radiofree.asia

Category: poverty

  • DWP just ADMITTED it’s cutting winter fuel payments from 1.6 million people in poverty

    The new Labour Party government is stripping winter fuel payments from 1.6 million pensioners living in poverty this winter. This is according to a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) minister – showing that Labour knew this – but are ploughing ahead anyway.

    Winter fuel payments cut: hitting the poorest households

    Previously, charity Age UK revealed that Labour’s callous winter fuel payments cut would deny 1.6 million pensioners in poverty the vital benefit this winter.

    As the Canary has already pointed out, this will be right as energy bills increase. This is because regulator Ofgem is raising the energy price cap from 1 October.

    Now, the DWP’s own figures corroborate this estimate exactly – showing that the Labour government knew this all along.

    Specifically, the DWP detailed that:

    • 1.6 million pensioners living in relative poverty after housing costs – 84% – were not claiming Pension Credits.
    • 1.2 million pensioners living in absolute poverty after housing costs – 85% – were not claiming them.

    DWP minister Emma Reynolds disclosed the information in response to two written questions from MPs. The first was from Labour MP for Lowestoft Jess Asato. She tabled the question on 30 August. Of course, this was a little under two weeks before she voted with the government to strip pensioners of it.

    The second was from former DWP boss Mel Stride. Obviously, this was ironic, given that during his time overseeing the department, he’d also put forward a sweep of similarly regressive reform proposals. Nonetheless, Stride submitted his question a few days after Asato, at the start of September.

    As Reynolds explained in her response to the winter fuel payments cut question:

    A household is in relative poverty if its income is less than 60 per cent of the median household income in a given financial year. ​A household is in absolute poverty if its income is less than 60% of median household income in 2010/11, uprated by inflation.​

    However, Age UK’s estimates already showed it’s worse than this. Its calculations went further than the DWP’s. Crucially, it identified a further 900,000 older people living no more than £55 a week above the relative poverty line who would also lose the benefit.

    Pension Credit uptake falling far short

    Of course, despite the fact that by the DWP’s own reckoning, this group of 2.8 million pensioners are living in poverty, many still won’t be eligible for Pension Credits. By its own estimates again, it calculated that 880,000 households with pensioners could claim this, but currently aren’t.

    Largely, this is because either they are unaware they’re eligible, or due to the complexity of applying for it – given the application form has over 240 questions.

    And so far, the government’s drive to increase uptake in Pension Credits has barely made a dent on this. Reynolds boasted in another response that its Pension Credit campaign had caused a 115% surge in applications. Specifically, this was in the five weeks after it launched this, compared to the five weeks prior to it.

    However, this equated to just 38,500 new claims. This is around 4% of the 880,000 it said are eligible in the wake of the winter fuel payments cut, but not yet claiming it. In other words, well over 800,000 households who should get Pension Credits – and by extension, the winter fuel payments – won’t now receive it this winter.

    That’s also before taking into account the process times for new claims. Notably, the DWP has been telling people it could take up to nine weeks to even process these new applications.

    Yet, the DWP newly confirmed figures now show the winter fuel payments cut will actually hit many more pensioners not able to claim Pension Credits, but also living in poverty.

    1.6 million: a reoccurring figure

    Naturally, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The DWP’s Friday night publication of the department’s winter fuel payments cut Equality Analysis also exposed the disproportionate impact of the cut on other marginalised groups.

    Not only is Labour slashing the payment to 1.6 million pensioners in poverty, but the same number of disabled people will also lose out. This was 71% of disabled pensioners entitled to the benefit. As well as this, the analysis revealed that the cut would hit women more than men. Approximately 5.2 million women will lose the winter fuel payments, to 4.8 million men this winter.

    Of course, multiple pensioner and disability rights charities have been highlighting the devastating toll since chancellor Rachel Reeves announced this. Now however, this is more proof that the Labour government will have been aware of all this beforehand.

    In other words, the new government has readily thrown poor and disabled pensioners under the bus. DWP minister Reynolds’ revelations about winter fuel payments should be damning. However, it’s unlikely to stop Starmer and co in their tracks. After all, it’s nothing they didn’t already know, and choose to deliberately ignore anyway.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour is not addressing the single biggest issue for private renters on benefits

    Buried in the latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) housing figures is a damning fact about the current state of private renting for those on benefits. It shows that so far, the Labour Party government is doing nothing to address the housing crisis facing these people, thanks to the Local Housing Allowance. So, think tank the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) says it must do more.

    Soaring private renting prices

    The latest ONS figures on private rent inflation show that:

    • Private rental prices continue to rise across the country, up by 8.4% across the UK between August 2023 and August 2024.
    • Average rents increased to £1,327 (8.5%) in England, £752 (8.5%) in Wales and £969 (7.6%) in Scotland in the 12 months to August 2024.

    While Local Housing Allowance rates were unfrozen and realigned to the cheapest 30% of local rents in the final Budget of the Conservative government in April 2024, these were based on rental figures from September 2023. Since then, on average rents have increased by £92 per month in Great Britain and by £174 in London.

    Considering these private rent inflation figures, JRF is calling on the government to urgently assess Local Housing Allowance’s inadequacy and volatility. The current system of freezing and unfreezing LHA is driving hardship and uncertainty as support becomes untethered from the reality of rising rents until the government is forced to step in.

    What is Local Housing Allowance?

    Local Housing Allowance (LHA) is the rate used to calculate Housing Benefit (and the equivalent in Universal Credit) for private renters. Housing Benefit is designed to help people pay their rent if they’re on a low income or claiming benefits.

    In April 2024, LHA was increased to reflect the cheapest 30% of local rents using rental figures from September 2023. Prior to that, LHA had been frozen for four years at September 2019 levels.

    Since September 2023, rent increases in the private rented sector mean that LHA is already lagging behind the actual cost of private rents and covering a smaller percentage of the available homes to rent for people on the lowest incomes.

    As things stand LHA will remain frozen at the current level from 2025, unless the government makes an active choice to unfreeze it.

    The cycle of freezing and unfreezing LHA is detrimental to private renters and to government finances.

    Why is it a problem for private renters?

    Private renters face an increasingly limited supply of affordable rental properties, especially in places with high housing demand like London or the South East. Because Local Housing Allowance (LHA) doesn’t cover the majority of homes available to rent in these areas, tenants often find it difficult to find homes that are within their budget.

    People who need to rent privately can be confronted with the choice between living in unsuitable homes away from where they need to be, or to make up a shortfall in rent that leaves them unable to buy other essentials items.

    Added to this is the increase in private rents. Freezing LHA means that private renters need to make up for the shortfall in the support they receive and the higher rents they must pay, which is driving hardship.

    Freezing LHA also leaves renters without any security. Not knowing whether the support they receive will reflect the rent they have to pay leaves renters to rely on Discretionary Housing Payments or the Household Support Fund, at a significant cost to local councils, or to go without other essentials to pay their rent.

    Why is it a problem for the government?

    Any increase to Local Housing Allowance (LHA) that would bring it closer to the cheapest 30% of private rents has not been factored into the Treasury’s spending plans. Freezing LHA leads to soaring numbers of people being made homeless and living in temporary accommodation leading to greater costs for councils until the government is inevitably forced to act when the gap between LHA rates and rents grows too large. Meanwhile, renters are forced to pick up that shortfall.

    The government must be open and transparent about its spending plans and should acknowledge that LHA will increase in line with the cheapest 30% of local private rents every year permanently.

    To prevent private renters on low incomes experiencing further hardship and going without essentials, the government also needs to take broader urgent action on hardship.

    One quick and relatively low-cost action would be to implement a protected minimum floor beneath Universal Credit’s standard allowance. This would limit the deepest hardship caused by debt deductions and the benefit cap, which often affects people facing expensive rents and reduces the amount of their Universal Credit or Housing Benefit.

    Local Housing Allowance must be unfrozen and fixed

    Rachelle Earwaker, senior economist at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said of Local Housing Allowance:

    The Budget is the perfect opportunity for the government to do the right thing and unfreeze LHA not just for 2025/26, but also to commit to the rate always aligning with rents so that explicit decisions don’t need to be made each year.

    The current system leaves millions of low-income private renters living in uncertainty about whether they will be able to afford to pay rent in the immediate future, affecting their ability to plan, to put down roots and make where they live a home.

    Around 80% of low-income private renting households on Universal Credit or who receive Housing Benefit reported going without essentials like food and heating in the six months to May 2024. A commitment to permanently tying LHA to the cheapest 30% of private rents would be a crucial first step to alleviating the hardship many in the private rental sector are exposed to.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Peace: Well-Being for the Poorest

    Peace has always been fundamental to me.

    My first forays into activism were for peace: as an elementary school student blowing up balloons for a protest when the white train carrying nuclear warheads passed through my hometown in Idaho, organizing a protest of the first Gulf War in junior high school, writing letters to protest Army recruiters being allowed on school grounds in high school. I love peace so much that I studied it in college – my bachelor’s degree is in Peace and Global Studies.

    So it was with some surprise that I found myself sobbing tears of gratitude recently during a military speech. September 2nd was the 45th anniversary of the founding of the Nicaraguan Army, and President Daniel Ortega began his speech to the troops by talking about peace.

    “Today we are able to hold this celebration in times of peace, and how much has it cost to reach this stage of peace. Peace meaning well-being for the poorest.…In peace we can fight poverty. In peace we can ensure education for all families, for the children of working-class families, rural families, poor families with low incomes.”

    As I listened to the President’s address, I didn’t just tear up, I sobbed tears of gratitude. Gratitude to the Nicaraguan Revolution for identifying poverty as its number one enemy and fighting against that enemy with everything it’s got. Gratitude for being able to see with my own eyes the alleviation of so much suffering in my time. Gratitude that I’ve been able to contribute my grain of sand to this struggle.

    Gratitude that we are not alone in this, that we are working in concert, struggling shoulder to shoulder with the government of the people of Nicaragua to vanquish poverty together in this beautiful country.

    My tears, however, were also tears of sorrow for my country of birth. I have always held a vain hope for a similar struggle against poverty in the United States. I went to school with kids who didn’t have enough to eat, with kids who were constantly sick because their parents couldn’t afford to take them to the doctor, with kids whose families didn’t have running water or a good way to heat their house. In the thirty years since I left home, the situation for families like theirs has only gotten worse, for the simple reason that the well-being for the poorest is not in the interests of those that govern the United States.

    When I was growing up in the 1980s and early 90s, my sister and I attended public school in Idaho. Every year, like schoolkids all around the U.S., we were required to raise money for the school: selling candy bars door-to-door; making desserts for bake sales; asking businesses to sponsor us for each mile we’d ride in the annual Bike-A-Thon when we would pedal five and a half miles with our classmates, then go back and collect the money…all just to get enough cash to keep the school going.

    Yet, 43% of the U.S. annual budget goes toward military spending. As the old protest poster says, “It’ll be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.” So, during President Ortega’s speech to the Nicaraguan Army, I was also crying for all those who are suffering in the U.S., with no hope of poverty alleviation from their government.

    Unlike the U.S., Nicaragua has actually been invaded by a foreign country in recent history – mostly by the U.S. Nicaragua suffered 10 years of U.S. proxy war which targeted civilians, health centers and schools. Nicaragua suffered a U.S.-led and funded coup attempt in 2018, is currently suffering under illegal unilateral coercive measures – sanctions – and suffers continued destabilization attempts by the U.S.

    Yet, even with such real threats to national security, Nicaragua’s total military spending is only 3% of the national budget.

    Where does Nicaragua invest the majority of its funds? In peace. In, as President Ortega says, the “well-being of the poorest.”

    Social spending is 53% of Nicaragua’s annual budget – free education from preschool through university, universal free health care, low-income housing, low-interest loans and much more.

    Nicaragua knows what it is like to live in times of war, and therefore peace is truly precious here. It is such a privilege to be able to experience living in a country that is truly at peace, and to see what can be accomplished when peace, the well-being of the poorest, is prioritized. May peace always reign in Nicaragua!

    The post Peace: Well-Being for the Poorest first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Tens of thousands of people call on Ofgem to scrap cruel standing charges

    Over 20,000 people have flooded energy regulator Ofgem’s inbox calling for it to scrap cruel standing charges on energy bills. As part of Energy For All’s letter-writing campaign, thousands have sent emails to demand it ditch the flat-rate daily charge that disproportionately impacts poorer households – on top of the cut to the winter fuel payments.

    20,000 call for Ofgem to ditch cruel standing charges

    With energy bills set to rise 10% on 1 October, Fuel Poverty Action, Green New Deal Rising, and the Peace and Justice Project have been urging the public to take action.

    The campaign is in response to Ofgem’s current consultation on standing charges, which closes on 20 September. As the regulator explained in this, standing charges are:

    set by your energy supplier and are also included in the energy price cap. Your supplier will charge you this cost each day, even if you do not use any energy on that day. The charge covers the cost to maintain the energy supply network, take meter readings, and support government social and environmental schemes.

    In January, Ofgem closed its first consultation on the standing charge. Over 30,000 members of the public responded to this, which the regulator itself acknowledged:

    demonstrated the strength of feeling among the public for change

    Crucially, prominent among these changes was for Ofgem to abolish the standing charge altogether. Instead, respondents said it should shift:

    these costs to energy suppliers to absorb using profits

    However, this is not what Ofgem has put forward in the new consultation. So, the Energy For All campaign is getting members of the public to call it out.

    Notably, 30,000 individuals engaged with the previous two-month consultation. This time, more than 20,000 people have directly added their name to the call to abolish the standing charges altogether- with many thousands joining the campaign in just the last week alone.

    Fuel Poverty Action’s Jonathan Bean said that:

    Ofgem proposing only minor tweaks in this latest consultation flies in the face of the clear verdict of the last consultation

    They’ve chosen to quietly consult again while winter fuel payments dominate the news. That’s why Fuel Poverty Action have teamed up with Green New Deal Rising and the Peace & Justice Project to make sure that this time Ofgem gets the message.

    The ‘cruelty of our current system’

    Due to Ofgem raising the energy price cap, these standing charges – set by suppliers – will also rise this winter. Crucially, it means the standing charge will be over £330 a year. Energy suppliers will charge this, even when people are not using any energy.

    Bean warned that this could push many into fuel poverty this winter. He argued that:

    the cruelty of our current system is that even those living in small flats using no energy at all are paying the same standing charge as high users living in mansions.

    The standing charge alone is enough to push many into fuel poverty, before they are allowed to buy any energy at all,’ says Bean.

    Energy is essential. We aren’t charged £7 at the supermarket door to be allowed in to do our weekly shop. This outrageous poll tax on energy hits the poorest hardest.

    Of course, this is also coming on top of Labour Party’s callous decision to cut the winter fuel payment to millions of pensioners.

    Given that many low-income pensioners are now set to lose out on the winter fuel payment, campaigners say standing charges will push many into ‘energy starvation’.

    Moreover, as the Canary previously highlighted, the winter fuel payment cut, alongside rising standing charges are a double-whammy for pensioners this winter. We wrote how the standing charges already make up a disproportionate amount of low energy users’ bills.

    General Secretary of the National Pensioner’s Convention Jan Shortt emphasised the impact this will have on elderly people:

    Standing charges have reached such a level that they now make up the bulk of household bills. For those older people who have cut down on their consumption due to the cost of energy, there is very little difference in savings.

    Therefore, Shortt argued that:

    The Regulator should get rid of them and work on a strategy to apply energy for all which is the fairest way to support those most in need.

    Echoing this, Bean also said that:

    Due to the energy price crisis, many older people resort to turning off their heating altogether, putting their health at risk.

    It’s especially brutal for single pensioners hit hard by both the £330 standing charge and losing their £300 winter fuel payment.

    Compounding the energy crisis for chronically ill and disabled people

    The Canary also underscored how the winter fuel payment, alongside soaring standing charges with rising energy bills will also disproportionately hit chronically ill and disabled people.

    Firstly, with the unit price going up, higher energy users will be hit. Obviously this includes:

    chronically ill and disabled people who typically have greater energy needs for aids and equipment to help manage their conditions.

    Then, the staggering standing charges will eat into disabled people’s – many of whom are on low-incomes to begin with – vital finances needed to look after their health.

    To make matters worse, the government’s equality analysis has intimated that 1.6 million disabled pensioners will now lose the winter fuel payment this winter.

    Naturally, each of these compound the impacts of the energy crisis for chronically ill and disabled people.

    It’s why members of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) are also lending their support to the campaign. Rick Burgess from Manchester DPAC said:

    everyone paying a standing charge is subsidising failed companies in our failed privatised utility sector.

    Even before using a single unit of energy disabled people pay tens of pounds a month to cover over Ofgem’s shame. Money we actually need to avoid worsening health. Instead it is taken from us under threat by a failed utility system.

    Corbyn backs the standing charges campaign – and you can too

    However, Ofgem is only tinkering around at the edges of the problem – much like Labour has on the winter fuel payments.

    It’s consulting on ‘reform’ options to the standing charge.

    The regulator’s latest proposals include shifting some of the standing charge onto unit prices. However, campaigners say Ofgem is asking ‘all the wrong questions’.

    They have pointed to Ofgem’s decision last year to hand British Gas an extra £500m in profits. As a result, they argue that reducing standing charges should not mean higher bills.

    The campaign letter blasts Ofgem on this point, saying:

    it is plain wrong that your latest consultation suggests that savings on standing prices must mean increases in unit prices. You need to do your job to cut costs and profits, and work with Government to get rid of the levies and taxes that are a big chunk of the standing charges.

    Bean also summed this up, saying:

    We are paying for the bloated overheads and obscene profits of energy firms.

    But it doesn’t have to be this way. Ending standing charges is the first step towards implementing Energy For All, which has the backing of over 660,000 people.

    Ofgem and the government need to overhaul our broken energy system, so no one suffers energy starvation over winter.

    Politicians from multiple political parties have taken aim at standing charges. Labour has promised to reduce them, and both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have manifesto commitments to reform them.

    By contrast however, Independent Alliance MP Jeremy Corbyn has come out in support of the Energy For All’s demand to scrap them altogether. He said that:

    standing charges are intrinsically unfair as they charge everyone the same regardless of income or wealth.

    I first opposed standing charges when I entered Parliament in the 1980’s and still do now. It’s time for them to go and I’m proud that our Peace & Justice Project is supporting this campaign.

    There’s still time to join him and tens of thousands of others who’ve already spoken up against these cruel standing charges. Energy For All are sending the letters to Ofgem CEO Jonathan Brearley, Director General Tim Jarvis, and Energy Minister Miatta Fahnbulleh MP. Fuel Poverty Action will also highlight these in its official consultation response.  You can add your name and send an email as part of the campaign here.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • After winter fuel payments cut, another energy scandal is going to deliver a double whammy for poor people

    Time is running out to tell energy regulator Ofgem to scrap the cruel standing charges on energy bills. The Energy For All campaign is calling on members of the public to support its efforts to get the regulator and government to ditch the flat-rate daily charge that disproportionately impacts poorer households. Of course, the demand is more urgent than ever as bills are set to soar this winter, and amidst Labour cutting winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners.

    Standing charges: pushing households into fuel poverty

    Energy regulator Ofgem explained that standing charges are:

    set by your energy supplier and are also included in the energy price cap. Your supplier will charge you this cost each day, even if you do not use any energy on that day. The charge covers the cost to maintain the energy supply network, take meter readings, and support government social and environmental schemes.

    However, as the Canary’s Steve Topple previously highlighted, these charges are compounding the impacts of the energy crisis – especially for low-income households. Notably, Topple detailed the findings of campaign group Organise’s survey on 45,000 of its members. Specifically, this was that:

    Organise’s research showed that standing charges impact adequate heating for 90% of people, with:

    • 84% forced to cut heating, showers, baths, washing, and drying.
    • 72% left in debt or unable to top up a prepayment meter.

    Those on prepayment meters are one group hit hard by standing charges.

    534,462 electricity customers and 269,351 gas customers were cut off between January and March 2023. However, this Ofgem data only covers 4% of households, so ignores millions of other low income struggling households. This includes the two million homes without gas supply that pay the higher electricity standing charges and unit costs.

    Given this, Fuel Poverty Action, the Peace and Justice Project, and Green New Deal Rising are urging the public to call for an end to these enormously unfair and harmful charges.

    Bills set to soar

    Of course, as the Canary also recently pointed out, Ofgem is raising the energy price cap in October. This means that the standing charge will also go up. This is alongside the unit price for energy – though the standing charges won’t rise nearly as much. Nevertheless, it means the standing charge will still be over £330 a year. This is on top of Labour’s winter fuel payments cut.

    However, much like the unit price, Ofgem’s estimate was also only the average. In reality then, 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.

    Obviously, this means the energy price cap could in fact hit some households twice. Firstly, for the unit price. As the Canary previously explained, this will impact:

    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.

    Then, the increased inflated standing charge adds an extra layer to this – particularly for those in certain areas, or on prepayment meters for instance.

    ‘Inhumane’ standing charges cause ‘energy starvation’

    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, the higher proportion of what they pay for their bills goes towards the standing charge. It can even literally mean that those who haven’t used any energy for months build up this inflated cost.

    The Energy For All letter therefore argues that:

    High standing charges mean millions struggling on low incomes are not left with enough money for even essentials like heat and light. It’s inhumane. We don’t make everyone pay £330 before they are allowed to buy food. Energy is essential too. Standing charges mean millions suffer energy starvation.

    Moreover, it drives the point that it’s not simply cruel, it also makes little economic sense, and is bad for the environment to boot. Specifically, it states that:

    Standing charges mean that low users pay a much higher average unit cost than high users. But the economics of electricity, which has the highest standing charge, are the opposite. High users cause higher costs for everyone, as they mean we have to spend tens of billions of pounds upgrading the capacity of the network and generation, and force us to use more expensive and dirtier generation that drives up our prices now. We should actually be rewarding low users with lower prices, not punishing them with standing charges.

    Ofgem not doing its job

    So what is Ofgem proposing to do about it? As the Energy For All campaign articulated: not enough.

    In January, Ofgem closed its first consultation on the standing charge. Over 30,000 members of the public responded to this, which the regulator itself acknowledged:

    demonstrated the strength of feeling among the public for change

    Crucially, prominent among these changes was for Ofgem to abolish the standing charge altogether. Instead, respondents said it should shift:

    these costs to energy suppliers to absorb using profits

    However, this is not what Ofgem has put forward. Instead, its new consultation offers so-called ‘reform’ options to the standing charge. Chief among these is shifting some of some parts of the charge to the unit price. Yet, Ofgem’s paper accompanying the consultation itself noted that

    the benefits of the winners and costs of the losers are broadly similar in terms of scale.

    Crucially, it underscored how its draft impact assessment found that:

    • Bills would come down on average between £4-19 for 3.7 to 3.8 million low-income households.
    • However, bills would actually increase between £4-18 for 2.3 to 2.4 million low-income households.

    As such, the Energy For All campaign tell Ofgem in its letter that:

    it is plain wrong that your latest consultation suggests that savings on standing prices must mean increases in unit prices. You need to do your job to cut costs and profits, and work with Government to get rid of the levies and taxes that are a big chunk of the standing charges.

    That is, rather than once again foisting the burden on households, Ofgem should be abolishing the standing charge and making obscenely profiteering energy companies bear these costs.

    Tell Ofgem what you think

    So, you have until Friday 20 September to join Energy For All in telling Ofgem what you think of the discriminatory standing charge. It has penned a letter for members of the public to sign online. The campaign is sending these to Ofgem’s consultation, its CEO Jonathan Brearley, and energy minister Miatta Fahnbulleh.

    Just as Ofgem raises the energy price cap, the government is callously stripping the winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners. Both are set to push many households into fuel poverty this winter.

    Of course, the cruel standing charge propping up profiteering energy companies is part of this. Therefore, it’s vital we once again take action against it and tell Ofgem and the government that energy really should be for all.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • DWP-backed, IDS-inspired Working Well scheme in Manchester is NOT actually working at all

    A fresh report from the notorious Iain Duncan Smith-founded think tank the Centre for Social Justice has called for the new Labour Party government to expand so-called devolution policies the Tories set in motion at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

    In part one of this three article series, the Canary explored the CSJ’s influence over the previous Conservative government, and Labour’s welfare policies while in opposition.

    Specifically, the CSJ report touted the success of Greater Manchester’s Working Well programme. Crucially however, the think tank has vaunted this as a model for its potential to do one thing in particular. Unsurprisingly, that is – to save the government money.

    A devolved DWP work programme

    The CSJ’s report highlighted a £2.68 return on investment to every £1 over ten years which a 2019 evaluation of the programme had estimated. The CSJ report therefore argued that:

    The results suggest that not only could devolving employment support be a cost-neutral change in provision, but its success would actually save the Exchequer money over time as people returned to work – potentially billions of pounds if success is replicated nationally

    This appeared to apply to an earlier version of the programme – the expansion that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) ran until the end of 2019. By contrast, the GMCA told the Canary that:

    cost benefit analysis shows that there is a £1.75 return for every £1 invested.

    As such, it too emphasised the CSJ’s assertion that:

    The scheme delivered value for money

    However, this might be one of only things going for this ostensible work programme. That’s because, besides the return on investment for the government, it didn’t appear to actually help the bulk of the participants into fair-paying and rewarding work.

    What’s more, contrary to the regular right-wing rhetoric conflating work with wellbeing, the programme also hasn’t improved the health of the majority of participants who’ve taken part to date. In fact, it may have actually worsened the health of some who engaged with the scheme.

    Working Well: Work and Health programme

    So, what did the Working Well programme much-lauded and pushed by the CSJ actually achieve? Well, it was hardly the resounding success the CSJ and others have made it out to be. The Canary will focus on the third and ongoing version of the scheme – Working Well: Work and Health programme. This is because there’s more recent data and evaluations for this, with more in-depth analysis than for the pilot and expansion programmes.

    Largely, it involved appointments with a key worker, who would primarily refer participants for “support interventions” that were:

    delivered in-house, by external organisations within Greater Manchester’s support ecosystem or through access to online resources

    In practice then, this largely meant passing participants round to other services. Among the top were GPs – accounting for 10% of referrals, and the government’s National Career Service (NCS) amounting to 7%. Job search sites Indeed and the CV Library came in third and tenth at 6% and 1% of all signposts respectively. The programme also handed participants off to Transport for Greater Manchester in 4% of referrals. Citizen’s Advice also featured in the top organisations. Naturally, the Jobcentre also sat alongside these at 3% of referrals.

    In other words, the programme palmed participants off to a range of services they could already access. So, if it seems like a glorified work programme, that’s because it very much is.

    However, GMCA argued that:

    Everyone who is referred to the Work and Health programme is supported through a dedicated, personalised approach. The programme is designed to act as a one-stop-shop for employment support, connecting people to the right support at the right time, without duplicating existing services. Referrals can be made through different routes, including Jobcentre Plus, primary care, and community organisations.

    The programme is just one of many that delivers social, health, and employment support to residents in Greater Manchester. Since 2014 these programmes have supported more than 76,500 people in our city-region and helped 27,500 into jobs, performing strongly when compared to national contracts and despite higher rates of deprivation relative to other areas.

    Despite GMCA’s claims, its “one-stop-shop” did make nearly a third of referrals to just these large pre-existing services alone.

    In effect, it still meant key workers were telling participants to talk to their GPs about a health problem, or to look online on Indeed for job vacancies, or go to the Jobcentre.

    Of course, this begs an important question. That is, what precisely was the point of adding another middleman that sent participants back to the Jobcentre that likely referred them in the first place? Nonetheless, this was largely what Working Well comprised of.

    Passing the DWP buck?

    There was one community interest company among the organisations – though the evaluation included it twice due to its separate services for physical and mental health. This was Pathways CIC. Its website describes the help it provides to unemployed individuals as including:

    advice and guidance on looking for jobs, CV writing, job-keeping skills, job brokerage, employment law, and fast access to treatments including physiotherapy and psychological therapies as well as culturally sensitive services. We also provide services to help people deal with social issues including finances.

    Ultimately then, the programme placed the onus of economic inactivity on participants’ own failures. If disabled people couldn’t find an appropriately accessible vacancy in a job market where hundreds are applying to the same role, it’s their own lack of skills, qualification, and CVs to blame. If they’re unable to stay in inaccessible, non-inclusive workplaces, the individual must be doing something wrong. Unable to afford essentials in the spiralling cost of living? Nothing to do with the pitiful poverty pay from employers – it’s on you for your lack of budgeting.

    Moreover, the “fast access” to health services implies placing people in the hands of private providers. Essentially, it suggests the programme is giving priority access to healthcare to people seeking work.

    Energy supplier SSE also appeared in the top ten organisations the programme referred participants to. In a previous evaluation from 2020, water company United Utilities also featured high in the list of referral organisations. That is, Working Well got individuals to talk to the very private profiteering corporations lumping them with unconscionably unaffordable utility bills in the first place.

    A ‘range of services’?

    GMCA didn’t directly contest that the programme hadn’t addressed these systemic problems impacting marginalised communities the most. Instead it told the Canary that:

    the Working Well programme’s focus is on people’s personal journeys towards and ultimately into work. Societal and workplace barriers are tackled through other work by GMCA.

    Different people will have different needs, which may include skills gaps but also health concerns, housing issues, and any other barriers they may face to finding and sustaining employment. The Work and Health Programme recognises these challenges, which is why it takes an integrated approach to providing support.

    One example across a decade of delivery is how Working Well has acknowledged unmet need in relation to oral health and employment. Difficulties accessing dental treatment – a national issue – have left people living in pain, embarrassed, feeling judged, and unable to find work. In response, we set up Roots to Dental in collaboration with the NHS University Dental Hospital of Manchester to help people on the programme with quick and easy access to the dental care they need.

    The Working Well Work and Health Programme is one of a range of services and is not the only way through which the GMCA works to address societal or structural inequalities.

    Largely though, it’s clear the scheme itself has done little, if anything to address the actual societal barriers that exist for chronically ill and disabled people, and those in poverty.

    DWP back-to-work results fall short

    Not that this fact mattered to the CSJ or the DWP.

    That’s because, it all came down to the programme’s results. In short, the number of people it ‘helped’ into work. The problem is however, like countless other DWP work programmes, the scheme failed even on its own terms.

    Specifically, it had originally set targets for people starting jobs at a little under three-quarters of participants – 74%. As well as this, it aimed for 47% to achieve what it called its ‘Earnings Outcome’. It determined this as:

    Equivalent to working for 16 hours per week for 182 days at the adult rate (aged 25 or over) of the Real Living Wage.

    However, by the end of March 2023 it had met just 43% of job starts and 22% of the Earnings Outcome targets overall. But, you wouldn’t know that the programme fell so far short. Why? Because that’s not the story the evaluation is telling.

    In fact, the report claimed that the programme has so far met 96% of the job start target. For Earnings Outcome, it stated that it had hit 90% of the target.

    Naturally, this required quite the feat of mental maths gymnastics arrive at. And it did this like all great statistics soothsayers – by shifting the goalposts. Before changing these, it was only 58% on target for job starts and just 48% of the Earnings Outcome.

    Again however, GMCA contested this, stating that:

    It is incorrect to say that the programme is not meeting its targets. Greater Manchester is meeting the delivery targets agreed with central government.

    Programmes like this adapt and evolve over time, both at national and local level, in response to changing economic and social challenges. These adjustments have been made throughout the life of the programme, and if people face complex or multiple barriers to employment, they may require more time and support to find employment.

    Working Well not keeping people well

    Nonetheless, the measure of success for the Working Well WHP revolved almost solely around the rates of unemployed people the scheme has supposedly helped into work.

    The government, local authority, and corporate media have had much to say about this – despite these figures. They’ve said less – in fact, practically nothing – about the impacts it may have had on chronically ill and disabled people’s health and wellbeing. This is because in all the impact assessments and evaluations of the various iterations of the programme, none have actually properly explored this.

    The closest any of these come to doing so is in the most recent evaluation from 2023. In this, it held a survey of WHP participants’ “perception of their general health”. A similar number of participants reported improvement to the number that reported that their health had worsened while on the scheme – around 4% in each case. Therefore, it noted that there was “ close to no net change”. Overall, the vast majority indicated no change to their health.

    Notably however, just 8% of the participants – 732 – actually completed the survey, from the 38% of total participants – 8,878 – who started it. Of course, there’s no information on why so many participants dropped out of the survey.

    There could be a number of reasons for this, but one might be that some participants’ health deteriorated to the point where they couldn’t engage. As such, the results are neither a representative, or reliable measure of the scheme’s impact on participant’s health. In short: it’s a strong reminder that work should never be considered a health outcome.

    Barriers to work

    The Canary put this to GMCA, but it strongly refuted that the no one had evaluated the programme’s impact on participants health and wellbeing. It said that:

    This is not correct. All of Greater Manchester’s Working Well programmes are evaluated independently and published on the GMCA website. These evaluations include information on people’s health progression, both before and after participating in the programme.

    Moreover, it pointed the Canary to a table in one of the earlier evaluations we’ve accessed in the process of researching for this article. It showed how participants had ranked a range of barriers and whether they reported improvements as a result of the programme. According to this, 76% of clients with severe mental health and 69% with severe physical said this “barrier to work” had improved.

    However, there were two major issues with this.

    Firstly, the Canary had seen this but felt this did not constitute a proper evaluation of the impacts the scheme had on people’s health. All this shows is that participant’s health as a “barrier to work” had improved, which isn’t the same as saying that person’s health has. Moreover, the data was from a participant’s most recent ‘intermediate assessment’ – which take place every three months. Obviously, this only captures a snapshot and doesn’t look at participant’s health over the long-term or after the programme.

    But crucially, the GMCA had signposted us to a table for the ‘Working Well: Expansion’ programme – not the ‘Working Well: Work and Health’ programme we were enquiring about. As such, the data in the table wasn’t actually applicable.

    GMCA says…

    The Canary contacted the CSJ, GMCA, and the DWP Working Well providers. Only GMCA came back to the allegations.

    A spokesperson told the Canary that:

    Greater Manchester’s Working Well programmes are designed to provide personalised, dedicated support and advice to people who face complex or multiple barriers to finding work or sustaining employment.

    While Working Well helps people to overcome obstacles they face as individuals, we recognise the need to tackle societal and workplace barriers too. For example, through our Good Employment Charter we work with businesses to improve working conditions and access to employment, including promoting the benefits of equality, diversity, and inclusion.

    We’re also taking action to address social and economic factors that impact on people’s health and wellbeing, making it harder for them to access education, training and employment. Through our Good Landlord Charter and free Property Check service for renters we will drive up standards in social and private rented housing.

    To date the Working Well programmes have been defined at a national level, and Greater Manchester has managed them in accordance with these conditions. We are now setting out our ambitions for more devolved powers and responsibilities over housing, public health, and employment support, so that we can better join the dots between public service provision, work more closely with voluntary sector and community partners, and tackle the structural inequalities that people across our city-region face.

    Of course, this practically made the Canary’s point. Specifically, this is that Working Well did operate on the basis of asking individuals to “overcome” barriers. That is, instead of removing these systemic obstacles, the onus is once again on chronically ill and disabled people to deal with them. What’s more, it very well might be the GMCA has other schemes and plans to tackle these barriers – but the fact remains that Working Well has not largely done this.

    On top of that, it pointed us to written evidence the GMCA had provided to the Work and Pensions Committee. It outlined a number of achievements from the scheme, highlighting the following:

    • Integration with the wider Greater Manchester ecosystem (including referrals to external/other services including health, housing, skills &c.) was 10 times greater that through equivalent national DWP led programmes.
    • That despite disproportionately high levels of deprivation, the disproportionate impact of the COVID pandemic, and the doubling of the scale of programmes due to local matched investment, Greater Manchester performed well compared with other DWP provision. The devolved Working Well Work and Health Programme currently ranks 2nd out of the 11 contracts across the country in terms of job outcomes to date for the extension period since November 2022.

    The Canary assumes that the GMCA is referring to the DWP’s national Work and Health programmes across the UK. The DWP’s most recent data on this revealed a different story. This showed that in the year up to the end of May 2024, GMCA was ranking third for job outcomes. Overall, it placed much lower than this. Obviously, this calls into question whether the model has really set it apart from other work programmes.

    A thin veneer of progressiveness

    Even if the GMCA’s devolved DWP scheme had performed better than other national programmes, it still had plenty of shortcomings. One was that nearly 50% of the people who entered employment during the programme left their initial job anyway.

    Admittedly, around a third of these did start a second or third job. Despite this, they were far less likely to meet the programme’s so-called ‘Earnings Outcome’. In other words, it indicated that largely these were low-paying, insecure jobs. For instance, 7% of participants ended up in zero hour contracts as a result of the programme.

    Ultimately though, this is the model the CSJ is flaunting regardless.

    Nevertheless, its thin veneer of progressiveness can’t hide one crucial fact. That is, that its end goal has little, if anything to do with actually helping chronically ill, disabled, and other sidelined groups. In reality, it appears simply a new way of forcing them into the hands of the capitalist workforce. All without ever dealing with the capitalist system disabling and entrenching chronic illness in the first place.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Abstentions over winter fuel payment motion shows how spineless most Labour MPs really are

    The new Labour Party government has overwhelmingly voted to follow through on its callous plans to cut the winter fuel payment to millions of pensioners this winter. Crocodile tears were on full display as over 50 Labour MPs failed to stand up to party’s whip – instead abstaining like the capitalist establishment-capitulating cowards they are.

    Many of these are shamelessly, misleadingly claiming they went against their government’s plans to plunge pensioners into fuel poverty. Ultimately though, their pathetic excuses for not opposing this outright ring hollow.

    Winter fuel payment motion

    As a sign of the new government’s moral vacuity, it was a Conservative opposition motion that sought to strike down neoliberal Labour chancellor Rachel Reeves’s disingenuous plan to plug the so-called £22bn black hole. Though, as the Canary has previously pointed out, this is of course a con anyway.

    Primarily, it’s simply a pretext for Reeves’ Osborne austerity tribute act. So there’s no small amount of irony that it was the Tories now in opposition moving to stop the cruel cut. However, let’s not forget that the Tories had also previously mooted this plan, and oversaw fourteen years of similarly disgraceful benefit cuts. Pot, kettle moment if ever there were.

    Nonetheless, 348 MPs – mostly Labour – demolished the motion. In effect, this meant they greenlit the government’s plan to means-test the benefit – doing away with it for many millions of elderly citizens.

    Jon Trickett was the only Labour MP to break ranks and oppose the government.

    Understandably, many are already incensed at the hundreds of Labour MPs who’ve essentially voted to remove the winter fuel payment for the majority of pensioners. However, there was similar ire for the 52 Labour MPs that abstained on the motion:

    Starmerite loyalists make shameless U-turns

    This was because many of these same MPs had been publicly railing against their government’s plans.

    Newly-elected Labour MP for Poole Neil Duncan-Jordan has tabled an early day motion. This calls for the government to delay cutting the winter fuel payment until it has conducted a full public consultation and impact assessment:

    Spoiler alert: he abstained.

    In fact, there were many MPs who made like a slippery Starmer and U-turned:

    It was some of the vapid excuses from right-wing abstainers that left a vile taste in the mouth most.

    After all her bluster, right-wing Rosie Duffield was scared senseless at being branded anything like the radical rebels who’d stood against the Labour leadership:

    Moreover, it was mere hours before that MP Rachel Maskell was masquerading as someone who gave a shit about pensioners this winter:

    Losing the whip

    Because, when push came to shove, maintaining the party whip was more important to many Labour MPs than preventing pensioners dying this winter.

    Essentially, party leadership had threatened to strip MPs who rebelled against the government’s policy line:

    Of course, this also draws attention to the glaring problem of the party whip model for politics in the first place. Obviously, it shows how MPs of the two main political parties operate for their interests first and foremost.

    However, some MPs have had the integrity to vote with conscience and constituents in mind. This was the case with the seven former Labour MPs who previously went against the new Labour government over the child benefit limit on benefits. But this time, one lone Labour MP – Jon Trickett – did so. Five of the seven whipless former Labour MPs joined him.

    Labour lies over winter fuel payment vote

    To make matters worse, these MPs would have had to have done some creative excuse-gymnastics to abstain on the motion. Specifically, parliamentary rules require a reason  and permission for absence. As the Guardian’s Pippa Crerar highlighted:

    But what they did not acknowledge was that many of those who had permission to abstain were bitterly opposed to the cut. In the days running up to the vote, whips had been encouraging them to find urgent constituency business so they could legitimately be absent.

    In other words, many had actively planned to sidestep the vote using some convenient constituency business:

    At the end of the day, that so few current Labour MPs genuinely punched up showed precisely the problem with Labour’s landslide election results. Labour parliamentarians faced losing the backing of the corporate-funded political powerhouse that is their party.

    Fuel-poor pensioners face a winter of genuine fear and literal freezing after losing this vital payment, just as energy bills rise. Ultimately, Labour is packed with a bunch of servile, self-serving Starmerite sell-outs. This latest vote only underscored this fact all the more.

    Feature image via Youtube – Rachel Reeves

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Barnardo’s reveals the extent of child poverty while demanding two-child benefit cap is lifted

    More than one in four parents of children aged 18 or under in Scotland have struggled to provide sufficient food for their children in the past 12 months due to the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. That’s according to research from Barnardo’s. Meanwhile, both Westminster and Holyrood governments refuse to lift the notorious two-child benefit cap.

    Barnardo’s: child poverty is a scourge that must be ended

    This grim finding has been revealed by Barnardo’s after the leading charity commissioned a Scotland-wide survey by pollsters YouGov. This is a rise of 8% since October 2022 when parents were surveyed for Barnardo’s by YouGov, suggesting the impact of the cost-of-living crisis continues to hit families who are struggling to afford to keep the power on and the fridge stocked.

    As well as 27% of Scottish parents of children aged 18 or under revealing to struggles with providing food for their children, 54% of the same group claimed that they had to reduce their spending on food costs to save money over the same period. Meanwhile, 7% of parents claim to having to use a food bank in the past year, as a direct result of cost-of-living challenges.

    Today, Barnardo’s in Scotland exposes a shameful picture as the colder weather and long nights approach with many families unable to afford to put enough food on the table or keep the electricity meter topped up. The charity is calling on government to act urgently to end child poverty – starting with lifting the two-child benefit cap.

    Martin Crewe, director of Barnardo’s Scotland, said:

    For too many children this winter, they and their families will be struggling to get by. It means worrying about being able to put the lights or heating on, having hot meals or being able to contact their friends. It means worrying about where the next meal will come from and what the future holds.

    Every year, Barnardo’s supports thousands of children and families across the country who are struggling; struggling to help them keep the power on and the fridge stocked so they feel safer, happier, healthier and more hopeful. But charities such as ours cannot eradicate child poverty alone – the governments in Westminster and Holyrood must commit to ending the blight of child poverty.

    Martin Crewe added:

    It was extremely disappointing that the latest Programme for Government rows back on the commitment to expand free school meals to all Primary 6 and 7 pupils, and failed to further increase the Scottish Child Payment. Without this crucial assistance, we know that the child poverty reduction targets will be much harder to meet.

    “Things were so hard”

    One such family that has been supported by Barnardo’s is mother and daughter Zara and Gemma(not their real names)  from North Ayrshire. The family came to the charity’s attention because Gemma, 17, was missing school, so she found support from the Barnardo’s Works service to undertake a ‘Fit for Work’ programme and then a work placement.

    However, it soon became clear that the family needed more than just employment support, as Zara, 49, explains:

    We were struggling with the cost-of-living crisis and trying to buy food and keep paying for the gas. Things were really difficult, so I reached out for help. I suffered from anxiety and depression and things were so hard because I felt that I couldn’t provide for my family. From Barnardo’s, we got help with food and clothes and help to pay the gas bill.

    It was also discovered that Zara and Gemma were struggling to sleep at night due to old beds that were no longer fit for purpose. Zara adds:

    My daughter was sleeping in two old single beds pushed together that were broken, the springs were popping through, they were burst and dirty. It was embarrassing to me that I couldn’t provide for my daughter, and I felt as if I was a failure.

    I was also sleeping in a bed that was broken at the top, so I was sinking into it. The mattress was burst and the springs were horrendous to sleep on. It wasn’t doing my back or my health any good, but Barnardo’s also managed to get us new beds, which I am very, very grateful for. When we got them, it was fantastic. I felt like I was in a nice hotel; not that I’ve stayed in a hotel before! We are both very grateful.

    Barnardo’s can help

    Zara has good advice for others who might be in search of a little support:

    A lot of people don’t know that Barnardo’s can help single parents like me, but they were really good and they supported me and my daughter very well. It was a good help. If Gemma had not been referred to Barnardo’s, I wouldn’t have had a clue that help and support would have been there for my daughter and me. We are getting there, slowly, but surely, but life is an ongoing struggle.

    Martin Crewe added:

    Too many children are going to school hungry and returning to a cold home. Their physical and mental health suffers, they’re missing out on a good childhood, and it affects their chances in later life. We are calling on the public to join us in standing up for every child living in poverty to show them that they haven’t been forgotten and that they belong.

    In the past year, Barnardo’s has provided essential support to more than 11,500 children, young people, parents and carers in Scotland through 150-plus specialised community-based services and partnerships across the country.

    The charity works to ensure that every child has the best possible start in life. Over the course of the financial year 2023-24, more than 16,000 people volunteered for Barnardo’s across the UK – a total of 1.7 million hours of their time.

    To donate, volunteer or fundraise, please visit: www.barnardos.org.uk/get-involved/raise-money.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Project 2025 and GOP Agenda Would Increase Poverty and Wealth Gap, Experts Say

    If Republicans were to win the White House and Congress, their fiscal agenda would increase poverty and hardship nationwide in order to provide deep tax breaks for corporations and wealthy families, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal-leaning think tank. In a new report, the group analyzes the House GOP’s legislative wish list alongside Project 2025…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • DWP Pension Credits campaign is still a con for countless older people

    The UK government has recently made the contentious decision to cut winter fuel payments for a significant portion of older people. This move has sparked widespread criticism and concern, particularly as the country grapples with the continuing cost of living crisis and rising energy prices. At the same time, the government has launched a campaign to encourage around 880,000 older people to claim Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Pension Credits. It’s a benefit that many are either unaware of or not claiming. However, all this still leaves countless older people at risk this winter. And moreover, the Labour Party government’s sums really don’t add up.

    The cut in Winter Fuel Payments: a blow to older people

    Winter fuel payments have traditionally been a vital lifeline for older people during the colder months. These payments help pensioners cover the increased costs of heating their homes, which is particularly important given that many older people live on fixed incomes and are more vulnerable to the effects of cold weather.

    The decision to reduce these payments comes at a time when energy costs are soaring, making the cut especially harsh. Also, now only people receiving DWP Pension Credits will get the payment – meaning currently only around 1.5 million people will be entitled to it.

    The government argues that the cuts are part of a broader strategy to balance public finances and ensure that welfare spending is sustainable. It says restricting winter fuel payments will save £1.4bn this financial year. However, critics argue that this approach disproportionately affects the most vulnerable, particularly those who are already struggling to make ends meet.

    The reduction in winter fuel payments is seen by many as a short-sighted measure that fails to account for the real and immediate needs of older people during the winter months.

    Real-world impacts of cuts

    The decision to cut winter fuel payments has been met with strong opposition from advocacy groups and charities that work with older people. Many argue that the cuts could have serious consequences for people’s health and well-being.

    Cold weather is known to exacerbate a range of health conditions. So, without adequate heating, the risks of respiratory infections, hypothermia, and other cold-related illnesses increase significantly.

    Moreover, the cuts are expected to push more pensioners into fuel poverty. This is a situation where households are unable to afford to keep their homes adequately warm. It is particularly concerning given that older people are already disproportionately represented among those living in fuel poverty.

    The government’s decision has been criticised as both insensitive and counterproductive, especially in the context of its broader public health goals.

    DWP Pension Credits campaign: a mixed message?

    In parallel with the cuts to winter fuel payments, the UK government has launched a campaign to raise awareness about DWP Pension Credits. Pension Credits is a means-tested benefit designed to top up the income of the poorest older people.

    It is estimated that up to a 880,000 eligible pensioners are not claiming the benefit. This either because they are unaware of it or because of the complexity of the application process – which has over 240 questions.

    The government’s push to increase the uptake of pension credits is a welcome initiative. It aims to provide additional support to those who need it most. However, the timing of this campaign, coming alongside cuts to winter fuel payments, has led to criticism that the government is giving with one hand while taking away with the other.

    Critics argue that while pension credits can help alleviate some financial pressure, they do not address the immediate need for support during the winter months.

    What is Labour thinking?

    The decision to cut winter fuel payments has been widely condemned by opposition parties, charities, and the general public. Many view it as a misguided and unfair policy that will disproportionately impact those who are already struggling.

    This is because DWP Pension Credits only tops up people’s income to that of the new state pension for single older people. This means that if a person already receives the new state pension amount of £221.20 a week, then they’re not entitled to DWP Pension Credits – as the cut off for eligibility is £218.14. If you’re in a couple, the cut off is £332.94 of income – anything below that and you may get the benefit.

    So, for a single person who just gets the new state pension, they’re not entitled to DWP Pension Credits support. All this is without the issue of so-called WASPI women, who successive governments robbed of part of their pensions.

    Overall, as the Big Issue reported, research from the Centre for Aging Better found that the state pension leaves a single pensioner more than £50 short each week, plunging them into poverty. DWP Pension Credits would not help with this.

    Labour’s sums on DWP Pension Credits don’t add up

    While the campaign to increase the uptake of DWP Pension Credits is a positive step, it does not mitigate the impact of the cuts to winter fuel payments.

    Moreover, unless we’re missing something, it makes no economic sense either.

    The average value of DWP Pension Credits is £3,900 a year. That means it will cost the DWP £3.4bn in the next 12 months – £2bn more than Labour is saving by restricting the winter fuel allowance.

    Either the government has made a catastrophic miscalculation, or it will do some accounting sleight of hand to cover the loss. However, what’s more likely is that in chancellor Rachel Reeves’s Autumn Budget, she’ll make cuts to other people’s benefits to clear up this mess.

    Whatever the outcome, countless older people will still be plunged into poverty this winter – and no amount of campaigning around DWP Pensions Credits will change that.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour faces protests over toxic London City Airport expansion

    Almost 100 air pollution and climate campaigners have taken the new Labour Party government to task over its decision to greenlight London City Airport’s expansion plans.

    London City Airport: taking the fight to the government’s door

    As the Canary previously reported, on 19 August, transport secretary Louise Haigh greenlit London City Airport’s climate-wrecking plans. She did so in a joint decision with deputy prime minister Angela Rayner in her role as secretary for housing, communities, and local government. Specifically, they approved:

    • An increase from 6.5 million to nine million passengers.
    • More early morning flights.

    Of course, the decision flies in the face of the climate crisis – including the advice of independent body the Climate Change Committee. Crucially, it had argued that government’s shouldn’t approve any airport expansions as this would jeopardise its climate commitments.

    So, on Wednesday 28 August, protesters gathered outside the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.

    Labour: putting wealth above health

    Chanting ‘they fly, we die’, protesters called on Rayner to revoke the decision and commit to an end to airport expansions.

    Carrying banners and placards, they highlighted the devastating impacts the expansion will have on local communities:

    Protesters gather with banners and placards which read: "Stop City Airport Expansion", "Revoke the decision", "They fly, we choke", and "Ban expansion, not protest".

    Protesters gather with banners and placards which read: "Stop City Airport Expansion", "Revoke the decision", "They fly, we choke", and "Ban expansion, not protest".

    In particular, they expressed how it is considerably worrying for Londoners affected by emissions, air pollution and noise given that London’s Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, and Heathrow airports are all also pushing to increase passenger capacity.

    What’s more, they underscored how the government’s approval went against the will of local authorities.

    In July 2023, Newham Council – where the airport’s based – unanimously rejected London City Airport’s bid for expansion.  However, the airport appealed this, leaving the decision to the Secretaries of State for Transport and Levelling Up. Now, the Labour-run Newham Council is considering legal action against the government following this decision.

    Newham is the third most deprived local authority in London. Notably, 37% of residents, and 50% of children live in poverty. By contrast, City Airport serves wealthier travellers. The average household income of leisure passengers at London City airport is 34% higher than the average UK flyer. One placard aptly summed up this disparity and in light of the new Labour government’s decision – declaring:

    Labour puts corporate wealth over children’s health

    Protesters gather with banners and placards which read: "Labour puts corporate wealth over children's health."

    Already, London is the most exposed city in the world to air pollution from aviation. Alarmingly, Londoners in Newham are exposed to air pollution levels 35% higher than those determined safe by the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Unsurprisingly, this has meant 7.5% of all deaths in the borough are attributable to particulate air pollution.

    Fossil Free London were among the climate protesters calling out the government on this. Spokesperson for the group Joanna Warrington said:

    This was a major test of Labour’s credibility on the climate crisis. They have failed. By approving City Airport’s expansion, Rayner is choosing frequent flyers, private-jet users and executive profits, over protecting the majority from emissions, dirty air and the constant drone of needless flights.

    We’re quite simply running out of time to avert the worst effects of climate breakdown. The last thing our leaders should be doing is approving high-carbon, pointless projects. We need serious climate leadership from Labour.

    Feature and in-text images via Fossil Free London

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • LIAR Rachel Reeves DOES have a choice not to cut the winter fuel payment

    Once again, George Osborne clone Rachel Reeves has been bandying about the Labour Party’s austerity agenda. Specifically, she told Sky News on Labour’s decision to scrap the winter fuel payment to millions of pensioners:

    It wasn’t a decision I wanted to make. It was a decision I had to make in incredibly challenging circumstances, to put our public finances on a firm footing.

    Cue everyone on the left and anyone with marginal economic awareness’s collective eye-roll at Reeves’ already tiresome “tough choices” propaganda.

    However, “tough choices” wasn’t what a lot of people were hearing. Former independent MP Claudia Webbe called it out for what it is:

    The new right-wing Labour government is waging class warfare and it’s making the political choice to do so – plain and simple.

    Rachel Reeves’s bullshit black hole

    Of course, Rachel Reeves claims it’s all to fill that £22bn fiscal black hole the Tories saddled it with.

    Here’s the thing though, that’s ALSO a political choice. The truth is that the black hole is a bogus concept – a convenient excuse to manufacture consent for more austerity. As the Big Issue previously explained, the black hole is:

    just how much the government is predicted to miss its own targets rather than the kind of household debt we are brought up to avoid.

    Specifically, as the outlet detailed, this based on forecasts the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has made:

    Economic forecasts are produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which makes an assessment of whether the government will hit its own “fiscal rules”. The government responds to these and decides what to do. These measures usually form a large part of a chancellor’s budget plans.

    And that’s the rub. The black hole is dictated by the government’s own targets – in other words, it chooses what this is.

    It has been a key pillar of the Cameron-Osborne conflation of household debt, and government deficit. For a whole bundle of reasons, these are decidedly not the same. Economists, think tanks, and many others have repeatedly debunked this dangerous myth. The New Economics Foundation has neatly summed it up:

    when the government reduces its spending, employment and wages fall in both the public sector (e.g. for nurses, teachers, and police officers) and those sectors that provide goods and services to government (e.g. construction workers).

    The reduction in employment and wages means that nurses and construction workers spend less in the economy overall, harming other businesses not directly affected by the reduction in government spending. This can then lead to further falls in employment and income – the ​‘multiplier effect’. Of course, the reduction in employment and incomes means a reduction in the government’s tax take. By cutting its spending the government also ends up reducing its own income. So unlike a household, government spending and income are not independent of one another.
    Subtitle

    Moreover, the government can ask the Bank of England to lower it borrowing costs, or create more money. It did this during the global financial crisis in 2008, and during the pandemic.

    Importantly then, as the Big Issue argued in terms of the government’s supposed black hole in finances:

    The targets aren’t laws of nature. The government could actually miss its fiscal rules and it would not ruin the country.

    Convenient framing as a pretext for austerity

    Ergo, the chancellor chooses to focus on plugging this arbitrary black hole. Maintaining this delusion has enabled successive governments to unleash wave after wave of needless, callous, murderous austerity.

    That’s the problem with this black hole bullshit. It has worked much the same as an actual black hole – or at least the prevailing myth of them. That is, it has sucked in, or suckered more aptly, the British public en masse. The right-wing has narrowed the telescopic lens so effectively, that now, fiscal responsibility is all that matters.

    In reality though, black holes spit most matter back out, and create new stars. This is what the Labour government should be doing. It could invest into the public sector, raise wages, motivating workers to spend more in the economy. This would create new jobs elsewhere and in turn generate more government income through tax. In other words, this would actually reduce the government’s debt to income ratio.

    Rachel Reeves is choosing to use this framing, because it benefits her government. They are foisting blame on the Tories for the public spending cuts they now intend to make. Of course, it’s indisputable that the Tories fucked up the country, and its finances.

    But it didn’t do this by failing to plug the black hole, not “balancing the books”, or whatever so-called fiscally responsible metaphor is the zeitgeist. It did this with austerity.

    Punching down by Labour

    Of course, this all highlights that filling this so-called black hole by slashing the winter fuel payment to a majority of pensioners is one such political choice. Not a “tough choice” – a deliberate one.

    Rachel Reeves is choosing to punch down on the poorest households. In fact, it’s likely also doing this as a pretext for more benefit cuts too:

    In other words, not only is Labour stripping support from many vulnerable people, but it’s also bolstering right-wing benefit-bashing narratives. Specifically, those that seek to sew division where there is and should be none – between so-called benefit scroungers versus hard-working taxpayers.

    Reeves has other options, and she knows it. She’s just choosing not to implement them. Plenty of people on X spelled these out. Labour still hasn’t got the memo that taxing the rich is a popular idea:

    The new bloc of independent MPs also called Reeves and Labour out for this:

    As the Green Party’s deputy leader Zack Polanski underscored, Reeves explicitly chose not to do this:

    Again, borrowing is always an option too. Grace Blakeley expressed for Tribune Magazine that while interest rates are high and this means taxpayers footing a larger bill for this, there’s something that just might help with that soaring inflation. That is: tax the parasitic corporations who’ve been profiteering off the backs of the Tories’ cost-of-living-crisis-come-class-war. Naturally, she wasn’t the only one pointing this out:

    In fact, Gina Miller highlighted that Labour actually has a lot of options:

    One poster reminded people that Labour chose to bailout the banks, but now it’s forcing cuts on people Tory austerity had repeatedly marginalised:

    Rachel Reeves: it’s political choices, once again

    At the end of the day then, Reeves didn’t have to make the decision to plunge thousands of pensioners into fuel poverty by cutting the winter fuel payment. However, since her alternatives involved taxing the wealthy corporate capitalists Labour is now firmly in bed with, she wants to hide that she had any other options.

    Austerity isn’t, and never was necessary. But disingenuous neoliberal opportunists like Reeves will continue to repeat this lie until she’s Tory blue in the face – which she already is.

    Feature image via Youtube – the Independent/Sky News/the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Energy price cap hike as pensioners lose winter fuel payment show Labour doesn’t care people will die this winter

    Things are about to get inordinately worse for millions of people this winter. That’s because, if the new Labour Party government cutting the winter fuel payment for the majority of pensioners wasn’t bad enough, now, energy regulator Ofgem has announced the latest energy price cap. As analysts had predicted, Ofgem is raising this in October – so energy bills will shoot up this winter.

    Energy price cap to rise this winter

    UK regulator Ofgem has announced a higher energy price cap for this winter – meaning energy bills will rise. Specifically, it has said that:

    Between 1 October to 31 December 2024 the energy price cap is set at £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. Crucially however, as the End Fuel Poverty Coalition pointed out, it means energy bills will still be well above pre-pandemic prices:

    Nonprofit National Energy Action calculated how many more households the rise will plunge into fuel poverty this winter:

    As ever, 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.

    Winter fuel payment double-whammy

    Compounding all this is the government’s move to cut the winter fuel payment for millions of pensioners. The Canary already highlighted some of the glaring issues with it, including that:

    pensioners can be living above what the government classes as income poor, but still experience fuel poverty. This is because there’s a weak correlation between fuel poverty and income deprivation.

    Now, fuel poor pensioners on higher incomes will lose out twice. First, the government will strip them of up to £600 in winter fuel allowance. Once again, this will largely be chronically ill and disabled pensioners, and those living in inefficient homes. Then, their energy bills will shoot up again –  all while they now have less income for it.

    On top of this, as we also detailed, over 800,000 people who could claim means-tested benefits like pension credits, are not doing so. his means they probably now won’t be entitled to the winter fuel payment either.

    Labour’s late-hour publicity drive to boost uptake isn’t going to do a lot of good either. That’s because, as the End Fuel Poverty Coalition has also underscored, the DWP is telling people their applications could take nine weeks to even process.

    All this is to say, now the new Labour government will reprise the role of its Tory predecessors and force more fuel poor households to choose between heating and eating this winter.

    Brearley’s bitter cold and callous profit agenda

    Of course, you know who won’t be feeling the cold callous bite of the new government this winter? The corporate capitalist energy bosses making a (quite literal) killing off of the energy price cap hike. Though, as CEO of Ofgem Jonathan Brearley will tell you, it’s all only for a “small profit”:

    Good Morning Britain’s (GMB) Adil Ray helpfully listed what this had meant in monetary terms for energy company bosses in the last year:

    Ray wasn’t the only one highlighting the astounding hypocrisy and gall of Brearley’s GMB bluster:

    Clearly he means the small, insignificant profits like British Gas’s tenfold leap from £72m in 2022 to £751m in 2023. Eye-watering profits which British Gas parent Centrica CEO Chris O’Shea creamed an 80% payrise from in March to claim his staggering £8.2m pay packet, naturally.

    Meanwhile, in  an entirely unrelated context, Brearley certainly has no history spinning that cushy Labour revolving door:

    One poster on X hinted at why Brearley wasn’t looking all too concerned for his heating bills this winter:

    And speaking of spin, here’s a certain U-turn expert boasting how a Labour government will save the day on energy bills in 2022:

    Of course, that would be the time Full Fact and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) exposed Labour’s “fully funded” energy price cap policy was wrongly costed – by some £8m.

    GB Energy – where are those lower energy bills?

    Others reminded people on X that Labour’s corporate capitalist con-artistry has hardly stopped there either. For instance, plenty hadn’t forgotten the party’s promise for its ready-to-go flagship energy policy:

    In particular, Labour had boasted how Great British Energy would save people on their energy bills:

    However, as the Canary has repeatedly pointed out, the party’s framing of it as a public energy company is a complete sham. Instead, it’s essentially a private finance initiative (PFI) style vehicle for funnelling public funds into private pockets. Or, by the looks of it, Australian “vampire kangaroo” bank Macquarie’s enormous, moneyed marsupial pouch:

    Incidentally, at the end of July, it took full ownership of National Gas. As the Canary’s Steve Topple previously pointed out, this serves as a cautionary tale for how Labour intends to run its ostensible green hedge fund GB Energy. Ultimately then, this is all right-wing neoliberal Labour writ large:

    Overall then, energy corporate capitalist blood-suckers will continue to bleed the public dry for their killer profits:

    And as Labour drain the public purse to line their pockets, MPs will sit pretty in parliament. Because who else isn’t going cold or hungry this winter?

    Labour’s corporate continuity cronyism will push hundreds of thousands more people into fuel poverty this winter. Once again, thousands of lives hang in the balance – but we have a government that simply doesn’t care.

    Feature image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • #UniformReform: parents fighting back against extortionate branded uniform requirements

    As families across the UK gear up for the upcoming school year, the financial strain of purchasing branded school uniforms looms large for many parents.

    School uniform: yearly stress

    With the ongoing cost of living crisis, finding ways to save money and cut expenses has become a top priority.

    One area where substantial savings can be made is in school uniforms. By lifting the requirement for branded kit, schools could help families see a significant reduction in back-to-school costs – and the stress that comes with them.

    Inspired by a conversation between a mother and her child’s headteacher, which successfully led to the removal of branded school uniform requirements at her school, the personal finance experts at latestDeals.co.uk are stepping in to help other parents.

    They have launched an innovative web tool, #UniformReform, designed to assist parents in advocating for more affordable and inclusive uniform policies.

    How does the #UniformReform tool work?

    The #UniformReform tool allows parents to quickly and easily generate a personalised letter to send to their child’s school.

    Once generated, the letter is downloadable and printable, meaning that it can be sent via email or handed in physically.

    This letter highlights the financial burden of branded uniforms and requests the school to consider adopting a more flexible uniform policy.

    The financial impact of branded school uniform

    Tom Church, co-founder and personal finance expert at latestDeals.co.uk, explains the significance of this initiative:

    The cost of branded uniforms can be a substantial strain for many families, particularly those with multiple school-aged children who may attend different schools and don’t have the opportunity to pass on ‘hand-me-downs’ to their younger offspring.

    By allowing non-branded alternatives, schools can lift a heavy burden from parents during these financially challenging times.

    Typically, a branded school uniform can cost parents anywhere from 50-100% more than their non-branded counterparts. Aldi’s recent offering of a full primary school uniform for just £5 underscores the potential savings for families when non-branded options are permitted.

    The response:

    Tom shared that the tool has already seen a significant response from parents just weeks since its launch:

    I’ve been amazed by how many people have generated a letter already. The rising cost of living makes it hard to afford branded school uniforms. This tool has made it simple to voice concerns and request a change.

    Our goal is to support families and ensure their children can attend school without the added financial worry of expensive uniforms weighing heavy on the minds of parents.

    Featured image supplied

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Five energy companies have now racked up £240 BILLION in profits since 2020

    Dubbed ‘Profiteers Week’, this week will see interim results from five energy companies who have already banked over £240 billion since the start of the energy crisis as campaigners call for a proper tax on all those in the sector making ‘obscene’ profits. Meanwhile, the latest reporting reflects that Up to 45% or 615,000 people in Wales are living in fuel poverty.

    Energy companies: rolling in it

    Interim results this week show the following profits:

    • Iberdrola (owners of Scottish Power) pocketed £3.8 billion.
    • Equinor have made £5.8 billion.
    • Centrica (British Gas) who made £1 billion.
    • EDF who have banked £8 billion.
    • Drax who have made £463 million.

    This brings the total profits made by just these five companies since 2020 to over £241,576,960,000.

    Commissioned by campaign group, Warm This Winter, the energy profit tracker monitors the declared profits of firms ranging from energy producers (such as Equinor and Shell) through to the firms that control our energy grid (such as National Grid, UK Power Networks and Cadent) as well as suppliers (such as British Gas).

    “It’s just obscene”

    Climate Cymru Campaign Coordinator spokesperson David Kilner said:

    Frankly it is just obscene. In fact it’s hard to grasp the mind boggling greed, plunging people in to poverty so that these corporations can make a billion pounds each week [2] under the last government since the energy crisis started three years ago.

    That is why we have to bring back fairness and introduce a proper tax on all companies profiteering in the energy sector while six million people in the UK are living in fuel poverty, facing a stark choice between heating and eating.

    The new Labour governments have inherited a broken energy system, they must act urgently to address it – we must see urgent action to support struggling households through the next winter.

    In total, energy corporations have made nearly £427 billion in profits since the energy crisis according to the analysis of company reports to June this year.

    Energy companies are making a killing – while killing the rest of us

    End Fuel Poverty Coalition coordinator Simon Francis said:

    These figures show that there is plenty of money in our broken energy system. But rather than this money being used to help people struggling in cold damp homes and with the record cost of energy, the cash is being used to line the pockets of energy firms.

    As households struggle in energy debt and even turn to illegal money lenders, new ministers must step in. We need to ensure the most vulnerable households are protected with a more comprehensive warm homes discount, action to bring down energy debt and the Treasury must draw a line in the sand to stop this profiteering.

    Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift added:

    The UK’s high dependence on expensive gas is why millions are still struggling with unaffordable energy bills. Energy companies obviously want to lock us into oil and gas for years to come to keep the profits rolling in, but the only way to reduce bills is to insulate homes and switch to homegrown renewable energy. We need to see the government now deliver on its commitment to move us off oil and gas and onto a better, fairer energy system.

    Warm This Winter will be updating the energy industry profit tracker at the end of July.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

  • Sir Kid Starver is back at it again, kicking out seven rebel MPs who want to feed children

    Keir Starmer has suspended seven of his own Labour Party MPs for rebelling over the two-child benefit cap. John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, Ian Byrne, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Imran Hussain, Apsana Begum, and Zarah Sultana were punished after they backed a motion demanding the removal of the two-child limit on benefits introduced by the previous Conservative government.

    The benefit cap restricts payments to the first two children born to most families. Why a Labour government would oppose feeding hungry children seems baffling. Until, that is, you consider that this is Starmer’s right-wing Labour government.

    Starmer’s first test

    MPs voted 363 to 103 to reject a Scottish National Party (SNP) amendment to scrap the cap, giving the government a majority of 260.

    However, in addition to the seven who voted with the amendment, more than 40 Labour lawmakers recorded no vote. That shows the level of unease within the party at the measure.

    Liverpool MP Kim Johnson said she had voted with the government “for unity” but warned that the strength of feeling within the party was “undeniable”.

    The SNP’s Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said Labour had “failed its first major test in government” by choosing not to “deliver meaningful change from years of Tory misrule”. He continued:

    This is now the Labour government’s two-child cap — and it must take ownership of the damage it is causing, including the appalling levels of poverty in the UK.

    Sir Kid Starver

    The popular nickname for Starmer, Sir Kid Starver, is once again making the rounds on social media:

    It hasn’t taken long for Starmer to settle in:

    At least the new prime minister’s domestic and foreign policies are aligned:

    The BBC’s political editor Chris Mason summarised Starmer’s actions:

    A prime minister with a narrower majority, a less emphatic win, would perhaps not have dared act so boldly. But with a colossal majority, he has the scope to act ruthlessly, and put down a marker for the months ahead.

    Embedding poverty

    But, what’s the actual impact of keeping the policy in place?

    Charity Barnardo’s chief executive Lynn Perry said:

    The two-child limit on benefits is one of the biggest policy drivers of child poverty.

    The majority of families receiving universal credit are in work, and many are struggling for reasons beyond their control – such as a family break-up, the death of a partner, or someone losing a job amid the cost-of-living crisis.

    The Resolution Foundation found that two in five large families – families with three or more children – are affected by the benefit cap. They also found that in 2018, 70,000 families were affected by the two child limit. However, by April 2024 450,000 families were affected by the benefit cap. They continued:

    The Foundation’s analysis shows that if the policy were abolished today, it would lift around 490,000 children out of poverty.

    Let’s not mince words, here. When families are affected by the two-child benefit cap that means children are going hungry. It means families can’t afford to feed themselves. It’s as simple as that. And, either the prime minister cares about that or he doesn’t – and clearly he doesn’t.

    Dissent

    The suspension of MPs who believe children shouldn’t be forced into poverty has, of course, not gone down well with other MPs. Nadia Whittome said:

    The government’s approach to party discipline has been appalling. No MP should have lost the whip for their vote this evening, especially on a policy that almost everyone in Labour opposes.

    If “almost everyone” does actually oppose the policy, then clearly they’re putting politics before people. Whittome continued:

    Our party has a huge majority. If it is to govern from a position of strength, it should be able to tolerate disagreement without making threats and employing the most severe punishments.

    This does not breed a healthy culture. If MPs are unable to stand up to the frontbench when they think they’re wrong, the government is more likely to make poor decisions.

    A healthy culture is something Starmer has long abandoned during his leadership with the purging of left-wing members.

    Joke country

    Meanwhile, because Britain is a joke of a country, the King will be receiving a near-50% pay increase. That means Charlie will have an extra £45 million income. Money is not the problem. Politics is the problem. We have a political system full of politicians that take their turn in the hot seat to facilitate the sinking of thousands of people around the country into avoidable poverty. There’s a new nasty party in town, it appears.

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Evening Standard

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In-work poverty is a scourge that is nowhere near being solved – yet

    A new benchmark – like the Living Wage Employer standard – is needed to enable businesses to tackle the scale and depth of in-work poverty, think tank the Social Market Foundation says.

    Social Market Foundation: in-work poverty a “major issue”

    The Social Market Foundation (SMF) has launched a proposal for an in-work poverty benchmark. It is designed to enable employers to tackle in-work poverty among their staff, supply chain and the communities they operate in.

    Over three years, the SMF has been exploring in-work poverty in the capital, businesses’ desire and barriers to addressing it, and has proposed a tool that could help them in doing so.

    In-work poverty is a major issue in the UK, and has increased over the last two decades. It is most acute in the capital, with around a third (32%) of households where at least one adult is employed were in poverty in 2022/23.

    Private sector and public sector employees that spoke to SMF as part of its in-work poverty project expressed a clear need for better provisions for sick pay, flexibility, in-work progression and upskilling, sufficient hours and subsidies to cover the high cost of living in the capital.

    The SMF’s proposals come at a time when Keir Starmer and the Labour government have put employment reforms front and centre of legislative changes at the King’s Speech.

    A new benchmark for employers

    Its proposed benchmark – similar to the Living Wage Employer scheme, where businesses commit to paying their employees a wage that meets the basic cost of living – is designed with relatively low barriers to entry and providing clear “pathway” for firms to follow to improve their anti-poverty offer, and could play a key part in helping the Labour government achieve it’s ‘Plan to Make Work Pay’ ambitions.

    Previous Social Market Foundation (SMF) research found that an overwhelming majority (84%) of London’s businesses viewed in-work poverty among their workers as a concern, and that 70% of them are motived to help tackle it by taking voluntary measures above and beyond legal minimums – such as paying the National Living Wage.

    While the benchmark has been developed with Londoners and London employers in mind, it is just as relevant for and applicable to businesses in the other parts of the UK, the SMF said.

    The proposed benchmark is unique in that it covers a wide variety of drivers of in-work poverty, encouraging businesses to help employees with cost of living pressures, financial resilience, and pay and conditions.

    The SMF’s proposed benchmark has been taken on by the Living Wage Foundation, who will be leading on a new phase of the benchmark development process, with continued SMF involvement, and exploring how to transform the benchmark into a practical business tool, trusted by employers, investors, consumers and workers:

    Making a “big difference” to in-work poverty

    Richard Hyde, senior researcher at Social Market Foundation, said:

    In-work poverty is a huge problem in London. The contrast between the wealth of the UK’s capital on the one hand, and the high rates of poverty of those in work on the other, is stark. It poses a real challenge to politicians and we need feasible ways of dealing with it.

    The SMF spent three years developing the outline of a potentially practical remedy. Building on the available evidence base about the causes of in-work poverty and following extensive engagement with stakeholders from the business community as well as trade unions, poverty charities, the public sector and with relevant academics, we have proposed a comprehensive in-work poverty benchmark for employers that could help encourage businesses to take the kinds of steps that will make a big difference to those workers in London that are stuck in in-work poverty.

    We are very excited to see this idea being taken forward by the highly respected Living Wage Foundation, who have been leading the fight in the UK against in-work poverty for many years with their ground-breaking use of employer accreditations to tackle this problem.

    Katherine Chapman, director of the Living Wage Foundation, said:

    More than 15,000 UK employers have committed to paying the real Living Wage, including 3,900 in the capital. It’s clear that many employers want to play their part in tackling poverty. With nearly a million adults in London living in poverty despite living in a working household, this commitment is crucial.

    This benchmark sets out how employers can go even further by boosting pay and conditions, supporting workers with the rising cost of living, and fostering long-term economic resilience among their workforce.

    We’re thrilled to be launching a project to translate this benchmark into something that will work in practice, aiming to develop an accreditation for responsible employers and change the face of in-work poverty in London and across the UK.

    “Work should be a way out of poverty” – but it’s not

    Klara Skrivankova, director of grants at Trust for London said:

    Work should be a way out of poverty. But more than half of Londoners in poverty are working.

    Businesses can help change this and do more to support workers. We know that many employers want to, but often don’t know how.

    This benchmark puts forward an actionable, measurable approach that will help businesses to play their part in addressing in-work poverty in London.

    Featured image via Envato Elements

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Murdoch’s Times now pushing DWP benefit fraud propaganda for Labour

    The now Labour-led Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has published its annual report. So predictably, it was prime opportunity for the right-wing hacks at the Times to punch down on benefit claimants. Top of its benefit claimant-bashing agenda – the usual – DWP benefit fraud, naturally.

    Only this time, there was a twist! A particular revelation must have the right-wing gutter publication spitting feathers after its wall-to-wall benefit fraud-busting hit pieces. Because as it turned out: the public now give less of a shit about people committing benefit fraud. Cue, a vitriol-fueled crusade chock-full of fact manipulation.

    Times’ latest DWP benefit fraud bullshit

    On Monday 22 July, the Times published an article which led with the headline:

    ‘Britons’ tolerance of fraud could cost benefits system £2bn a year’

    The Canary will spare you the effort of reading it. Spoiler: it’s not worth the subscription fee. The article’s key take-away? People are about to commit MORE benefit fraud. To be precise, according to the Times, it’s looking set to soar 5% year on year.

    Its basis? A DWP annual report which details supposed economic fraudulence. Specifically, these included exhibit a: an increase in fraud against businesses. Then – and this is a real clincher if ever there were – an uptick in… shoplifting. But if none of that was damning enough, the DWP had one last piece of incontrovertible evidence. That is, that attitudes to fraud have “softened” since 2016.

    You read that right. The public care less about benefit fraud than they did eight years ago. Ergo, expect more of it.

    If you’re not following how any of this proves that there’ll be a rise in benefit fraud, that’s because it’s palpable nonsense. Specifically, the report itself says that:

    The overall conclusion of this analysis is that there is an increasing trend in the underlying propensity towards fraudulent behaviour, which can be expected to place an upwards pressure on fraud in the welfare system. DWP has estimated through the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) expenditure forecasts that this long-term behavioural trend creates a headwind that would cause fraud levels to grow at around 5% per year without action to reduce it.

    Then, in reality, it based this claim solely on a flawed evaluation promulgating an “inexact science” (the DWP’s own words, not mine). In short, the DWP assessment looked at the so-called “propensity” to commit fraud overall. Moreover, this pertained to entirely disparate forms of crime, unrelated to benefit fraud. So it couldn’t actually show trends for DWP benefit fraud specifically: meaning of course, that the 5% figure is effectively bogus.

    ‘Dark money’ think tank has a take on it

    Not that this mattered to the Times. Two plus two equals five, or indeed *insert whatever alarming-sounding figure here*. Because the point is, the facts aren’t important. So long as the right-wing lapdog can drum up legitimacy for the new Labour government’s “tough on crime” publicity machismo, any figure will do.

    Of course, it’s not exactly unexpected from a lynchpin publication of the Murdoch media empire. That’s because the shit rag pumps out this bile hell-bent on demonising poor, chronically ill, and disabled people accessing the welfare system for a past-time.

    And for good measure, the DWP mouthpiece threw in a comment from the right-wing think tank with the best-worst misnomer – the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ). This is the brainchild of ostensible ex-DWP grim reaper and all-round Universal Credit-machinating cunt Iain Duncan-Smith. Calling it an “independent centre-right think tank”, the Times introduced its policy director Edward Davies saying:

    The pandemic seemed to somewhere break the social contract and pour petrol on harmful behaviours —we’ve seen that coming through in economic inactivity, school exclusions and now fraud.

    First, let’s clear this up. The CSJ is as far from “independent” as you can get. In actual fact, it’s a “dark money” think tank – in other words, it doesn’t disclose its funders. Open Democracy has rated it among the worst for transparency, which isn’t surprising given how tight-lipped it is about its financial benefactors.

    Plus, I guess anything passes as “centre” these days, since both major political parties have lurched so far to the right. Yet, the CSJ is regularly the haunt of a ghoulish line-up of right-wing politicians launching their cruel new policies. A recent example of this was Rishi Sunak and his “sicknote culture” strongman stunt, front and centre at a CSJ event. The CSJ’s CEO was a fan by the way, in case you were wondering.

    Fictitious fact-fiddling over DWP benefit fraud

    Largely, Davies’s odious spiel boiled down to suggesting that people are committing more benefit fraud because of some totally mysterious and unknown reason relating to the pandemic. This chimes perfectly with DWP boss Liz Kendall’s persistent post-election “economic inactivity” and back to work guff. Both aim squarely at chronically ill and disabled people claiming benefits. It’s almost like a global mass disabling and chronic illness triggering event never happened. Except of course, it did.

    What’s more, people couldn’t possibly be claiming benefits more now, after Tory pandemic corruption, Brexit, and rampant recession-teetering inflation sent the cost of living sky-rocketing. Or you know, because parasitic employers diddle workers out of job security and a livable wage, while reaping killer dividends. Nope, for the DWP and the CSJ, more benefit fraud must be afoot.

    However, here’s the thing. By now, the Canary must sound like a broken record saying this (take it up with the corporate media), but DWP benefit fraud is virtually non-existent. We’ve consistently shown how everything from Universal Credit fraud, to supposed Personal Independence Payment (PIP) fraud is either fictitious fiddling of the facts, or quite literally zilch.

    British public have ‘low integrity’? Now that’s rich

    Labour left MP and Mother of the House Diane Abbott called the Times article out for what it is:

    As did consultant clinical psychologist and chronic illness ally Dr Jay Watts:

    Moreover, if timing is everything, it’s telling that the Times put out this scapegoat-mongering piece the same day the DWP closed an inaccessible and discriminatory consultation on dangerous PIP reforms. The new Labour government has hugely distressed chronically ill and disabled people for its silence on this – which includes the Tories’ callous ‘voucher’ scheme vanity project proposals.

    Oh, and did I mention? If you’re one of those people who couldn’t give a toss about non-existent benefit fraud, while the DWP pays out an unlivable pittance, denies sick and disabled people payments, and kills tens of thousands of people, breaking the UNCRPD international disabled rights law in the process, then the DWP and the Times think you have “low integrity”. Go figure.

    At the end of the day, the Times article is nothing more than a sly pretext-setting exercise for Kendall’s fraud-busting fantasies. When she dons a bullet-proof vest and puffs out her chest Pursglove style in a police ride along raid-turned-DWP-publicity promo, don’t be surprised. It’s media trash like this Times piece that paved the way for it.

    Feature image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

  • ‘Free School Meals For All’ should be a no-brainer from Labour

    On Tuesday 23 July, campaigners, politicians, and trade unions gathered at parliament to call on the new Labour Party government to provide #FreeSchoolMealsForAll. You’d think, given the evidence, that giving all primary and secondary children free school meals would be a sure-fire move from Keir Starmer’s government.

    ‘Free School Meals For All’: campaigning at parliament

    It shouldn’t need saying, but providing free school meals to all primary and secondary school children in England is a crucial measure that can significantly improve the health, well-being, and educational outcomes of millions of students.

    Currently, the entitlement to free school meals is limited, leaving many children from low-income families without access to this essential support. Expanding this program to include all students would address food insecurity, promote equality, and enhance academic performance.

    So, the National Education Union (NEU)-powered campaign No Child Left Behind organised a rally outside parliament on 23 July:

    It was well attended – with other campaign groups and charities lending their support:

    Some Labour MPs put their heads above the parapet to call on their government to act:

    Of course, these people were right to call on Labour to act – as the situation and the evidence shows just why the government needs to.

    Entrenched poverty and inequality

    As of 2022, approximately 4.3 million children in the UK live in poverty, accounting for around 31% of all children. In England, about 1.9 million children are eligible for free school meals, but this leaves a substantial number of children who are still in need but do not meet the eligibility criteria. This is because of Universal Credit’s tight rules around free school meals.

    The current system fails to cover children from working-poor families who earn just above the threshold, resulting in many children missing out on the benefits of free meals.

    Food insecurity is a pressing issue that also affects children’s ability to learn and thrive.

    According to a report by the Food Foundation, 14% of households with children experienced food insecurity in 2021. Children who are hungry or malnourished are less likely to concentrate in class. This in turn leads to poorer educational outcomes.

    By providing free school meals to all children, England can ensure that every child receives at least one nutritious meal a day. This is fundamental for their physical and cognitive development.

    Promoting equality, enhancing performance

    Free school meals for all would also promote equality among students.

    The current system creates a visible divide between those who receive free meals and those who do not. This potentially leads to stigma and social exclusion. By offering free meals to every child regardless of their background, schools can foster a more inclusive environment where all students are treated equally.

    This universal approach would help eliminate the shame and embarrassment that some children might feel. It would encourage better social integration and a sense of belonging.

    Research has consistently shown that well-nourished children perform better academically. A study by the Institute for Social and Economic Research found that children who received free school meals made more progress in school than those who did not.

    Proper nutrition is linked to improved concentration, better behavior, and higher attendance rates. All of these contribute to better educational outcomes. By ensuring that all children have access to nutritious meals, schools can create a more level playing field and help close the achievement gap.

    ‘An investment in all our futures’

    Experts in nutrition and education advocate strongly for the expansion of free school meals.

    Dr Mary Bousted, former joint general secretary of the NEU, argues that:

    a universal free school meals program would be a game-changer for education in England. It would remove the barriers that hunger creates and allow all children to engage fully in their learning.

    Similarly, Dr Megan Blake, a food security expert at the University of Sheffield, emphasises the long-term benefits:

    Investing in free school meals for all is an investment in the future of our country. Well-fed children are healthier, more focused, and better equipped to succeed academically and socially.

    Overall, as the No Child Left Behind campaign says:

    We are living through the greatest cost of living crisis in a generation, and too many families with young children are being pulled into poverty.

    Free school meals for every child will put money back in parents’ pockets. That’s money they can use to pay for other essentials for their children, from heating and food at home to hobbies and after-school clubs.

    Free school meals: do it now, Labour

    Implementing free school meals for all primary and secondary school children in England is a necessary step toward addressing child poverty, promoting equality, and enhancing educational outcomes.

    With a significant number of children living in poverty and many more experiencing food insecurity, a universal free school meals program would ensure that every child has access to the nutrition they need to thrive.

    By investing in the health and well-being of our children, we invest in the future prosperity of our society.

    You can support the No Child Left Behind campaign. Use its template to write to your MP here. Also, sign its open letter here.

    Featured image via NSSN – X

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Guardian’s political rehabilitation of Gordon Brown is… *insert expletive here*

    With the advent of a New-New neoliberal lovelorn Labour Party government, what better time is there for a big corporate media politician rehabilitation parade? This time, it was head of the Labour right’s fanclub, the Guardian, dishing out all the fuss on Blair wingman, and former leader Gordon Brown’s act of truly selfless generosity.

    As kids break up for the summer holiday, a smiling Brown in red tie is launching London’s first ever multibank. No, not even the Guardian is shameless enough to celebrate Brown bringing his financial expertise to the banking sector (sarcasm intended). This is Brown’s answer to the Tories’ callous class war crusade. Foodbanks are so last government.

    Now, multibanks will offer a one-stop-shop for all the daily essentials Labour’s continued rancid class war politics will deny the poorest, and most marginalised, over the next five years.

    Only, it wasn’t really Brown’s brainchild in the first place – nor even, as it turned out, the first multibank on the block in London either. Naturally, his vapid Victorian philanthropy redemption arc was in for a storm on social media.

    Child poverty: Gordon Brown to the rescue with… multibanks

    On Sunday 21 July, the Guardian published an article celebratorily titled: ‘Gordon Brown launches London’s first ‘multibank’ amid UK child poverty fears’

    And so ensues an almost PR-esque piece lauding the former Labour leader’s new project – essentially an expanded foodbank – to tackle poverty. The so-called multibank will purportedly offer a range of the daily essentials to Londoners. As the Guardian reported:

    The opening of Felix’s Multibank, which has the backing of former prime minister Gordon Brown and London mayor Sadiq Khan, is the latest in a growing network of multibanks.

    Predictably, Brown’s little pet poverty project got short shrift on X. Plugging the gaps where the government should be stepping up is an all-too familiar theme after fourteen years of Tory austerity. Many pointed out the irony of Brown’s sticking-plaster solution, when Labour literally now has the keys to Number 10:


    In particular, I’m old enough to remember when the new Labour government ignored calls to stop the cruel two-child benefit limit on benefits. That of course, would be because it happened in the King’s Speech, just last week:

    In fairness to Brown, he has called Starmer’s Labour out on this previously. Now though, it seems old habits die hard. Specifically, the capitalist crony is resorting to playing public relations manager for big businesses seeking to massage their corporate reputation.

    Notably, the new multibank will rely on supplies donated by corporations. Of course, billionaire strike-busting Bezos’ Amazon is keen to show off its charitable deeds:

    Supplies donated by businesses, with Amazon the biggest contributor, will be distributed directly to teachers, social workers and other groups working directly with those struggling to afford basic necessities.

    So good ol’ Gordo is giving the gift that keeps on giving. That is, until its corporate donors get over their fleeting flicker of conscience-turned-corporate-poverty-washing bravado. Capitalist cheerleader Labour could back striking workers and public sector pay rises. Or, I guess it could get the Labour right’s own magic grandpa Gordon on the case. Naturally too, with the aid of the very profiteering mega-corporations plunging workers into destitution:

    Not the first multibank on the block

    If the Gordon Brown-back-in-business revival wasn’t nauseating enough, it transpired the little vanity stunt wasn’t even the first multibank in London.

    A grassroots group had in fact set up such a scheme five years earlier to help the local community living under brutal Tory austerity. The group raised this with the Guardian, but at the time of publication, it hasn’t corrected this in its article:

    Some wondered what could possibly cause the liberal outlet to miss this community-driven initiative before now:

    The Guardian gushing over Gordon Brown is no surprise, as the media mouthpiece of Starmerite Labour. A throwback to his Blairite predecessor is par for the course. Things the former red-tie Tory politician has done:

    • Bailout the banks after they engineered the 2008 capitalist financial crisis. Of course, this was under his watch as chancellor at the helm of New Labour.
    • Back the new Blair-look-alike Starmer for Labour leader, because please sir, more rampant capitalism.
    • Set up a glorified Victorian-style ‘deserving poor’ charity scheme.

    But at least he hasn’t set up a for-profit ‘food pantry‘ right? Because god forbid we get another washed up politician exploiting poverty porn to be relevant again.

    Feature image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour starts as it means to go on: doing NOTHING for the poorest people

    The king’s speech on Wednesday 17 July was nothing if a direct play to the Labour Party’s now-target audience: the middle classes and middle England. Because within the 39 bills, there was nothing that would directly support the poorest and most marginalised people in the UK.

    Labour: the party of Gordon Brittases

    Keir Starmer’s ‘landslide’ victory was mainly thanks to politicians and those in power spending decades disenfranchising the poorest people from democracy – so, on 4 July they didn’t even bother voting. Labour, rather than ‘sweeping’ to power, cuckolded in off the back of a hatred of the Tories and an equal disdain for politicians of all stripes.

    Based on preliminary analysis, Labour’s voter base consisted of the middle classes and middle England. There was a smattering of working-class people who voted for them. But overall, the poorest people abandoned all political parties; a theme since 2015.

    So, New-New Labour has a mandate – but only if that mandate is a government of middle managers tasked with overseeing the dregs of colonial Britain. Ergo, the king’s speech on 17 July was a fitting agenda for this party of Gordon Brittases.

    Mealy-mouthed measures dressed up as radicality

    For example, snivelling trade unions have been making an almighty fuss about Labour’s New Deal for Working People. In reality, it’s a mealy-mouthed piece of corporate servility dressed up as something radical. For the avoidance of any doubt, Labour is:

    • NOT giving all workers rights from day one. There is a loophole which will let bosses “operate probationary periods to assess new hires”. Cue said bosses making one-year probationary period.
    • NOT making flexible working mandatory. Bosses only have to implement this “as far as is reasonable”.

    In other words, Starmer’s band of David Lloyd area managers have promised a load of shit with their fingers crossed behind their backs.

    Elsewhere in the king’s speech, there was the predictable anti-immigrant laws, an improvement on conversion therapy nullified by Wes ‘twunk on a ship‘ Streeting’s ban on treatments for trans teenagers, and the renationalisation of the railways which isn’t really full renationalisation at all.

    A lot for the few, nothing for me and you

    However, the glaring omission from Labour’s plan to *insert PR firm-created buzz phrase here* was anything – literally ANYTHING – for poor people.

    For example, outlets like the Big Issue – which present themselves as somehow radical, LOL – have trumpeted Labour’s Renter’s Rights Bill because of the banning of no-fault evictions and laws around safety in properties. But this is window-dressing when parasitic landlords (i.e. all of them) can still charge whatever the hell they want.

    Moreover, this particular bill is the prime example of Labour playing to its new voter base. Most of the poorest people in the UK do NOT privately rent. They live in social housing. It’s the middle classes who have the largest proportion of private renters.

    So, what are Labour going to do about housing associations who systemically neglect, abuse, and mistreat tenants while upping rents by 7.7% a year for squalid properties? Ask Carleen Anderson.

    Fuck Labour and all who sail in her

    There was, of course, nothing for chronically ill, disabled, homeless, and social security-reliant people either.

    But why would Labour do anything for any of these people? In the hollowed-out husk of the already splintered remnants of what politicians repeatedly told us was a democracy, their voices don’t matter – and never really have.

    Oh, and don’t think charities and campaign groups are coming to save us, either. Organisations like Disability Rights UK seem to think polite chat over tea and biccies is the order of the day WHEN PEOPLE ARE LITERALLY DYING.

    A certain geriatric straw-haired maniacal sexual predator shouted the other day (after he got his ear grazed):

    FIGHT!

    I dunno. Maybe he was right.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Hurricane Beryl’s Destruction Exacerbates the US Hunger Crisis

    Amid the widespread destruction, brutal heat, heavy rains, and ongoing outages along the Gulf coast, relief organizations are scrambling to ensure people stay fed in the wake of Hurricane Beryl. Ever since the storm made landfall in southeastern Texas, causing millions to lose power, local churches and supermarkets have given away meals and soccer stadiums have become grocery distribution points.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The corporate media is using DWP claimants for clicks over Universal Credit

    Corporate media outlet BirminghamLive has published another misleading article on the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Universal Credit. In particular, the site has played into benefit claimant concerns as the Labour Party take to the helm as the new UK government.

    Its trash article offers little that it claims in its obtuse headline. However, this isn’t the outlets aim. In reality, it’s a clickbait ploy to bolster readership and revenue. Unfortunately, benefit claimants are the butt of this opportunistic churnalism. Though obviously, it’s not anything we haven’t seen before, countless times.

    DWP Universal Credit ‘changes’ under Labour a red herring

    The Canary’s Rachel Charlton-Dailey previously referred to BirminghamLive as  “vile” and part of the “cesspit media” – and did so for good reason. Notably, the site has stolen her content on not one, but two separate occasions. This included Charlton-Dailey’s personal account about the DWP screwing her over on her Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

    The outlet shamelessly used large swathes of her article as quotes, presumably to get around plagiarism accusations. Appallingly, it did so without permission, and practically lifted her work for its piece. Given this, she forced BirminghamLive to take it down.

    However, her experience is characteristic of its broader shoddy journalistic standards. Specifically, BirminghamLive is courting readership with clickbait content – though this is of course nothing new. Essentially, DWP clickbait is the bread and butter of outlets like Birmingham Live. It peddles in fear-mongering stories, with headlines designed to stoke alarm to people claiming benefits.

    One of the latest examples of this is its article titled:

    DWP makes first change to Universal Credit under Labour government

    In this instance, the headline misleadingly implies the article will reveal a change that the Labour government has instigated on Universal Credit. Of course, it’s precisely written so ambiguously to get people on social media to click and read.

    Labour’s manifesto vaguely promised to “review” DWP Universal Credit, but gave no firm details on what this would mean in practice. So readers might naturally infer that BirminghamLive’s article could have something to do with this.

    Instead though, the article details how the DWP is shifting the Universal Credit payment date due to the upcoming bank holiday. True: it’s happening with the new Labour government in power. False: there’s not actually any specific link to the two events. In other words, it’s using the old correlation conflated with causation fallacy to pump out a punchy-looking, but specious article.

    Weaponising DWP Universal Credit claimant distress

    What’s more, the combination of “DWP” “Universal Credit”, and “Labour government” is a search engine’s gold dust. Effectively, in combination, these buzzwords maximise the chances of search engines and news aggregators picking them up and pushing them out. This is called search engine optimisation (SEO) which all news outlets need to utilise to ensure a steady stream of traffic – readers – to their articles and websites.

    In itself, there’s obviously nothing wrong with this. The Canary has optimised SEO in this article. However, again, the BirminghamLive headline is sneakily deceptive.

    Naturally, it also weaponises claimants’ distress from the uncertainty of the new Labour government’s agenda on social security. In the lead up to the election, the party was evasive about its plans for Universal Credit.

    Since the election, the new Starmer-led government has largely stayed silent over the consultation on Sunak’s PIP voucher vanity project. As the Mirror reported, Labour insiders have even indicated that the Labour government will mull over the responses. It has also yet to pledge that it will ditch the Tories’ Work Capability Assessment (WCA) plans, and other harmful benefit reforms.

    All this equivocating has come amid new DWP Universal Credit boss Liz Kendall’s dogwhistle rhetoric over disabled and chronically ill people. As the Canary reported, she couched the number of economically inactive sick people in a speech about the government’s “Back to Work Plan”.

    Of course, it seemed obvious what this implied and where it could invariably lead. That is, that Labour will push disabled and chronically ill people into work at detriment to their health and wellbeing. After a bitter, brutal fourteen years of Tories punching down on claimants with harsh sanctions and reforms, Kendall’s speech raised these glaring red flags.

    It was therefore in the context of all this that BirminghamLive chose to publish the piece with its janky headline.

    DWP and its corporate media mouthpieces

    But then, this is from an outlet that routinely titles stories to demonise claimants too. The lapdog churnalists at BirminghamLive regularly spew out sensationalistic spin on people claiming DWP Universal Credit and other benefits.

    For instance, the Canary previously highlighted its torrid tirade on so-called PIP benefit fraud. Spoiler: there barely were any, and it’s as far from a systemic problem as you can get.

    The point is however, that these articles purposely feed into the vile rightwing narratives inciting moral panic and scapegoating poor and disabled people.

    Of course, none of this is perhaps any wonder given the outlet’s parent company either. Media conglomerate Reach Plc owns BirminghamLive among its enormous portfolio of pseudo-local media sites. Reach also operates a number of national media sites including the Express, the Mirror, the Daily Star, and the Daily Record.

    Who owns Reach? Largely, that would be a shareholder who’s who of major asset management companies and investment banks. Among these are big players in the financial sector such as Hargreaves Lansdown, BlackRock, and JP Morgan. Both Labour and the Tories have big backers from the City.

    What’s more, the degrees of separation between Reach and the DWP doesn’t instill confidence either. Revelations and connections in recent years have unveiled the cosy relationship the client media outlet has built with the department.

    In 2019, a leaked memo showed the DWP planning to employ Reach publications to publish advertorials for its plans. These are paid articles that news sites print in the style of editorials. It likely also churns out press releases planting these narratives from the DWP itself, although this isn’t possible to verify.

    On top of this, people have previously pointed out that a now former senior director of Reach – Helen Stevenson – had worked for the DWP as a non-executive director.

    So, far from publishing journalistic content that informs and uplifts the voices of marginalised communities, BirminghamLive is serving the interests of its capitalist shareholders. And as ever with shill corporate media outlets in bed with the rich and powerful, it’s doing so at poor and disabled people’s expense.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The country is crumbling, but don’t worry the King has donned his jewels to speak to the peasants

    The king’s speech from Charlie outlined the Labour Party’s first programme for government in 15 years. Wearing the diamond-studded Imperial State Crown, his Admiral of the Fleet uniform and the crimson Robe of State – whatever the hell that all is – he delivered Labour’s proposals from a golden throne in the House of Lords upper chamber after a carriage procession from Buckingham Palace.

    Apparently, this is to be considered normal behaviour for a country with one million children found to be destitute. In other words, that’s children WITHOUT two or more of: “housing, light, heat, food, appropriate clothing or toiletries.”

    Prime minister and professional wet wipe Keir Starmer said:

    We will unlock growth and take the brakes off Britain.

    Whatever that means also.

    The details of the speech promised a new border security command with beefed-up “counter-terror powers” to curb “immigration crime.” Starmer pledged to “smash the gangs” behind migrant crossings of the Channel from northern France.

    Great, the starving kids will be ecstatic to hear it.

    King’s Speech: read the room

    Commenters on X also took a dim view of the proceedings:

    Green MP Sian Berry pointed out what Starmer missed out from the king’s speech:

    And, it’s hard to get away from the cost of the whole palaver:

    New figures from the NHS have found that:

    Hospitals in England are being hit with disruptions to patients’ care more than 100 times every week because of fires, leaks and problems created by outdated buildings.

    And Charles has the audacity to sit in front of a gold wall, wearing stolen jewels, to read out Starmer’s burbling about brakes?

    Corrupt

    More people couldn’t believe the sheer wealth on display during the king’s speech:

    And, that wealth made its way round to the jokers not covered in furs and jewels. openDemocracy’s Adam Ramsey wrote in 2023:

    In total, openDemocracy estimates that Labour shadow cabinet members and their staff accepted luxury gifts from Google worth nearly £10,000 over the months before they announced their policy U-turn. By contrast, the value to the British public of the policy Labour appears to have ditched is estimated at around £3bn.

    Former leader of the Green party, Caroline Lucas, said:

    The two-child benefit cap is a shocking omission. The SNP are joining with Labour rebels to force the government to scrap the cap. The SNP’s Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said:

    The two-child cap is pushing thousands of Scottish children into poverty – and scrapping it is the bare minimum the Labour Party government must do if it is serious about tackling poverty.

    Howard Beckett made the link that often has to be made:

    Immigration playbook

    For all Starmer’s barely disguised dogwhistles about immigration, his actual policies laid out in the speech don’t seem to do much to tackle child poverty, a broken benefits system, or a crumbling NHS. No matter which monarch it is, and no matter which prime minister it is, this country is broken because our political system is broken.

    It’s outrageous that we even have these rich scroungers as figureheads of the country reading out a speech from a government that has dragged the labour movement further and further to the right.

    As usual, Britain has no idea how much of a joke it looks to the rest of the world.

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Sky News

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Angela Rayner is STILL defending Labour’s position on the two-child limit

    The Labour Party is gearing up for its first King’s Speech on Wednesday 17 July. Ahead of this, politicians from across the political spectrum have called on the party to finally ditch the callous two-child limit on benefits. But on Tuesday 16 July Angela Rayner was still holding firm.

    Of course, even since the election, “Sir Kid Starver” and his cabinet of sycophants have been bandying about the same old tired “fiscal responsibility” rhetoric to its corporate media lapdogs to evade doing this.

    So now, the SNP, Greens, Lib Dems, independents – and notably, even some Labour MPs are taking the party leadership to task on this.

    Two-child limit: Starmer’s champion of working class cosplaying falls flat

    Since Starmer’s Labour formed the UK’s new government, pressure has increasingly mounted over one of the party’s most egregiously unconscionable refusals to step up. Specifically, throughout the election campaign, and over the last year, Starmer’s big business and billionaire-backed Labour has ignored calls to end a Tory policy needlessly increasing child poverty.

    The unaffectionately renamed “Sir Kid Starver” has maintained his red Tory stance NOT to scrap the cruel two-child limit on benefits. The Conservatives introduced the policy in 2017. Essentially, it meant that families on benefits like Universal Credit and Child Tax Credit would only factor a maximum of two children in its calculations. As the Canary previously reported:

    The policy has been controversial. A court ruled in June 2017 that the policy was “discriminatory” against single mothers with children under two. Then, in April 2018, another court said the cap was unlawful. This was in relation to young carers. The so-called ‘rape clause‘, where women have to prove they’ve been raped to get an exception to the two-child limit, also sparked outrage.

    Moreover, the eugenicist policy has plunged over million children into poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has estimated that it impacted over 1.6 million children in 2023. In other words, the limit hurt 1 in 9 children across the UK last year.

    Despite repeated challenges on its position throughout the lead up to the election, Labour has insisted that its new government simply can’t afford to drop the policy. New Northampton North MP Lucy Rigby was one of the latest Starmerite lackeys wheeled out to spout this to the corporate media:

    Just this morning – 16 July – one day before the King’s Speech sets out Labour’s legislative agenda, deputy prime minister Angela Rayner took to BBC Breakfast to reject these calls once again:

    Of course, the unaffordability rhetoric is absolute nonsense. Instead of an immutable fact, it is in reality, a political choice. As some on X have expressed, it’s Tory “heating or eating” 2.0 –  Labour choosing between militaristic chest-beating or children eating:

    Unsurprisingly, plenty of the Labour leadership’s political opponents have also called it out on this.

    MPs call the Labour government out

    First, on 11 July, the BBC reported how a number of Labour MPs have voiced opposition to the limit.

    Most notably, Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside Kim Johnson has articulated plans to lay:

    an amendment to the King’s Speech calling for the cap to scrapped

    On the same day, iNews reported that independent MPs were:

    already in talks over how best to pressure the new government into making an announcement on the policy.

    Meanwhile, other Labour MPs, particularly those from the Labour left’s Socialist Campaign Group (SCG), have spoken out about the policy:

    Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana eviscerated the Labour leadership’s bullshit economic justifications in one fell swoop:

    That is, while the party has been cosying up in bed with billionaire capitalists, it’s also holding fast to another ridiculous refusal. It has so far obstinately opposed calls for the party to embrace a wealth tax. Not to mention of course that in Starmer’s U-turn frenzy, he previously reneged on plans to increase income tax for the top 5% of earners.

    Naturally, Labour MPs weren’t the only ones pointing out the big blatant billionaire-shaped hypocrisy of the government’s feeble line. Deputy leader of the Green Party Zack Polanski showed it up too:

    Alongside Labour MP Johnson’s plans to push her party to drop the policy, the SNP is also challenging the new government. As the Independent reported, SNP leader Stephen Flynn has said he will also table an amendment to the King’s Speech. Additionally, he has written to the leader of Scottish Labour Anas Sarwar to urge his party’s MPs to back the amendment.

    Petulant political posturing won’t tackle poverty

    When all is said and done, Starmer’s petulant political posturing on child poverty is disgraceful. However, scrapping the limit alone won’t go nearly far enough to tackle child poverty.

    By CPAG’s own figures, dropping the policy would:

    lift 300,000 children out of poverty and mean 700,000 children are in less deep poverty

    In other words, that’s 700,000 children STILL in poverty. As the Canary highlighted before the election, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculated that:

    Around six million people (or 9% of the population) in the UK were in very deep poverty in 2022/23. This includes 1.6 million children, 3.9 million working-age adults, and 600,000 pensioners. Thirty years ago, around one in three people in poverty were in very deep poverty, by 2022/23 that stood at over four in 10.

    What’s more, even if Labour abolishes the limit, benefits are still contemptibly low. Crucially, successive governments have subjected benefits claimants to a suite of devastating reforms. People on old-style benefits the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) have shunted onto Universal Credit are thousands of pounds worse off than before.

    Of course, Tories’ class war has also pushed people into greater poverty through real-terms cuts to their benefits as well. As the cost of living spiralled, the previous government refused to raise benefits in line with inflation. In short, basic daily necessities soared in price, but benefits did not keep pace to match.

    In October 2023, the New Economics Foundation estimated that even if benefits increased with inflation, people would still be worse off. Notably, it found that:

    Support for an out-of-work single person over 25 on universal credit would reduce by £670 a year in April 2024 compared with April 2023 even if benefits are uprated in line with inflation. For a lone parent with one child the cut amounts to £350, while a couple over 25 with 2 children will see their benefit income increase by just £35 a year.

    This was partly due to the Tories ending the cost of living payments.

    So at the end of the day, ending the cruel two-child benefit limit must be only the start. As long as Labour stays wedded to demonising benefits claimants and backing big business over workers, it’s platitudes to end child poverty will continue to ring hollow.

    Feature image via the Canary/Real Stories – YouTube

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A national disgrace: Glasgow’s child homelessness crisis represents a UK-wide Tory failure

    On 15 July, news emerged from Glasgow that 3,000 children are currently homeless. While this is a particularly harrowing statistic for Scotland’s largest city, this homelessness crisis is not confined to Glasgow or Scotland. It is a reflection of a broader, more pervasive issue that plagues the entire UK. The responsibility for this crisis does not lie squarely with the SNP. Because it’s the Conservative Party which has failed to address the systemic issues that underpin child homelessness.

    Glasgow: a microcosm on UK homelessness

    The stark reality in Glasgow is a microcosm of the UK-wide homelessness crisis. Across the nation, hundreds of thousands of children are without a stable home, a situation that has profound implications for their health, education, and future prospects. The Conservative Party, which was in power at Westminster for 14 years, bears sole responsibility for this dire state of affairs. Austerity measures, cuts to social services, and a failure to invest adequately in social housing have all contributed to the rising tide of homelessness.

    For Scotland in particular, successive Tory governments also cut block grant funding – meaning by 2021 it was worth around 2% less per person. However, the news about Glasgow’s homelessness crisis came at the same time the Herald revealed the Scottish government had cut its affordable housing budget.

    However, thanks to botched devolution, Scotland is still tied to the rest of the UK. Decisions politicians and others make at Westminster, in the Bank of England, and the Treasury and other departments still impact north of the border.

    Meanwhile, under Tory leadership local authorities across England have seen their budgets slashed, leading to a reduction in support services that are crucial for vulnerable families. The Bedroom Tax, Benefit Cap, and Universal Credit system have disproportionately affected low-income households, pushing many into precarious housing situations. These policies have created a perfect storm, leaving hundreds of thousands of children without a safe place to call home.

    Labour: more of the same?

    The recent change in Westminster government, with the Labour Party now at the helm, has brought renewed hope for tackling homelessness. However, its plans will not go far enough. Broadly, the party has pledged to do very little different to the Conservatives – and has made only vague statements around social housing.

    Another key criticism of Labour’s approach is that it does not address the root causes of homelessness.

    While building more social housing is undoubtedly necessary, it must be accompanied by broader reforms to the welfare system, healthcare, and education. Homelessness is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted response. Without addressing the underlying economic and social factors that contribute to homelessness, Labour’s plans risk being little more than a sticking plaster on a broken leg.

    Moreover, Labour’s plans must contend with the legacy of austerity and cuts that have left local authorities struggling to provide basic services. Reversing these cuts and restoring funding to essential support services will be critical in providing the safety net that vulnerable families need. This includes mental health services, addiction support, and employment programs that can help families break the cycle of homelessness.

    A Starmer government will not end homelessness

    The homelessness crisis among children in Glasgow is a national disgrace that demands urgent action. It is a stark reminder of the failures of both the Conservative Party and the SNP to protect the most vulnerable members of society.

    The new Labour government must rise to the challenge and implement bold, comprehensive measures to address the root causes of homelessness. This includes not only building more social housing but also reforming the welfare system, investing in support services, and tackling the broader social and economic inequalities that drive homelessness.

    Sadly, it is unlikely it will do this.

    The plight of 3,000 homeless children in Glasgow is a tragic reflection of a much larger problem that affects the entire UK. It is imperative that all levels of government work together to create a society where no child has to experience the trauma and instability of homelessness.

    Featured image via Envato Elements

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The general election just BURIED news about the DWP’s Universal Credit roll out

    With all eyes trained on the final sprint to general election day, a local news site quietly dropped news on the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) so-called ‘managed migration’ process. Specifically, this is where the DWP is forcing old-style benefit claimants over to Universal Credit – like those on ESA.

    Crucially, the piece highlighted the department’s plans to start shifting Employment Support Allowance (ESA) claimants to the new-type benefit.

    However, as the Canary has highlighted before, this sudden move by the DWP runs counter to the former government’s previous promises. Unfortunately, it could leave lots of people without benefits, and many more worse off.

    Universal Credit roll-out: DWP ploughing ahead again

    On 1 July, CambridgeshireLive published an article detailing the DWP’s sudden managed migration plans. In particular, the outlet reported how:

    Important letters from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will drop through the letterboxes of thousands of homes in July with a warning that they must not be ignored. They will impact those who receive Employment Support Allowance (ESA).

    Essentially, the DWP is sending out “migration notices” to claimants. These will demand that ESA claimants start the process to shift over to Universal Credit. The DWP gives claimants three months in which to do this. In particular, this is part of the department’s work phasing out old-style benefits.

    It follows a recent roll-out in June for claimants in Wolverhampton and East Suffolk. However, as Disability News Service (DNS) noted at the time, this was despite the fact that former employment minister Jo Churchill had confirmed:

    in a written statement that this extension would not begin until September.

    Churchill, who is not standing for re-election as an MP, wrote on 21 May: “Our current planning assumption is that we would begin notifying this group in September 2024, with the aim of notifying everyone to make the move by December 2025.”

    Notably, this is part of the former government’s revised timetable for its mass roll-out. The Canary stated in May that:

    Previously, the DWP planned to complete this by 2028. Now, it has brought this forward in a bid to cut costs. In particular, it intends to notify all old-style benefit claimants by December 2025.

    Of course, the new timetable raises serious concerns that many claimants could lose out. This is because, to date, the department’s own statistics show it has already been callously denying Universal Credit to tens of thousands of legacy benefit claimants.

    Now, it appears the DWP is pushing ahead with this further – just as the UK elects a new Labour government.

    Bogus assurances over ESA

    In June, a spokesperson for the DWP told DNS that the 500 claimants in Wolverhampton and East Suffolk were part of its activity to:

    gather more learning to inform our planning for migrating these cohorts at scale in due course, with one of the key learnings we are keen to understand being what proportion of households will require support through the enhanced support journey.

    In short, it was using these claimants as guinea-pigs ahead of its full roll-out.

    It’s unclear whether this new roll-out is also part of this testing phase. It could just as easily be that the DWP is now launching the full-scale of its operation.

    What is clear, is that the DWP is rushing ahead with little attention to the consequences. Incongruously, the CambridgeshireLive piece said that:

    Claimants have been assured they won’t lose any money as a result of the switch to UC. It continues the long-running process of moving people on ‘legacy’ benefits over to the new system.

    However, the assurances have so far proved bogus. To date, the mass migration process has left over 180,000 former claimants without any benefits. The large majority of these – over 99% – have been Tax Credit claimants.

    DWP: more Universal Credit chaos on the cards?

    For the other type of benefits the DWP is forcing over to Universal Credit – including ESA – the Canary previously estimated its migration process could leave approximately 68,000 more claimants without benefits. This was based on calculations using the government’s own figures. In particular, it used the department’s own conservative estimate that 4% of non-Tax Credit claimants could lose out.

    What’s more, a report by the Resolution Foundation in April found disabled claimants are much worse off on Universal Credit. In particular, it estimated that that the DWP was diddling disabled claimants transferred to Universal Credit out of £2,800 a year.

    As recently as 3 July, the DNS carried a new story detailing how claimants on two other former disability benefits have been losing out. Specifically, law firm Leigh Day has investigated the migration of over 100 people on severe disability payment (SDP), and enhanced disability premium (EDP). For all of these, support under Universal Credit was lower than on the legacy type benefits. Over 200 disabled claimants are taking group legal action against the DWP, with the firm.

    Needless to say, this rushed new roll-out is another callous, calculated move from a DWP – and a benefit – that’s not fit for purpose.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A foodbank shutting up shop for the election is the perfect metaphor for this political farce

    A single post on X is the most fitting metaphor for this absolute clown show of a general election.

    In the North London district of Hornsey, a member of the public spotted a sign tied to the railings outside a local church-turned-polling station:

    Foodbank shutting – a call for a Tory wipe-out

    Naturally, people couldn’t help note the irony. After fourteen years of devastating, and deadly Tory austerity, a local foodbank had to shut up shop for the latest charade of political spot the difference:

    People were holding it up as the physical manifestation of the reasons NOT to vote Conservative. First there was eat out to help out. Now, it’s vote out, to even get fucking fed. But not today of course. Elections are only about establishment grifters on the ballot, didn’t you know?

    What’s more, heating or eating met its match on voting day:

    The two-party Tory system

    In effect, the broken electoral system, just got more screwed up. Putting political hootenanny above feeding folks about sums up everything wrong in two-party-Tory Britain:

    Ultimately, it was the perfect allegory for the Tories fucking over poor, working class, and marginalised communities the UK over.

    In the time since they took power, foodbanks have leapt in number from just 35 in 2010, to over 2,800 by 2022. Between April 2023 and March 2024, the Trussell Trust had to distribute over 3.1 million emergency food parcels.

    However, it’s not as if a little parliamentary musical chairs with Labour is going to make much of a difference.

    Tory Party 2.0 won’t scrap the two child benefit cap. It looks likely to push chronically ill and disabled people into work. On top of this, it has ditched plans to tax the rich. Not to mention it’s planning to funnel public money into the pockets of, you guessed it, more bloody billionaires – just greener this time.

    So, if the foodbank closure this polling day is a symbol of all that’s wrong after over a decade of Tory governance, it’s perhaps also an omen of more to come under Labour too.

    Maybe Great British Food Pantry is on Labour’s agenda next. Because taking a branding leaf out of ghoul Penny Mordaunt’s book wouldn’t look out of place.

    Feature image via dirty barry – X

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Congo Still Fights to Control Its Own Resources 64 Years After Its Independence

    On what would have been assassinated Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba’s 99th birthday, we speak with author and analyst Vijay Prashad, who has just published a lengthy article on Lumumba and the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s ongoing struggle for control over its own resources. Sunday marked the 64th anniversary of Lumumba’s historic speech marking his country’s independence from Belgium…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Energy firms are hoarding £3 BILLION in YOUR customer credit and making £159m in interest alone

    Over two-thirds of Welsh billpayers (70%) are calling for energy suppliers to automatically return any customer credit in their account after winter following the success of a mass protest which saw 20,000 demand their cash back. It comes after a campaign group revealed energy companies are hoarding £3bn in customer credit.

    Energy suppliers sitting on £3bn of customer credit

    Over 20,000 customers joined the Big Energy Credit Claim Back launched in May, which urged supporters to reclaim unused customer credit. The protest was launched after a Warm This Winter investigation revealed UK energy suppliers are sitting on over £3 BILLION worth of customer credit, with nearly a third of UK households (32%) in the black to their energy supplier all year.

    Further analysis found that the combined bank interest energy suppliers have made through customer credit balances was at least £159m in 2023.

    Billpayers have claimed back an average of £330 from energy suppliers in the mass protest organised by the Warm This Winter coalition which is now calling on the next government and Ofgem to introduce an automatic credit return of people’s cash after each winter.

    Hailed as a huge success for people power, Warm This Winter spokesperson Fiona Waters said:

    People are fed up with energy suppliers keeping hold of their cash, making millions in interest on it and then customers often struggle to get their money back from reluctant suppliers. It’s common sense that after winter, if they have credit on their account it should automatically be returned to them and that’s why so many people joined the Big Energy Credit Claim Back.

    The campaign proves that by a simple measure, bill payers can slash on average over £300 from their annual energy bills which is much needed and there is no real reason why an automatic cash back isn’t implemented.

    Get your customer credit back

    Customers who pay their energy bills by direct debit are incentivised with better deals to spread payments over 12 months, building up a pot of credit from July onwards to cover the winter months when they will be using more energy on heating.

    In May, if their account is in credit, then experts including Martin Lewis have pinpointed this as the time to reset their balance and get back credit before they start saving again in July.

    But under the current system, this is not automatic and instead, the onus is on consumers to claim back their credit which can be complex and in some cases, suppliers do not return the excess credit.

    New research by Warm This Winter on how easy it is to claim back credit revealed nearly a third of Welsh billpayers (28%) found it difficult to get credit back.

    Nearly a quarter (24%) felt their direct debit payments had been set too high and of those who got their credit back 13% were paid after a fortnight or more, 6% are still waiting for their money to be returned at the time of polling and 14% were refused their money even though they were in credit.

    Simon Francis coordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition commented:

    Credit hoarding by energy suppliers must become a thing of the past.

    Over a third of people in permanent credit to their energy firms live in households with low incomes and may have cut back on energy use or other essentials because the direct debits set by energy firms are far too high.

    Let’s hope that once general election fever is over the regulator wakes up and introduces a new licence condition on suppliers that credit balances are refunded after each winter on an opt-out basis.

    A ‘disgrace’

    The Warm This Winter research conducted by Opinium this month which surveyed over 2,000 people across the UK also revealed a quarter of Welsh people (23%) who paid by direct debit found understanding how their direct debits were calculated was difficult and a similar number (22%) of UK adults felt it was also hard to understand how much energy they use.

    Groups that also backed the Big Energy Credit Claim Back include 38 Degrees, National Pensioners Convention, and Fuel Poverty Action. They have also called for Ofgem and the next government to close this loophole.

    Jonathan Bean from Fuel Poverty Action said:

    It’s disgraceful that Ofgem has allowed energy firms to hoard our money during the cost of living crisis. Our money should be refunded automatically, with interest. Energy firms are deliberately overcharging and making it hard to get the refunds we are due. This exploitation must stop.

    Featured image via Envato Elements

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.