this policy, people will resort to switching off the heating and trying to survive in cold, damp homes.

    He expressed how he’d seen the devastating impacts of rising prices and unaffordable energy bills first-hand within his own family:

    I know only too well the dangers of cutting vital energy support: my own uncle switched off his heating when prices first rose without telling his family. He ended up in an ambulance with hypothermia and then spent a month in hospital and two months in respite care.

    So, Bean lambasted Labour’s decision which will push more pensioners into fuel poverty this winter:

    In an attempt to justify their plans, Labour are pointing to the £22bn ‘black hole’ in the country’s finances. But pushing vulnerable pensioners into it isn’t the solution. Tory economics got us into this mess, and Labour should be moving towards a new kind of economics that puts people before profit.

    Instead, he articulated that the government should guarantee the right to free energy for all:

    If this government wants to show that it listens to the concerns of ordinary people, they need to scrap this cruel policy and focus instead on fixing our broken energy pricing system and protecting everyone with an essential energy guarantee that keeps us all warm and safe this winter.

    Needless to say, no one should be risking their health or freezing to death in their homes this winter. However, the government slashing the winter fuel payment is set to do just that for hundreds of thousands of pensioners.

    Now though, more than half a million people have raised their voices to demand it stop its ruthless policy – and on Wednesday, the coalition of campaigners made sure that’s 500,000 plus voices it cannot ignore.

    Feature image via X – Fuel Poverty Action

    By Hannah Sharland

  • The NEU made a Labour MP who voted to KEEP two-child benefit cap the face of its free school meals campaign

    The National Education Union (NEU) is running a campaign to end child poverty, and introduce universal Free School Meals (FSM). However, it has taken on a controversial ambassador to promote this – Sharon Hodgson – a Labour Party MP who only in July voted to keep the two-child benefit cap.

    Oxymoronically, the NEU’s campaign is titled ‘No Child Left Behind’. Yet Hodgson’s role as a political face of this sends quite the opposite message.

    The NEU’s Free School Meals campaign

    The NEU’s campaign website describes how it is:

    fighting to break down the barriers poverty puts up around equal access to education.

    Part of this, is it’s call for Free School Meals (FSM) for all children at primary schools across the UK. It has been sending out emails from Hodgson to promote and garner support for its campaign. In it, Hodgson says:

    When I was a new MP, I went on a fact-finding mission to Sweden. I saw how a universal Free School Meals programme could change families’ lives:

    Happy children, energised to learn. Parents and carers feeling supported. That experience was what drove me to lobby the Labour Government at the time for Free School Meals for All.

    It’s also why I didn’t hesitate to sign the National Education Union’s open letter calling for hot, healthy dinners for every child in primary school.

    We need to show that this policy is supported far and wide. Do you know five people who would sign the open letter today?

    As a former Free School Meals kid, it brought me so much joy to see pupils eating and learning together at Lambton Primary School in Washington, Sunderland. Food is an undeniable and essential part of our lives.

    It helps fuel our minds and bodies, giving us the vital nutrients we need to stay healthy – especially for children.

    The health, wellbeing and educational benefits are clear. After years of campaigning hard, universal Free School Meals is now being implemented in Wales and London.

    Together, we’ve shown that when we use our collective voice, we can create tangible change for children everywhere. There is so much support across England for this policy.[name], you are crucial to building that case:

    I’ve been fighting for the roll out of Free School Meals for All across England for the last 18 years. I am excited that this new Labour Government gives us a renewed opportunity.

    Together, let’s give our children the best start in life.

    From a fellow campaigner,

    Sharon

    Of course, for one, it’s always ironic when a politician who has been among the party in power’s cabinet, brands themselves a ‘campaigner’. As an elected member of parliament in the Labour Party, Hodgson has access to many of the levers to change. Your typical campaigner has no such influence in the halls of Westminster.

    That aside, there’s nothing inherently wrong or unusual in Hodgson throwing her weight behind the NEU’s campaign. MPs do this all the time over the issues they’re passionate about. However, there is something problematic about Hodgson doing it for THIS campaign – and the NEU plastering her name and face all over it.

    In fact, there are a few things that make Hodgson’s ostensible ambassadorship for it, highly paradoxical.

    Hodgson keeping kids in poverty

    Let’s get this out of the way first. It’s obvious why the NEU has done it. Hodgson has indeed been a long-term voice for Free School Meals (FSM) in parliament.

    Notably, this more recently included throwing her support behind the NEU and Reach corporate media outlet the Mirror’s campaign for this too, in 2023.

    This was after her two-year stint as then Labour leader Keir Starmer’s parliamentary private secretary. Purportedly, she left that role so she could:

    speak freely on issues she cares about.

    Those “issues she cares about” included ambitions for the deputy speaker position. But since leaving the PPS role for Starmer, these have been more notable for what, and who they haven’t included.

    In July, Hodgson voted against the SNP amendment to scrap the two-child benefit cap. Considering that the limit is keeping hundreds of thousands of children in poverty, you’d think Hodgson would have defied her party’s whip – after all, these are some of the same children she’s purportedly concerned won’t have a hot, nutritious meal come school lunch-time.

    Since the vote, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has estimated that the limit on benefits has pushed a further 10,000 children into poverty. Hodgson might talk the talk about feeding children in poverty in principle, but in practice, she abets a government content with forcing families to make the stark choice between heating or eating.

    Living it up on industry lobby hospitality

    The two-child benefit cap isn’t the only issues either.

    Gone are the days of the Labour MP on Free School Meals (FSM) – now, it’s all-expenses paid-for by industry body lobbyists.

    In July 2023, Hodgson accepted meals and accommodation worth £1,074 to attend a school food sector lobbying association annual conference. This was from LACA – formerly the Local Authority and Caterers Association.

    LACA doesn’t disclose its members directly, only stating on its website how it:

    is the leading professional body representing over 1000 members drawn from across the school food sector representing public sector and private contract caterers and suppliers to schools, academies and MATs across the UK.

    Additionally, it also boasts that:

    With over 300 local authorities, county, district councils and London Boroughs represented in the membership, 80% of the catering service is provided by LACA members. And with around three million lunches being served every day in 27,000 schools, the LACA network is the country’s largest provider of school catering.

    However, while it doesn’t publicise its members anywhere explicitly, it does promote companies via its news updates. The Canary has assumed that where it has done so, these firms are members of LACA.

    With this in mind, it appears that the group represents a Who’s Who of corporations at the centre of various FSM scandals.

    Association representing Free School Meals scandal firms

    Compass group subsidiary Chartwells was at the centre of a major furore on Free School Meals (FSM). This was over its blatant profiteering with FSM parcels while schools stayed closed under pandemic regulations in 2021.

    Some LACA members have their profiles in public on the website, although the vast majority do not. Of those that did, the Canary identified multiple Chartwells staff among its members. These included a regional manager and its head of nutrition and sustainability.

    Most notable however was former business development manager for Chartwells Stephen Forster. He currently sits on the LACA board of directors. His LinkedIn suggests he’s still in his role with Chartwells, but he isn’t active on this account. The Times previously highlighted how Forster was on the LACA board and working for Chartwells while LACA helped draft the government guidelines on the school food parcels scheme. As well as this, Forster happened to be the LACA national chair at the time of the scandal.

    Besides Forster, another former LACA chair, and current member on the organisation’s events committee, Lynda Mitchell, also worked for Chartwells. She was a business development employee in its school dining services for key stage 12 students, until November 2022.

    Sodexo-owned Alliance in Partnership was another company that provided sub-par food parcels during the pandemic. There were no fewer than 29 articles on LACA’s website about the Sodexo subsidiary. These were mostly announcing various contracts it has won with schools, as well awards the company or its staff has won.

    And speaking of awards, on numerous occasions, the association has honoured Caterlink catering teams and employees. Evidently, Caterlink is another LACA member. However, the firm was also among the providers who sent out shameful FSM food parcels to families.

    Food boxes for the clinically vulnerable

    Sodexo’s procurement subsidiary Entegra also co-hosted an event at LACA’s 2024 conference. This was to promote the ‘Buying Better Food framework’. This is a £100m contract the Cabinet Office’s executive agency the Crown Commercial Service awarded the Sodexo subsidiary in January.

    Essentially, Entegra is hosting a buying platform. It’s purportedly for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to supply food and ingredients to schools, hospital, and other public sector caterers. The Federation of Wholesale Distributors criticised the arrangement at the time, raising the concern that it could act as a monopoly on public food sector supply.

    Then, there’s the fact the LACA partners with corporate suppliers too. Among these is both Bidford, and Brakes. Again, the two company’s reputation precedes them – but not in a good way.

    Notably, these were the firms the Tory government awarded a £208m contract to – without tender – to provide food boxes for the clinically vulnerable in 2020, amidst the early waves of the Covid-19 pandemic. But notoriously, these were the food boxes the companies delivered at a 69% mark up on similar supermarket delivered box.

    At £44, they were at least double the normal retail value, and what was inside the boxes made this all the more galling. They included inedible, rotten fruit and veg, food items inappropriate for different religious groups, such as pork and bacon sent to shielding Muslim families, and entirely insufficient and poor quality food that failed to meet people’s nutritional needs.

    Yet, Bidford business development controller Gavin Squires also currently sits on the LACA board of directors. Additionally, Miguel Nunes – the national account manager for Bidfood – is on LACA’s event committee.

    Free School Meals: dining without the wining

    Of course, there’s hardly more obvious a sign of a trade association’s public relations remit than amplifying the company’s own weasel words to rehabilitate its image. Unsurprisingly, this is precisely what LACA did for Chartwells as the Free School Meals (FSM) scandal hit headline fever-pitch. In fact, Chartwells’ statement is the whole focus – letting the company put its own spin on the scandal.

    It’s hardly the only time LACA has done this either. In March, a headteacher at a school in Southampton hit out at Chartwells for its FSM offerings. Headteacher Jason Ashley lambasted the food as “completely unacceptable”. He described how photographs the school had taken of the lunches showed that:

    in recent times portions have gotten smaller, while prices have risen.

    Yet, this wasn’t the picture LACA painted when the BBC reached out to it for comment. It framed the small portion sizes and abysmal food quality as a result of food inflation, and low funding from government, and said in some flagrantly dismissive statement that:

    LACA and its members are committed to adhering to the school food standards ensuring that every meal served not only meets but exceeds the standards

    Despite all this, Hodgson has been one of LACA’s biggest champions in parliament. Both in 2022, and April 2024, she arranged for the association to host a ‘School Lunch’ lobby event at the House of Commons. LACA served up meals to MPs. In other words, it was dining without the wining.

    Of course, expanding FSMs would benefit many of LACA’s members. More meals to provide means more contracts and more money for private sector providers.

    Hodgson leaving many children behind

    Needless to say, the NEU has erred catastrophically in using Hodgson’s name and face to promote its campaign. However, when the Canary put these issues to the NEU, its spokesperson simply came back saying:

    Sharon has been a long-standing supporter of free school meals and has chaired the all party parliamentary group on school food for years.

    Sharon Hodgson MP is one of over 40 MPs and Peers that are supporting the No Child Left Behind campaign.

    No Child Left Behind is a broad-based coalition, with many civil society, public figures and faith leaders backing the campaign. The full list can be found here – https://freeschoolmealsforall.org.uk/about/the-coalition

    No Child Left Behind is campaigning for universal free school meals for all children in primary schools in England.

    Hodgson may well be supporting the campaign and voice for Free School Meals (FSM) in parliament. Yet, she’s also one of the politicians in power who can actually do something about child poverty more broadly. But Hodgson has actively chosen not to. After voting to keep the two-child benefit cap, 10,000 more children are now in poverty in the UK, since only July.

    Moreover, she has cosied up to a food sector association representing the interests of a who’s who of FSM scandal-plagued corporations.

    How does any of this square with the ‘No Child Left Behind’ campaign? It doesn’t – and Hodgson is one the MPs the NEU should be holding to account for failing children. Instead, it’s positioning her as a champion of ending child poverty, when it’s clear she’s anything but.

    Feature image via Youtube – Sky News/the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Chimney Rock

    There are two ways to be fooled.
    One is to believe what isn’t true;
    the other is to refuse to believe what is true    .
    — Søren Kierkegaard

    I’ve been there.
    Stood at the pinnacle.
    That was beforethe apocalypse.

    water completely took out another
    bridge across the Broad River,
    this one to Chimney Rock State Park.
    The park was closed.*

    Took in the vista.
    Seemingly timeless.
    Looking through the
    lens of my old Pentax
    the Smoky Mountains
    aptly named spreading
    across the sky.
    the Great
    Smoky Mountain Railroad
    stop in Dillsboro.
    I’ve been there.
    A quaint town.
    Shops galore, the
    Smokehouse Bar-b-que.
    The engine’s
    belching stack
    matching the
    train’s name
    pulling into
    the station.

    “The Train,” as the Great Smoky
    Mountain Railroad is known in town,
    pay a lot of salaries in Dillsboro.
    Its immediate return has not been established.**

    The Biltmore in Asheville.
    The flood’s signaturedrape its portal walls.
    Its exquisite gardens?
    Spared per reports.
    In the past, Asheville
    held a nightly summer
    country fest of harmony
    and hoe
    down they named
    “Shindig on the Green.”
    Does the green still stand?

    the flag at Chimney Rock [was raised]
    … as a symbol of hope and
    strength for all of Western North Carolina.***

    I’ve been there—
    global warming
    was still struggling
    to earn a name.

    Epigraph sources:

    Kierkegaard-popular translation of quote from Works of Love (1847).

    * Helene damages North Carolina Tourist Destinations.

    ** Dillsboro pulling together after a lashing from Helene, The Sylva Herald.

    *** North Carolina State Parks Facebook Post.

    The post Chimney Rock first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • New figures on the two-child benefit cap should SHAME the Labour Party

    Keir Starmer and the Labour Party government’s decision to keep the Tories’ two-child benefit cap has plunged 10,000 children into poverty since the election, analysis from the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) shows. That’s 109 children every day since 5 July.

    The cap strips benefits such as child tax credits and Universal Credit from low income families for their third or subsequent children born after April 2017.

    Two-child benefit cap: scrapping it an ‘investment’

    Scrapping the two-child benefit cap is an investment in a child’s future that, in turn, benefits the whole of society. In the UK, children born in the poorest fifth of families are 13 times more likely to experience ill health by the age of 17.

    As Joseph Rowntree Foundation principal policy adviser Katie Schmuecker said:

    Not only is this morally the right thing to do, it will also begin to build greater economic security for households, taking some pressure off public services and strengthening our economy.

    Children from the lowest income families are also five times more likely to experience poor academic achievement.

    15 year old Amara told CPAG:

    I skip meals to share with my mum…for example, I skip my meal to wait for her to come back and at least we can have the same amount of food…[We] starve together through the whole day, so at least we will have had something to eat.

    Save the Children called the new CPAG figures “heartbreaking” and Starmer’s decision to keep the two-child benefit cap “cruel”. CPAG further noted that scrapping the policy would bring 300,000 children out of poverty and reduce poverty for 700,000 more.

    Chief Executive of the charity, Alison Garnham, said:

    The clock is ticking while child poverty rises – and the two-child limit is the key driver of the increase. Scrapping it is the most cost-effective way to stop more kids being pulled into poverty on the Government’s watch.

    Corporate profits are major benefit recipients

    It’s also worth noting that many people who are under the two-child benefit cap are in work. 59% of the 450,000 households impacted by the cap have at least one working parent.

    As the Canary previously reported, this is corporate welfare. The most profitable firms in particular can afford to pay higher wages without raising prices. For example, Tesco employs 326,000 people in the UK and makes profit of £6,150 per every employee (including another around 100,000 abroad). That’s a total profit of £2.7bn on everyday food – an essential – meaning Tesco could pay thousands more each year in workers’ wages.

    It’s further a consideration that low income families will necessarily spend the benefit money in the economy. This circulates money in society and increases tax revenues.

    Although, shareholder profits on basic utilities will cream off a significant portion of the benefit money, such as through increased water, internet and energy bills. This is another aspect of the argument for public ownership of such essentials, as proposed in former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 manifesto. Such action would reduce the cost of the benefits bill.

    So when Starmer and Labour say we cannot ‘afford’ public ownership or to end the two-child benefit cap, the truth is we can’t afford not to.

    Featured image via Channel 4 News – YouTube

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A Declaration of War on the Poor

    On 16 September we marched in our thousands in Ballito to oppose evictions and racism. However, the attacks on the poor are escalating and the Dolphin Coast Residents & Ratepayers’ Association have made a public declaration of war against one of our branches.

    Since the formation of the Government of National Unity there has been a huge increase in state attacks on shack settlements around Durban and elsewhere. This includes settlements in Belair and the Bluff, both formerly white suburbs, and the Lindokuhle Mnguni Occupation in Johannesburg, which is near to a middle-class area. In all these cases settlements in middle class areas are being targeted. There have also been evictions in KwaDebeka in Durban.

    We have also been resisting evictions along the North Coast of KwaZulu-Natal where the super-rich lived in mansions in gated communities. They employ violent and militarized security companies to police the poor. The police follow the lead of these security companies. The Hlanganani occupation in Salt rock, the Sihlalangenkani occupation in Umhlali and the Ekuphumleni occupation in Ballito are all resisting evictions. The Phola and Magebhula settlements, also on the North Coast, under the KwaDukuza Municipality, have also suffered violent evictions.

    It seems clear that two things are driving this general attack on the poor. One is that the DA, which has been viciously evicting in the Western Cape, has pressured the ANC to step up its attacks on the poor. Another is that the state is cynically responding to the public outcry about the frightening levels of violence in the country, including kidnapping and extortion, with violent attacks on the poor and on migrants in the name of ‘fighting crime’. They are criminalising and abusing vulnerable people instead of dealing with the real crisis of violence.

    In the case of the evictions from land near the gated communities on the North Coast of KwaZulu-Natal the power of property, of wealth, is being mobilised to crush grassroots urban planning and decommodification of land organised via popular democratic power.

    The ANC gives special preference to the super-rich in these gated communities. They were even given an exception for loadshedding. They have told us that we are living on ‘prime land’ and must be moved away to desolate human dumping grounds far from work and schools.

    In our statement issued before the march in Ballito on 16 September we said that:

    “The KwaDukuza Municipality is openly working with the rich to remove poor black people in Ballito and Umhlali. The ratepayers’ association and the ANC led municipality are working together to evict poor black people, to destroy our homes and communities.

    They say that our presence reduces the value of the land, as if value is just a question of the price of the land and has nothing to do with the value of land for the human beings who live on it. They say that we must be removed because we are a health hazard as we must use the bush to relieve ourselves whereas the obvious solution to the lack of sanitation is to provide sanitation. They say that we are ‘chasing tourists away’. The strong element of racism driving all this is often openly displayed on the social media used by the white residents of the gated communities. The black elites who live in the gated communities are silent about this racism.”

    Now the residents of the gated communities, the super-rich, have made their racism and contempt for the poor clear. The Dolphin Coast Residents & Ratepayers’ Association have released a viciously anti-poor and racist video in which we are said to be criminal, dangerous, unhygienic and polluting. These are old colonial stereotypes about impoverished black people, stereotypes that have long been used by governments and elites to justify state violence and the destruction of homes, communities and livelihoods.

    The video aggressively criminalises impoverishment declaring that we are engaged in illegal occupation, illegal trading and illegal water electricity connections and demanding that the state ‘take action’ and that ‘the law be enforced’.

    When it demands the enforcement of the law it is not demanding that the limited but important rights given to the poor in the Constitution are guaranteed. This is an open demand for violence against us by private security and the state, for the destruction of our homes, our community infrastructure and our livelihoods. It is a declaration of war against the poor by the rich, a declaration of war against the black poor by the white dominated elite in the area.

    It is true that we are denied access to land, water, electricity, sanitation and refuse removal. The solution to this is to provide land and services, not to incite state violence against us when we make our own arrangements to build viable lives and communities.

    We would like to note that not all the wealthy residents of the area are taking this hostile, anti-poor and racist position. One resident has publicly stood up to make the important point that our living conditions are due to state failure and that this is the problem that needs to be fixed. No doubt he is not alone and there are other decent people who also recognise our humanity.

    The racist and anti-poor video put out by The Dolphin Coast Residents & Ratepayers’ Association must be condemned in the strongest terms. It should be investigated by the Human Rights Commission.

    It is also important for us to note that according to the KwaDukuza Speaker’s office the Mayor has refused to respond to the People’s Memorandum submitted on the 16 September march. She has long been failing to engage people with respect, to take the dignity of the poor seriously and to run an efficient administration. This anti-democratic refusal to respond to the Memorandum is provoking the anger of the people.

    We will continue to defend our right to live on the North Coast and to demand that our occupations be recognised and provided with all the services required for a decent and dignified life.

    Our humanity is not negotiable. South Africa belongs to all who live in it, including the poor. There can be no compromise with racism. We will hold the land.

    The post A Declaration of War on the Poor first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Did 1.4 billion Chinese Achieving Poverty Alleviation Cut into Washington’s Cake?

    The hopeless fault-finder. Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

    The hopeless fault-finder. Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

    These days the People’s Republic of China is celebrating its 75th anniversary. Over the past 75 years, China has grown from a poor and backward country to the world’s second-largest economy, with about one-sixth of the world’s population escaping poverty.

    However, as China continued to rise, the US’ attitude toward China has changed dramatically. Be it the “China threat” narrative or the “China challenge” theory, US politicians have become increasingly anxious about China’s development. This anxiety has turned into slander and attempts to portray China as a force threatening global development.

    Recently, a former American government official claimed that China aims to impose its ideology on the rest of the world, posing an unprecedented threat to the US.

    Over the past few years, many US politicians have stressed the threat of China. But what exactly has China’s development taken away from the US?

    When China was still a poor and backward country, the US never worried about China’s ideology “threatening” the world. However, as soon as China achieved economic takeoff, US politicians began exaggerating China’s “ideological threat.”

    Over the past 75 years, if China’s ideology had been detrimental to development and harmful to its own and the world’s progress, China would not be standing so proudly before the US today. China’s development demonstrates that its ideology contributes to global growth, as proven by its achievements.

    Even though China has become the world’s second-largest economy, its per capita GDP is still far below that of the US. In 2023, China’s per capita GDP was about $12,720, while the US was about $76,000, nearly six times higher. China must continue to advance steadfastly on its chosen path of development.

    In 2020, the US Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China (May 20, 2020) read, the CPC has “accelerated its efforts to portray its governance system as functioning better than those of what it refers to as ‘developed, Western countries.’” Based on this assumption, then such competition should contribute to global development. Indeed, only through such competition can we show that human development is a diverse process. Every country has the right to choose its own path of development.

    Isn’t it good for humanity if more countries develop through self-reliance like China? China has always adhered to the principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs and has never attempted to export its ideology to other countries. However, China has proven that a country can achieve economic takeoff and social progress without copying Western models.

    This successful approach has shaken the long-held discourse power and dominance of the West, especially the US, thus posing a significant challenge to the US’ global strategy.

    Suppose the development model and path advocated by the US are no longer the only correct ones. In that case, the foundation of its global strategy and influence will be shaken.

    When some US politicians claim that China’s ideology poses a threat, they are actually making excuses for Washington’s hegemonism. The “rules-based international order” in the mouths of American politicians is actually an order where the US makes the rules and other countries obey. Any country that attempts to challenge this order, regardless of its intentions, will be labeled an “ideological threat.”

    China has chosen a suitable path for itself and achieved great success. This success should not be a reason for demonization. If Washington cannot accept and recognize a prosperous and stable China and tries to set China as an opponent or even an enemy of the US, that would be a huge threat to world peace and development.

    The post Did 1.4 billion Chinese Achieving Poverty Alleviation Cut into Washington’s Cake? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Parliament sees protests and petitions over outrageous energy company profiteering

    Campaign group Fuel Poverty Action took to parliament on 1 October. It was to hand in its #EnergyForAll petition signed by over half a million people. This calls for the guaranteed right to free energy to cover universal basic needs. Notably, the group coincided the hand-in with the day so-called energy regulator Ofgem was increasing the energy price cap, sending bills spiralling ahead of winter.

    It marks the start of a winter of rising and unaffordable bills for millions of UK households.

    ‘Energy For All’: bills rising with the energy price cap

    Ofgem has now implemented a higher energy price cap of:

    £1,717 per year for a typical household who use electricity and gas and pay by Direct Debit. This is an increase of 10% compared to the cap set between 1 July to 30 September 2024 (£1,568).

    This is lower than the same period last year – but means energy bills will rise on average by 10% – or £149 a year.

    It also means energy bills will still be well above pre-pandemic prices. The 10% increase makes them them 65% higher than in 2020.

    Campaigners are therefore warning that rising prices will cause many to switch off their heating and risk serious health problems this winter.

    Jonathan Bean of Fuel Poverty Action said that:

    this is extra money people can ill afford – especially the millions of low-income pensioners who will be plunged into fuel poverty as a result of Rachel Reeves axing winter fuel payments for two million pensioners who are already struggling.

    A huge number of people will resort to turning off the heating and trying to survive in cold, damp homes. Many will end up in hospital, and thousands will die.

    Of course, as the Canary has already highlighted, the energy price cap increase will hit marginalised households the hardest. In particular, the bill hike will hurt people who need a lot of energy, because the 10% rise only applies to the average household.

    What really matters is how much the unit price – the amount per kilowatt hour of energy – the cost is going up by. In reality then, for some, bills will shoot up a lot more than this.

    For instance, this will include chronically ill and disabled people who typically have greater energy needs for aids and equipment to help manage their conditions. Alongside this, people in less energy efficient housing will invariably pay more for their fuel costs as well. Naturally, many pensioners will also be among those with larger energy demands too.

    Fuel Poverty Action take the petition to Parliament

    It’s why Fuel Poverty Action launched its #EnergyForAll campaign. This demands that the government introduce a universal basic energy allowance called Energy For All. Specifically, as the petition itself stated:

    #EnergyForAll means guaranteeing everyone enough energy, free – to cover the basics like heating, cooking, and lighting – to give us all the security we need, taking account of people’s actual needs related to their age, health, and housing.

    To pay for this new pricing system, Energy for All, we’re urging the Government to introduce proper taxation on the profits of oil and gas producers, traders and suppliers, and to STOP subsidising fossil fuels with millions of pounds every day.

    The group delivered these calls from over 662,000 people to parliament on Tuesday 1 October, with banners and placards:

    Group of campaigners with banners that read: 662,000 demand Energy For All. And: Fuel Poverty Action.

    They took their message right to the prime minister’s front door:

    Group of campaigners preparing to knock the front door at Number 10 Downing Street.

    A campaigner preparing to knock the front door at Number 10 Downing Street, with a box carrying the petition reading: 662,506 demand Energy For All - the right to energy for heating, cooking, and light. Energy price cap

    Campaigners gather together with their petition outside Number 10 Downing Street.

    They also handed out information postcards to passers-by to keep building the momentum for these demands:

    Campaigner hands out and information postcard to a member of the public.

    Meanwhile, over by parliament Unite Community and Unite London and East were also taking action. The group did banner drops to highlight rising energy costs:

    Tax the rich companies profiteering off the energy price cap

    Several groups campaigning for protections for pensioners this winter are also supporting the campaign.

    General Secretary of the National Pensioners Convention Jan Shortt said:

    Energy For All would mean that older people would have a level of energy for warmth, light, hot water and cooking without worrying about falling into debt.

    Alongside this, Shortt highlighted that it could pay for this by properly taxing the profiteering fossil fuel companies and suppliers:

    The petition calls for “proper taxation on the profits of oil and gas producers, traders and suppliers” and an end to “fossil fuel subsidies” of “millions of pounds every day.

    Because, as the Canary’s James Wright has pointed out:

    At the same time as the price hike, energy companies Iberdrola (owners of Scottish Power), Equinor, Centrica (British Gas), EDF and Drax alone have made £240bn in profit since 2020.

    Despite this, as Wright also highlighted, Ofgem’s CEO has made out that the energy price cap hike is enabling these greedy companies to make a “small profit”. Instead, campaigners have argued the reality is that they are make eye-watering sums from the privatised energy racket.

    Tommy Vickerstaff at 350.org therefore argued that:

    Our energy system is broken and the government is dithering on fixing it. It’s currently focussed on lining the pockets of fossil fuel CEOs, but the solutions are clear.

    We need an immediate extreme wealth tax to unlock millions of pounds for a renewable energy system to ensure everyone in the UK is guaranteed clean, reliable energy in our homes. In doing so we can both provide security and safety for UK households as well as advancing our international climate goals by minimising the impact the UK energy system has on communities around the world and on our planet.

    An energy guarantee to keep people warm and safe this winter

    As Green New Deal Rising’s head of campaigns Mel Kee expressed, their rampant profiteering off the back of the energy price cap will be at the public’s expense:

    Our energy system must be run for the good of our communities, rather than to line the pockets of shareholders. Being able to heat our homes, or cook our meals should not be a luxury – these are basic needs.

    This Government must show us they are serious about ‘change’ by improving ordinary people’s lives, not protecting energy giants’ profits.

    In particular, campaigners honed in on the staggering profits of British Gas, which made over £750m in 2023 alone. They argued that Ofgem has “no excuse” for inaction to protect billpayers.

    Fuel Poverty Action’s Jonathan Bean said of this:

    Ofgem gave British Gas an extra £500 million in profits last year. So where is the action from the regulator to protect the most vulnerable?” asks Jonathan Bean of Fuel Poverty Action.

    Given this, he also argued for the abolishment of cruel standing charges. These are the flat-rate daily charge suppliers levy on energy bills – regardless of energy usage. He said that:

    One thing they can do right now is to abolish cruel standing charges, which see people up and down the country pay a charge just for the privilege of purchasing energy.

    Imagine being asked for £6 each time just to enter the supermarket to do your weekly shop. Standing charges are inhumane.

    The winter fuel payment was used by many pensioners to offset the high standing charges they face. With this protection gone, standing charges may force many more to turn off their heating, and millions on prepayment meters risk being cut off completely.

    Fuel Poverty Action has also highlighted that Ofgem electricity prices are four times higher than gas prices. This exposes the 8% of households with only electric heating to higher bills, including older people with only storage heating and families in low-quality private rented homes.

    Given this, the group is calling for removal of unfair government levies, and market reform so households benefit from cheap renewables. Therefore, Bean said:

    The terrible human suffering and devastating impact on our NHS we will see this winter results from misguided government policy and energy firm profiteering”, says Bean.

    We should instead be protecting everyone with an essential energy guarantee that keeps us all warm and safe this winter.

    Featured and in-text images via Angela Christofilou

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The 10% energy price cap increase will hit poor and disabled people the hardest

    Winter energy bills are about to bite for households across the country. This is because on 1 October so-called energy regulator Ofgem will be raising the energy price cap. Obviously, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to households struggling to survive this winter. It comes alongside the Labour Party’s cut to winter fuel payments, as well as the cruel standing charges the regulator has so far refused to scrap despite clear public appetite for this.

    Tomorrow, Ofgem’s price cap change is kicking off a winter of fuel poverty for millions of UK households.

    Energy price cap about to rise for winter

    As the Canary has previously reported, Ofgem will be increasing the energy price cap.

    Specifically, it will implement a higher price cap of:

    £1,717 per year for a typical household who use electricity and gas and pay by Direct Debit. This is an increase of 10% compared to the cap set between 1 July to 30 September 2024 (£1,568).

    This is lower than the same period last year – but means energy bills will rise on average by 10% – or £149 a year.

    As the End Fuel Poverty Coalition has pointed out, it also means energy bills will still be well above pre-pandemic prices.

    Unsurprisingly, this will hit the most vulnerable households hardest. Notably, the £1,717 energy price cap is just the amount an average household’s bills will rise. It means in reality, bills will actually increase by a lot more than this. In particular, this applies to those whose typical energy bill sits above this average. Because what really matters is how much the unit price – the price per kilowatt hour of energy – the cost is going up by.

    Of course, this includes chronically ill and disabled people who typically have greater energy needs for aids and equipment to help manage their conditions. Alongside this, people in less energy efficient housing will invariably pay more for their fuel costs as well. Naturally, many pensioners will also be among those with larger energy demands too.

    Unsurprisingly then, the energy price cap rise alone will plunge hundreds of thousands more households into fuel poverty this winter. Specifically, nonprofit National Energy Action (NEA) has calculated that this will be 400,000 more UK households. It estimated that this means that at least six million households will be trapped in fuel poverty this winter.

    Winter fuel payment cut and standing charges

    Naturally, NEA put this out as the new Labour government also announced its plan to strip the majority of pensioners of winter fuel payments – on top of the increasing energy price cap.

    As a result, fuel poor pensioners are losing out twice. First, the government has stripped them of up to £600 in winter fuel allowance. Now, their energy bills will shoot up again from 1 October – all while they now have less income for it.

    In addition to this, the government’s own figures have shown how it’s disproportionately marginalised households that are set to lose the winter fuel payment. In particular, this will be:

    Moreover, if all this weren’t enough, cruel standing charges will make winter inordinately worse for pensioners and people Ofgem’s energy price cap is forcing into fuel poverty this winter. This is the flat-rate daily cost energy suppliers charge people – even when they’re not using any energy.

    The energy price cap rise means this is also going up too – and means it will be over £330 a year on average. Again, the standing charge can also be much higher for some households. This is because it can vary based on supplier, the area you live, and the type of tariff you’re on.

    Ofgem failing households in poverty

    Obviously, this means the energy price cap could in fact hit some households twice. Firstly, for the unit price. Then, the increased inflated standing charge adds an extra layer to this. This is particularly the case for those in certain areas, or on prepayment meters for instance.

    Most significantly though, the point is that the standing charge makes up a disproportionate amount of low energy users’ bills.

    Naturally, these typically tend to be poorer households who can’t afford to use as much in the first place. In other words, it’s likely to be many among the 1.6 million pensioners living in poverty – as well as the 6 million households in fuel poverty as well.

    Yet, despite this, Ofgem has so far refused to put forward scrapping the standing charge as a solution.

    Energy price cap: rationing power to get by

    Now, a new survey has revealed the devastating impacts of all this even further. As the Guardian reported:

    Almost half of British adults will ration their energy use this winter, a survey has found, as energy bills will rise again by 10% this week.

    In particular, it highlighted that:

    According to the YouGov survey on behalf of the fuel poverty charity National Energy Action, 46% of adults are likely to use less energy than they need to maintain comfort and wellbeing.

    Forty-five per cent of those on low incomes said they had already found it difficult to pay for their energy in the last year, while more than a third of those on prepayment meters said they had gone without power or heating when they needed it.

    So, what energy bill rises, the winter fuel payment cut, and cruel standing charges mean, is that vast numbers of households will go without energy when they need it this winter.

    As ever, it’s poor and disabled people that the government and supposed regulators’ decisions will hurt most. However, it’s little wonder when the career politicians at Westminster are as far removed from these realities as their hedge fund donor, MP heating expenses, and freebie-gilded lives can get.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.