Category: poverty

  • Economic growth allows the few to grow ever-wealthier. Ending poverty and environmental catastrophe demands fresh thinking

    Economic growth will bring prosperity to all. This is the mantra that guides the decision-making of the vast majority of politicians, economists and even human rights bodies.

    Yet the reality – as detailed in a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council this month – shows that while poverty eradication has historically been promised through the “trickling down” or “redistribution” of wealth, economic growth largely “gushes up” to a privileged few.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • All political parties are being asked to tackle poverty, with nearly 5,000 emails sent to candidates across the country ahead of the general election. That’s according to charity Christians Against Poverty.

    Poverty should be the headline general election issue

    CAP’s director of external affairs, Gareth McNab, said:

    Poverty in the UK is a matter of public urgency. It’s vital that any candidate standing in this general election appreciates this is an emergency situation. National polling that CAP commissioned with YouGov last year showed that almost 90 percent of adults in the UK want to see poverty tackled.

    Data from our online tool shows more than 4,700 emails have already been sent to candidates, with 56% asking what their candidates are doing to tackle poverty locally.

    14.3 million people including 4.3 million children, are living in poverty in the UK, according to the DWP. However, most recently the Trades Union Congress (TUC) released new figures. As the Canary previously reported TUC analysis shows that the number of kids living in poverty with at least one parent in work increased by 900,000 (44%) between 2010 and 2023 – the equivalent to 1,350 a week.

    The TUC says in 2023 there were three million kids in working households living below the breadline in the UK.

    Children growing up in poverty in working households now account for:

    • 69% of all children in poverty.
    • 24% of all children in working households.

    Spiralling debt

    Meanwhile, according to CAP their debt service is unable to help almost half of the people who come to them for help because they are trapped in deficit budgets (meaning no matter how much a person cuts back, their essential outgoings are higher than their income).

    In addition to increasing people’s income to meet the Minimum Income Standard, we also need to focus on public services such as public transport and free school meals, which will help to keep people’s costs down.

    The online tool provided by CAP allows people to easily question their general election prospective parliamentary candidates (PPCs) about what they are doing to tackle poverty. Anyone can use CAP’s online tool here, which takes just a couple of minutes to fill out and send.

    Poverty: an impossible situation

    Anthony spoke about why poverty matters to the election this year. He said:

    This is an impossible situation, and I just see the divide between the rich and poor growing greater. Even though I only spend money on essentials such as food and bills, and even skip meals, my monthly income is £200 short.

    I’d love to get to the point where I could afford to take my kids to watch a film, but unless poverty is put on the political agenda, I can’t see any end in sight. The help provided by Christians Against Poverty has given me a glimmer of hope, but it shouldn’t be left to charities.

    Featured image via Envato Elements

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Analysis by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) shows the Tories have presided over a 44% (+900,000) increase in the number of kids growing up in child poverty in working households between 2010 and 2023. The TUC says a “toxic combination” of pay stagnation, rising insecure work, and cuts to social security have had a “devastating impact on family budgets”.

    Child poverty has rocketed

    Child poverty in working households has increased by over 1,300 a week, on average, since 2010 – according to new TUC analysis published on Tuesday 25 June.  The analysis shows that the number of kids living in poverty with at least one parent in work increased by 900,000 (44%) between 2010 and 2023 – the equivalent to 1,350 a week.

    The TUC says in 2023 there were three million kids in working households living below the breadline in the UK.

    Children growing up in poverty in working households now account for:

    • 69% of all children in poverty.
      24% of all children in working households.

    Toxic combination

    The TUC says that a “toxic combination” of wage stagnation, rising insecure work, and cuts to social security have had a “devastating impact” on family budgets.

    Real wages are still worth less today than in 2008 and the union body estimates that had they grown at their pre-crisis trend since the Tories took power the average worker would be over £14,000 a year better off.

    And separate analysis from the TUC shows that the number of people in insecure, low-paid work has increased by nearly one million during the Conservatives’ time in office to a record 4.1 million.

    Economic reset

    Meanwhile, analysis from the Resolution Foundation on 25 June confirmed wage growth has stagnated under the Tories. It found that average wages are now only £16 a week, or 2.5%, higher in real terms than they were at the time of the 2010 election.

    The TUC says Britain urgently needs an economic reset. And it called on political parties to make reducing child poverty a national priority.

    TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    No child in Britain should be growing up below the breadline.

    But under the Conservatives we have seen a huge in rise in working households being pushed into poverty.

    A toxic combination of pay stagnation, rising insecure work and cuts to social security have had a devastating impact on family budgets.

    We urgently need an economic reset and a government that will make work pay. Reducing child poverty must be a priority in the years ahead.

    Featured image via Envato Elements/the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has quietly pressed ahead with forcing ESA benefit claimants onto Universal Credit. Crucially, it is doing so despite promises to claimants that it would not begin the process before September.

    Of course, it is doing so while media and public attention is focused on the upcoming general election. Notably, the DWP’s sudden move sits amid its broader plans to speed up its timetable for the department’s so-called ‘mass migration’ process. This is where the DWP is making claimants on old-style benefits like Tax Credits shift over to Universal Credit.

    Vitally, this is despite repeated red flags and warnings about the process that has so far stripped hundreds of thousands of people of their benefits.

    Universal Credit roll-out: rush and hush

    On 3 June, the DWP sent out “migration notices” to benefit claimants on old-style benefits. The notices inform claimants on these that they must move over to Universal Credit. The DWP gives claimants three months in which to do this. Specifically, the department sent these out to claimants of employment and support allowance (ESA).

    As the Disability News Service (DNS) reported:

    DWP began sending out so-called “migration notices” to about 500 ESA claimants in Wolverhampton and East Suffolk.

    However, as it also pointed out, this was despite the fact that former employment minister Jo Churchill has 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.”

    As the Canary has previously reported, this is part of the previous government’s revised timetable for its mass roll-out. In particular, we noted 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, the DNS’s report suggests that it is ploughing ahead with this even earlier than it had previously indicated.

    Claimants stripped of benefits

    So far, 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.

    In November, the DWP said that it anticipated 26% of Tax Credit claimants would lose their benefits entirely.

    Comparatively, the DWP has forecast this to be much lower for other types of benefits. Specifically, it has predicted that the non-claim rate will sit somewhere round 4% for other old-style benefit claimants. This figure includes ESA, alongside three other forms of benefits the department is phasing out: Housing Benefit, Income Support, and Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA).

    However, the DWP’s forecast for Tax Credits have so far underestimated the numbers of people it would strip of benefits. As the Canary reported in May, so far it stands at 28% of Tax Credit claimants, higher than even its revised prediction from November.

    It is not possible to get a full picture of the percentage of the number of old-style claimants the DWP has denied Universal Credit to so far. This is because the department’s statistics do not separate out this information into monthly data. Notably, the DWP’s latest release did not include statistics for ‘closed cases’ in February and March 2024.

    As a result, it means that it’s impossible to get an accurate percentage of the rejection rate. However, the data shows that up to the end of January 2024, the DWP has stripped 150 non-Tax Credit claimants of their so-called legacy benefits. This was out of a total 2,620 claimants until the end of March 2024.

    It would put this at 5.7% of old-style claimants losing their benefits entirely. Of course, this could be higher, since it does not yet include closed claims for February and March in this figure.

    The department’s data shows that as of November 2023 around 1.7 million people were still claiming these four types of old-style benefits in some combination, and that the DWP would eventually force them to claim Universal Credit. Even at the department’s 4% estimation, this could mean 68,000 more claimants will lose their benefits.

    ESA claimants as “guinea pigs”

    The DWP’s decision to do this under cover of general election campaigning. Notably, due to election impartiality rules, DWP civil servants are unable to comment in detail about the department’s Universal Credit activities. Invariably, this hampers public scrutiny of the DWP’s decision to press ahead with this data gathering exercise.

    And according to the DNS, the DWP:

    said in an email to “stakeholders”: “The purpose of this activity is 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.”

    DWP had asked welfare rights advisers not to share this “operational update” publicly because it was “keen to manage any anxiety for people on ESA and don’t want to give the mistaken impression to people on ESA that we have shifted from our publicly-stated plan to start migrating people from September”.

    Given this, Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) and Black Triangle Campaign activist Gail Ward told the DNS that the ‘learning activity’ is using claimants as “guinea pigs”.

    In other words, the DWP is using them to gather data ahead of its full roll-out. Notably, it is doing this without a full picture of the impacts on claimants. Essentially, the DWP is utilising this to test its process for shifting ESA claimants onto Universal Credit. However, for the people it has forced to participate, it could mean the loss of vital welfare support if things don’t go as the DWP has anticipated.

    So far, the department has given little reason to trust its predictions. In April, the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts said that:

    The Department has a limited understanding of why some people do not switch to Universal Credit

    Ultimately, without a proper understanding of its failures to date, this exercise could put more vulnerable claimants at risk.

    Feature image via Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) – Youtube

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • New research shows how Britain’s primary schools and GP surgeries are staggering under the weight of hardship as they divert resources to respond to the needs of those struggling to afford the essentials. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) conducted a study to discover how millions of people experiencing hardship is impacting key public services. Hardship was defined in the study as people going without essentials like food, heating, and appropriate clothing because they can’t afford it.

    The stark results showed a widespread impact across all parts of Britain. It showed significant resource of time and money is being used to help those affected, with knock-on effects for pupils and patients not experiencing hardship.

    JRF is calling on all politicians to “get serious” and understand that they can’t fix our public services unless they deal with hardship “at source” ahead of the general election.

    Hardship: the scale of the problem is shocking

    In a survey of staff in primary education and primary and community healthcare (for example GP surgeries):

    • Nine in 10 said hardship had had an impact on their own work, their colleagues or their organisation.
    • Six in 10 staff said poverty had made it harder to do their job well.
    • Seven in 10 said supporting people who can’t afford the essentials was a challenge in their organisation.
    • Around four in 10 said hardship is a factor that is contributing to them thinking about leaving their job.

    In focus groups, teachers told of being unable to start teaching on time because they had to leave the classroom to deal with distressed parents facing homelessness or find warm clothes and food for children who were going without. They also discussed how overcrowded housing, including temporary accommodation, leaves children tired, and how much time goes into getting tired, hungry children ready to learn.

    Rocketing incidences of hardship

    Staff at GP surgeries described appointments being used to get prescriptions for over-the-counter medicine such as Calpol because the patient couldn’t afford to buy them at the pharmacy, or to ask for letters to stop evictions. When practices are already struggling to meet demand, staff said this put even more pressure on them to provide appointments to everyone who needed one.

    JRF/Thinks Insight polling of staff in primary schools and primary and community healthcare services across Britain also found:

    • On average, primary school staff estimate 48% of their pupils had experienced hardship at some point since the start of the school year.
    • Primary and community healthcare staff estimated 57% of patients they had seen had experienced hardship, at some point over the last 12 months.
    • Almost half (49%) of respondents from primary care, and a third in primary schools, said that they were providing a food bank as part of their service.

    ‘Shameful levels’ in the UK

    Katie Schmuecker, principal policy adviser for the JRF said:

    Hardship has reached a shameful level in our country, with almost four million people finding themselves in destitution in a single year – unable to keep themselves dry, warm and fed.

    As the parties compete to lead the UK after 4th July, we need them to get serious about tackling the scale and depth of hardship which is afflicting millions and holding families back from building better lives.

    No plan for our schools or NHS should be taken seriously if it doesn’t include tackling hardship. Leaving millions to live without essential items such as enough food or heating doesn’t just rob people of options or dignity, it also adds to the pressures on the services we all rely on.

    Primary schools and GP services are staggering under the weight of hardship – it shouldn’t fall to them to ensure families are not going hungry. As a country we need our politicians to address hardship at source, not look the other way.

    We still need to hear from all our politicians on how they’ll take urgent action to support families, as well as setting out bold, long-term solutions which ensure that everyone in our country can at least afford the essentials.

    The impact of hardship in primary schools

    Primary school staff report seeing increasing numbers of children who are hungry, tired and in need of emotional support because they are experiencing hardship. This was the case in both more and less deprived areas.

    Getting tired, hungry and upset children ready to learn eats into resources and classroom time. Parents and carers breaking down in tears at the school gates and looking to the school for help also takes time away from core duties, with some schools creating job roles specifically to respond to this need. As trusted and visible services in the community, many now feel like the first port of call for help.

    One deputy head teacher in greater Bristol said:

    You feed them, you clothe them, you tell them where to go if they’re homeless. It’s literally everything. It’s not even about teaching or learning. It’s about keeping them fed, keeping a roof over their head. Writing letters to MPs, writing letters to GPs, writing letters to housing services. It literally doesn’t stop. It is a first line service because you’re having to provide that support for every single thing that families need because who are they going to go to?

    More than half of staff said hardship meant there was a greater requirement for resources like staff time. Moreover:

    • One third of staff said their school has reduced school trips to fund or provide support towards hardship.
    • One third said their school provided a food bank.
    • Four in 10 said their school has extended free school meals.
    • 57% said their school offers free or subsidised food (outside of free school meals).
    • 59% of staff have increased stress or low morale as a result of the hardship they see at school.

    Dealing with hardship is beginning to affect all the children in the class, as teachers have to address immediate needs which meant not starting teaching on time. One staff member said:

    There are classes that haven’t got a teacher in front of them because a teacher is trying to help a parent with something that’s happened.

    Staff also see opportunities for enrichment activities reduced as schools have to cut back in order to fund or provide support for children and families experiencing hardship.

    A deputy head in Manchester said:

    We cannot provide as many extracurricular opportunities such as trips and visits as we would like, we cannot ask our parents to pay for them. It just results in our children getting a raw deal and not having as many life opportunities even though we really do try our best.

    The impact of hardship on primary and community healthcare

    Staff across primary and community healthcare experienced hardship impacting their work, with staff reporting the impact of hardship on patients’ mental, physical, and dental health. This has an impact on the service they provide:

    • Almost half said hardship led to an increased demand for services.
    • Two in five said there was a greater requirement for resources like staff time.
    • Nearly two thirds said they were increasingly under pressure due to the hardship they saw.
    • More than two in five said that the impact on their work of patients experiencing hardship has made them think about leaving their job.

    In JRF focus groups, it was clear that hardship adds to need and demand for appointments. It causes and exacerbates ill health, leading to more complex conditions and more frequent, longer appointments.

    One practice nurse in Greater Manchester said:

    Problems are always worse in the winter. Especially with chronic diseases like respiratory problems especially if people are suffering from hardship and not being able to afford bills and they’re living in cold, damp houses, the elderly… everything’s kind of flaring up and exacerbating.

    Patients experiencing hardship have become such an everyday occurrence that healthcare settings are having to provide additional services, with half of staff (49%) saying their service offers a foodbank. Around a fifth (22%) say staff provide for patients out of their own pocket.

    One GP described her experience:

    I think a lot of the time we encourage people to go to the pharmacy first for some simple treatments, but then of course patients often have to buy them from the pharmacy so it does then clog up our system because they can’t afford to buy it from the pharmacy so they come to the surgery and we’re short of appointments already.

    Featured image via Pixabay

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Boris Johnson’s flagship policy when he was Conservative Party prime minister has failed, according to new analysis. Everyone outside of London and the South East should know about it before the general election.

    Levelling Up: a failure by the Conservatives

    There are very few signs of Levelling Up, with disparities in living standards and productivity between various English regions and UK devolved nations remaining unchanged or widening since the last general election, according to the latest analysis by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) ahead of this general election.

    The Levelling Up process – as set out in the 2022 White Paper after it was Boris Johnson’s brainchild – had the important ambition to narrow the economic and social gap between the regions of the United Kingdom by 2030.

    However, NIESR research shows that the gap in living standards between the London and the South East and the North East has grown, and productivity differences between London and the South East and the West Midlands have also increased.

    The combination of insufficient central government resources and the slow disbursement of relatively small pots of money has meant that progress on the 12 main Levelling Up missions has been feeble.

    NIESR projections of living standards and productivity suggest that unless some fundamental change occurs, there will be no significant progress by 2030.

    To change the course of action and start reducing regional inequalities, NIESR recommends the next government to:

    • Substantially increase the level of public investment to at least 4-5 per cent of GDP per year.
    • Speed up the disbursement of Levelling Up funds according to clear economic and social criteria.
    • Reform the operation of government, with better cross-government coordination and greater decentralisation of both decision-making powers and resources in policy areas such as skills, transport, infrastructure and housing.

    Everyone should know this before the general election

    Professor Adrian Pabst, deputy director for public policy at NIESR, said:

    Levelling Up is the right idea but it has been a policy failure.

    Notwithstanding the various shocks like Covid-19 and the spike in inflation, Levelling Up has not happened because of a lack of resources and the slow disbursement of small pots of money. If the next government wants to reduce regional inequalities, it will need to combine political leadership with a credible programme of public investment of 4-5 per cent of GDP per year, which can unlock greater business investment.

    Bringing about sustained regional regeneration is a generational task, and we require a commitment that is at scale.

    The graph that says it all is below – showing the London and the South East have been the only big winners since the Tories brought in Levelling Up:

    Levelling Up GE briefing - Figure 8

    Featured image via Number 10 – Flickr

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Former Tory MP for Portsmouth North Penny Mordaunt has had quite the career: from reality TV to Charlie’s coronation via a failed Conservative Party leadership bid and Leader of the House of Commons. However, perhaps her most notorious achievement is paying for foodbanks in her constituency. Now, she’s back promoting them again – rebranded to “food pantries”, as before.

    Mordaunt: food ‘pantries’ are NOT foodbanks. OK, then…

    Byline Times Adam Bienkov spotted that Mordaunt has been promoting her food pantries once again during this year’s general election:

    Back in 2022, Mordaunt paid for three food “pantries” (not ‘foodbanks’ – ‘pantries’) to open in Portsmouth. She’s funding it from the royalties of a book she wrote. The News said that these pantries are where:

    people facing financial difficulties can buy heavily-discounted groceries.

    Yes, we know. That’s a foodbank – right? Well, not if you’re Mordaunt. The News continued, implying that unlike foodbanks:

    No referral is needed to access them.

    Never mind the fact that people don’t need a referral from places like Citizens Advice to access many independent foodbanks, anyway. So, what is the difference between Mordaunt’s pantries and a foodbank? The News revealed that:

    a typical weekly shop bought through them would cost as little as £4.

    Right – so you have to pay for the food. Now it’s making sense.

    Essentially, Mordaunt admitted people were too poor to afford food, so she set up a load of discount shops under the guise of helping her community – which are foodbanks in all but name (and the fact people have to pay). Her party’s governments have caused poverty to skyrocket. Yet Mordaunt is so proud of her pantries that she filmed a video telling us all about them.

    Defending the indefensible

    Mordaunt said at the time that:

    Food pantries are a great scheme that can help families reduce their food bills by about £800 a year. They’re not foodbanks where you need to be referred in. They’re open to everyone, and for a few pounds a week you can get a decent shop.

    Now, she’s setting up another one. People on X were rightly unimpressed:

    A running theme was the monetisation of foodbanks:

    The Overton Window has shifted so much, though, that some alleged trade unionists were defending Mordaunt:

    Of course, there is no defence.

    There is no defence of Mordaunt’s food pantries

    As the Trussell Trust wrote, between April 2023 and March 2024:

    More than 3.1 million emergency food parcels were distributed by food banks in the Trussell Trust network in the past 12 months — the most parcels ever distributed by the network in a year.

    This trend has been seen since the 2010s. The Tories have been in power all that time. So, Mordaunt would never admit that foodbanks were a scourge of successive governments – that would implicate her in the horror.

    Instead, this ghoul chooses to gaslight everyone who has to use them – by rebranding them and making our she has a charitable nature in the process. Mordaunt is supposed to be the palatable face of the Tories – yet here she is, running around trying to appeal to the ‘squeezed middle’ with this ‘food pantry’ dross.

    Beyond rancid.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • Global Population Growth Is Slowing Down. Here’s One Reason Why,” Scientific American

    Governments worldwide are in a race to see which one can encourage the most women to have the most babies. Hungary is slashing income tax for women with four or more children. Russia is offering women with 10 or more children a “Mother-Heroine” award. GreeceItaly, and South Korea are bribing women with attractive baby bonuses. China has instituted a three-child policy. Iran has outlawed free contraceptives and vasectomies. Japan has joined forces with the fertility industry to infiltrate schools to promote early childbearing. A leading UK demographer has proposed taxing the childless. Religious myths are preventing African men from getting vasectomies. A eugenics-inspired Natal conference just took place in the U.S., a nation leading the way in taking away reproductive rights.

    The push for more babies to increase our numbers is hardly a new phenomenon. Longstanding forces of reproductive control have always favored population growth. These go back 5,000 years to the institutionalized male domination and patriarchy that emerged upon the rise of early states and empires centered in cities. Societies at the vanguard of civilization had two main goals: population expansion and seizure of resources. These were realized by coercing women to have as many children as possible and by pressuring men to become soldiers. Because of the dangers of both childbirth and war, birthing and soldiering had to be exalted and reinforced through social controls. To this day, pronatalism and militarism remain among patriarchy’s key features.

    Its strength undiminished over the course of millennia, pronatalism serves powerful institutions of the state, the church, the military, and the economy by preaching that parenthood is an obligation, not a choice. Pronatalism runs so deep in our society, has become so pervasive, that to this day it colors the most important policy discussions and social norms.

    As the Earth system groans under the burden of too many people consuming too much stuff, a new twist on this ubiquitous ideology – one that contemptuously sees women as mere procreative vessels – plays out on the global stage. While scientists warn that human numbers are a key driver of ecological and social crises, the subject of overpopulation gets short shrift by policymakers, think tanks, and even environmental groups. We are told that numbers don’t matter; what matters is solely the level of per capita consumption.

    For example, when the revered Jane Goodall spoke about the harms of population growth, environmental journalist-cum-activist George Monbiot attacked her by insinuating that she was proposing the culling of people. Elsewhere he wrote, “It’s no coincidence that most of those who are obsessed with population growth are post-reproductive wealthy white men.”

    I am a woman, born in India and now living in Canada, happily childfree as I near the end of my reproductive years. I am grateful to have a steady income, but I am not wealthy. Some might say I’m obsessed with overpopulation, though obsession isn’t the right term to describe a rational assessment of the role of population in the ecological degradation that makes humanity’s future precarious.

    But Monbiot’s is just one example. Environmental journalist David Roberts acknowledges that population growth is a problem and then goes on to explain why “there’s much downside and not much upside to talking about population.” Katherine Hayhoe, chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy, an organization that has been accused of “promoting false climate solutions,” says in an interview, “As a climate scientist, I know that it’s not the number of people that matters. It’s how we live.” A formal statement by The Union of Concerned Scientists reads, “We’re sometimes asked ‘Isn’t population growth driving climate change?’ But that’s the wrong question—and it can lead to dangerous answers.”

    Let’s unpack these statements, all of which fall into what political and social theorist Diana Coole has called the discourses of population denialism.

    The first of these, “population shaming,” justifies silence about population by pointing to the excesses of “population control” movements of the past. And it is true that these coercive efforts deserve repudiation. Beginning in the 1970s, India forcibly sterilized millions of poor people (and it was backed in this endeavor by some Western powers). That was a dark moment in a benighted time, which focused on decreasing population growth in the lower-income countries rather than on moderating dramatically higher per capita consumption in the high-income countries.

    But it would be fallacious, and a disservice to the valiant history of family planning, to suppose all approaches to curbing population growth are destructive. During and following India’s reprehensible conduct, family planning programs in ThailandCosta RicaIran, and elsewhere not only advanced greater personal and reproductive autonomy for girls and women, but also led to significantly lower fertility rates, decreases in poverty, and gains in environmental conservation.

    We know from historical experience that slowing population growth requires upholding fundamental human rights: championing universal education, prohibiting child marriage, empowering females, improving access to family planning services, and, most of all, standing up to patriarchy and pronatalism.

    This relates to another oft-used and largely-superseded discourse of population denialism that “development” or economic growth is required to spur declines in fertility, a claim that plays directly into the hands of pro-growth neoliberal interestsResearch shows that declining fertility rates, however, are most closely associated with increasing use of modern contraception and are largely independent of changes in the economy.

    Disproportionately focusing on reproductive control efforts in the recent past, as so many environmentalists do, entirely misses the millennia-old chokehold of compulsive pronatalism in driving population growth—which makes these environmentalists unwitting accomplices of pronatalist patriarchy.

    Equally as offensive is that population denialism defies scientific evidence.

    In its 2022 report, the IPCC makes abundantly clear that “globally, GDP per capita and population growth remained the strongest drivers of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the last decade.” In a 2024 survey conducted by The Guardian, leading IPCC scientists candidly discussed their decisions to have no or fewer children, citing as their main motivations the impact of overpopulation on climate change and the fear of bringing their potential children into a perilous world environment.

    In 2017, over 15,000 scientists from 184 countries issued a warning that “we are jeopardizing our future by not reining in our intense but geographically and demographically uneven material consumption and by not perceiving continued rapid population growth as a primary driver behind many ecological and even societal threats.” Other Scientists’ Warnings have raised similar alarms.

    In 2022, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification warned that “within the next few decades, 129 countries will experience an increase in drought – 23 primarily due to population growth and 38 because of their interaction between climate change and population growth.”

    In its 2022 report, the UN Department of Social and Economic Affairs warned that “rapid population growth makes it more difficult for low-income and lower-middle-income countries to afford the increase in public expenditures on a per capita basis that is needed to eradicate poverty, end hunger and malnutrition, and ensure universal access to health care, education and other essential services.”

    It goes without saying that hyper-consumerism and affluence-seeking in rich countries have played an outsized role in these crises, yes. But to focus on consumerism alone misses the full complexity of the world problematique.

    The global middle class is the fastest rising demographic group, with at least one billion people—88% from Asia—projected to join it this decade, totaling 5.3 billion middle-class consumers. And other poorer billions surely have the right to increase their standard of living. Given that we are already in an extreme state of ecological overshoot, in which we are consuming 75% percent more than Earth can regenerate, further growth in our population and economy can only come at the expense of biophysical Earth systems, which means increased peril to our collective future. Refusing to deal with the twin threats of population and consumption, both of which are at unsustainable levels, only accelerates the destruction of other life and puts us on a long-term trajectory of immiseration of billions of people.

    Meanwhile, some politicians and pundits seem to believe the great threat to humankind is a shrinking economy driven by declining fertility rates and aging populations — that is, the threat is not too many people but too few. “Population declinism,” as this is known—another tentacle of population denialism—is what is fueling the global trend of pushing women to pump out the babies.

    Even amid declining fertility rates due to greater gender equality, global population is still growing by about 80 million people annually, just as in 1970, adding a projected 2.5 billion before the end of this century.

    Observers of the panic about declining fertility rates, such as Nobel laureate Steven Chu, have suggested that we are caught in a “Ponzi scheme” of endless growth that is “based on having more young workers than older people.” This unsustainable and ecologically-destructive scheme, which relies on an ever-increasing population, mostly serves the interests of tech billionaires, elites like Elon Musk, and the ideologies of far-Rightreligiousnationalist, and market fundamentalists.

    Not only has population denialism among progressives emboldened the far Right to pursue its pronatalist agenda of rolling back reproductive rights, passing stricter divorce laws, and relaxing domestic violence laws, progressives are now joining the chorus of “baby-bust” alarmism.

    Media outlets regularly platform growth-biased pieces: this in the New York Times by an author whose organization received $10 million from Elon Musk for “fertility research”; thisthis, and this in the Washington Post by contributors affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank with a history of climate denial and whose funders include ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers; and this by Vox in their Future Perfect section, a billionaire-funded project embedded in the deeply controversial effective altruism philosophy.

    More disturbingly, attempts to challenge pronatalism today are strategically conflated by these pro-growth actors with anti-natalismbaby hating, or misanthropy.

    Meanwhile, the rights of children to be born into conditions conducive to their social, psychological, and material well being are all but trampled as nations compete to pump out, by any means necessary, the next generation of worshippers, workers, consumers, taxpayers, soldiers, and of course, procreators. Warnings from leading authorities about dire population-driven consequences for children in the form of climate change impacts and extreme poverty, among others, go unheeded.

    The alarmism surrounding declining fertility rates is unfounded; it is a positive trend that represents greater reproductive choice, and one that we should accelerate. A smaller human population will immensely facilitate other transformations we need: mitigating climate change, conserving and rewilding ecosystems, making agriculture sustainable, and making communities more resilient and able to integrate more climate and war refugees.

    Research shows that societies with smaller populations and aging demographics can prosper. Instead of coercing women to have more babies, we can adopt progressive policies that strengthen social safety nets, wisely reallocate resources, and see seniors as meaningful contributors to society rather than a growing burden on a shrinking pool of younger workers. We can shift the failed paradigm of endless growth and transition to an economy that respects the biophysical limits of our planet.

    It’s time to reject “population shaming” that pretends to champion human rights while echoing pronatalist ideologies that treat women’s wombs as cogs in the growth machine. To defend the right of all to a livable future, we need to get off the growth treadmill, get past population denialism, and work for a future that has both fewer human beings and less consumption.

    The post How Patriarchal Pronatalism Dominates the Conversation about the Human Future first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Keir Starmer was in Nuneaton on 10 June to campaign for his policies for UK children at the general election. He claimed he would give “every child the best start in life”:


    But Starmer has refused to commit to ending the two child benefit cap. The cap limits Child Tax Credits and Universal Credit child element to two children.

    Starmer: keeping hundreds of thousands of children in poverty

    The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) estimates that the two child benefit cap impacts 1.5 million children, including 1.1 million children in poverty.

    Abolishing the cap, CPAG states, would lift 250,000 children out of poverty. And it would improve even worse poverty for another 850,000 children. Families are losing about £3,200 per year for children born after 6 April 2017. This is when the policy came into force.

    The Labour Party leader said he would not scrap the policy in mid-May:

    What I can’t do is make promises that I can’t deliver on. And this is really important to the question about hope.

    Because where we’ve had to say now: there are things that we might want to do but we can’t because the economy has been damaged.

    As usual, Starmer peddles the establishment myth that there’s ‘no money’. That’s despite the UK having a sovereign currency it can use to facilitate the organisation of public services and also redistribute money.

    Even a small wealth tax of 1-2% on assets over £10m would rebalance the economy to a less unequal place by up to £22bn per year. Ending the two child benefit cap would mean impacted families together receive (and then necessarily spend in the UK economy) £1.3bn per year.

    Laughing off a young girl’s troubles

    People on social media commented that a video recording of Starmer from August 2023 shows his real view on child poverty:


    Starmer’s dismissal of the cost of living crisis the young girl experiences shows his elitism. And his refusal to end the two child cap demonstrates he certainly isn’t giving “every child the best start in life”.

    Let’s reject Starmer (and the Tories) at the ballot box.

    Featured image via Keir Starmer – YouTube

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) have exposed just how dire the situation is for so many people in the UK. However, the fuller picture has been revealed from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) – and it’s calling on whatever party wins the general election to act on poverty.

    The general election launch: underscored by suffering

    The latest ONS statistics on how different households are experiencing inflation show that since the beginning of soaring prices in April 2021, prices have risen by around a quarter for everyone, with a slightly faster increase for those on the lowest incomes over this period. Over the year to March 2024, prices rose by 4% or over across the income distribution, with higher inflation for richer households over this period.

    The figures come as JRF publishes research on the relentless reality of hardship as we enter the general election campaign.

    The JRF research finds that:

    • Seven million low-income households (60%) were going without essentials in May this year.
    • Five million low-income households (42%) took fewer showers or baths due to cost during the cost-of-living crisis so far.
    • Seven in 10 (71%) low-income households in the bottom 20% were going without essentials in May this year, the same as May last year.

    This comes off the back of its previous research just as Rishi Sunak announced the general election.

    Entrenched poverty

    As the Canary previously reported, the JRF was already sounding the alarm about poverty in the UK.

    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.

    Nearly four million people experienced destitution in 2022, including around one million children. This is almost two-and-a-half times the number of people experiencing destitution in 2017 and nearly triple the number of children.

    Our social security system is not protecting people from destitution: 72% of people who are destitute are in receipt of benefits. Destitution is the most severe form of material hardship. Living in destitution means you can’t afford to meet your most basic physical needs to stay warm, dry, clean and fed.

    So, a big part of any new government’s policy platform after the general election must be commitment to change the welfare state; making it fit for purpose for the people it’s supposed to protect.

    How will the general election winner help?

    Peter Matejic, chief analyst at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, says:

    These figures show the extent of the higher costs all families have faced over the last three years, with the highest increases for the lowest income households. These price rises have been hugely damaging and have left millions of families going without essentials like food, adequate clothing and basic toiletries.

    We need our politicians to set out how they will help the millions of families who can’t afford life’s essentials during this election campaign. They must also address how they will tackle poverty and end the prolonged hardship facing too many families in our country.

    So, it seems that more than many other issues, parties need to be committing to a long-term, realistic plan of how to end poverty in the UK. Whether this happens or not remains to be seen – and whether anyone will face up to it during the general election is debatable.

    Featured image via Luke Pennystan on Unsplash

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Why does the United States, the richest country on earth, have more poverty than any other advanced democracy? Why does this land of plenty allow one in every eight of its children to go without basic necessities, permit its citizens to live and die on the streets, and authorize its corporations to pay poverty wages? What perpetuates poverty and what can be done to end it? “Poverty persists,” Matthew Desmond says, “because the rest of us benefit from it.” Recorded at Town Hall.


    This content originally appeared on AlternativeRadio and was authored by info@alternativeradio.org.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Before voters head to the polls in the general election, another likely-to-be damning indictment of the Tories callous cuts to benefits will come to light. Specifically, the government must publish documents detailing the impacts of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) scrapping the Universal Credit uplift that it had introduced during the pandemic.

    DWP Universal Credit uplift

    In April 2020, the government increased the rate of Universal Credit by £20 a week. However, by October 2021, the Tories ditched the so-called DWP Universal Credit “uplift”.

    Naturally, as the Canary consistently reported at the time, scrapping this would hit multiple marginalised groups the hardest. This included numerous warnings that it would further impoverish:

    • Almost 3.5 million children in households claiming the benefit.
    • Over a fifth of working-age families with children across the country on average. Moreover, in some constituencies, the cut would hit more than three-quarters of working-age families.
    • More than 660,000 low-paid keyworkers.

    Predictably, despite these warnings from thinktanks, organisations, and campaigners alike, including footballer Marcus Rashford, the Tories ploughed ahead anyway. Moreover, as the Canary had also detailed, the DWP Universal Credit £20 uplift itself was already woefully inadequate.

    Notably, a survey of claimants found the paltry increase to the already pitifully low benefit made little difference to social security claimants. In reality then, it didn’t actually do much to lift many claimants out of poverty.

    Now, transparency laws will force the government to finally reveal the real-world impact that dropping its DWP Universal Credit uplift had.

    ICO orders DWP to reveal report

    Notably, the Tory government had previously produced an analysis assessing the impact of its decision to stop the uplift. In particular, this examined the impacts of extending the benefit increase – which would implicitly also reveal the impact of not doing so.

    However, it originally refused to disclose this information via the Freedom of Information Act to the Mirror in 2023. As a result, the Mirror pursued this with the Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO). As the outlet reported:

    The government has refused to release an analysis examining the impact of not extending the support. But in a victory for the Mirror, the Information Commissioners’ Office (ICO) has now ordered the Treasury to disclose the details.

    Of course, evading transparency laws has been a consistent past-time of successive Tory administrations. For instance, in November 2023, the Disability News Service finally won a protracted freedom of information battle over DWP Universal Credit. This was over another secret report the department had buried for four years on flaws in the DWP Universal Credit system harming vulnerable claimants.

    Significantly, the Mirror reported that the ICO issued its decision notice just hours before Sunak called the election. In other words, this was another announcement the Tories could conveniently sweep under the rug of the sudden surge in election coverage.

    DWP Universal Credit – a broken system

    Given the numerous warnings on the cut’s impact, it’s not likely the report will show anything new. However, the information should always have been in the public domain. With the election incoming, revealing the after-effects of another callous Tory policy is vital now more than ever.

    Despite this, neither major party who will ultimately run the country post-election has so far shown a shred of interest in supporting disabled people and those living in poverty.

    As the Canary’s Rachel Charlton-Dailey recently pointed out, Labour has launched its campaign and it was tumbleweed on policies for disabled people. Currently, as she highlighted, it hasn’t issued any indication of improving the benefit system. Instead, its focus on “working people” plays into the continuity-Tory back to work blitz.

    Moreover, as the Canary also underscored in March, Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall has been all over this too.

    Ultimately, the impact of the Tory’s cut should be known to the public.

    However, while neither party appears to give a shit for disabled people and others its policies push into poverty, it’s a moot point.

    Right now, it seems unlikely either will do away with the punitive, wholly inadequate DWP Universal Credit system as a whole – without which, there’ll be no meaningful change for the people its broken social security system has screwed over for years.

    Feature image via ODN – DailyMotion

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Earning enough to pay the rent or mortgage, cover utility bills and travel costs, buy food and have the occasional coffee is difficult, impossible for many.

    But it’s not hard for everyone, is it? There are a small number of people living among us who don’t have to worry about the bills, are not troubled when food prices increase or rents balloon.

    They are the rich and the obscenely rich. On the surface they look like the rest of us, but they live in a completely different world to the one most of us inhabit. A pristine space of privilege and political influence.

    The statistics around wealth and income inequality are manifold and horrifying. There are, according to Forbes, more billionaires in the world than ever before; 2,781 individuals with fortunes in excess of $1Bn (up 141 on 2023), of which 14 are “centi-billionaires”; i.e., fortunes over $100 Bn. Mostly the super rich are men.  Oxfam records that, “Globally, men own US $105 trillion more wealth than women.”

    During the last ten years, (which saw the 2008 financial crash, Covid and the Ukraine/Russia war) the collective wealth of this tiny shiny gang has increased by 120%. As Forbes puts it, “Even during times of financial uncertainty for many, the super-rich continue to thrive.” At the same time, on the same planet, as the hyper rich drown in money and stuff, around five billion people around the world are poorer now than they were in 2019.

    The poorest everywhere are women, people of colour (“in the USA, the wealth of a typical Black household is just 15.8% of that of a typical white household”) and marginalised groups; the same sections of society coincidentally that were most severely impacted by Covid.

    Remember all the talk during the pandemic of a socio-economic reset, of tackling social injustices, creating fairer, more integrated ways of working and living etc, blah, blah blah. Well, Oxfam reveals that in subsequent years while “average real wages of nearly 800 million workers have fallen” across 52 countries, the worlds billionaires are $3.3Tn richer than they were pre pandemic……and their wealth has grown three times faster than the rate of inflation.”

    Unimaginable wealth for a tiny number of individuals while the majority of humanity live in varying levels of poverty or economic hardship. “The wealth of the world’s five richest billionaires has more than doubled since the start of this decade, while 60% of humanity has grown poorer.” Can anyone really still believe in ‘Trickle down economics’ (“gush up” as Arundhati Roy rightly describes it)?

    In parallel to unprecedented concentrations of wealth, the corporations that many of these individuals lead or own have also been making unprecedented profits. Oxfam: “148 of the world’s biggest corporations together raked in $1.8 trillion…in total net profits in the year to June 2023, a 52 per cent jump compared to average net profits in 2018-2021.”

    Record profits as the majority struggle to feed themselves, are in many cases falling into debt and destitution, whilst being told to ‘tighten their belts’, by obnoxious, often wealthy, politicians beholden to corporate leaders.

    Virtually all profits are dished out to shareholders, with companies refusing to pay their staff properly;  less than 0.5% of over 1,600 of the world’s largest companies “pay their workers a living wage.” Corporate greed knows no limits it seems, nor the level of worker exploitation.

    Corporate political power fuels inequality not just by shareholder payouts, but by keeping wages low, avoiding paying taxes, absorbing and running public services and feeding climate change.

    Multiple inequalities

    There are various forms of inequality that flow from the underlying cause, financial inequality: climate change, political influence, housing, access to the arts and internet, good health care and stimulating education among others.

    In addition to growing inequality within countries, the gap between the Global north and the Global south is also increasing, and as the impacts of climate change escalate this disparity will only increase. Under the socio-economic system of the day all is dependent on money. Financial hardship/poverty places individuals and nations in a position of disadvantage, making it impossible, for example, to live in a comfortable home, eat a balanced healthy diet, attend a good school, visit art galleries and the theatre, access the internet; travel, have a voice that is listened to by the political class.

    The systemic cause of this madness is, of course, the inherent injustice/s sewn into the DNA of the pervasive socio-economic model. The more extreme, the more fundamental the form of capitalism becomes, concentrations of wealth intensify and narrow, inequality increases, democracy flounders, social divisions and anger grow.

    Since the 1990s, thanks largely to that fanatical duo, Thatcher and Reagan, and intensifying year on year, the socio-economic paradigm has moved from twilight to utter darkness. Neo-Liberalism or Market Fundamentalism, has expanded its reach, until it now dominates virtually all areas of life, in almost every corner of the world.

    The Paradigm of Greed and Destruction champions excess while dismissing sufficiency, simplicity and moderation. Everything is seen as a commodity, including health care, education, and people, to be monetised, exploited to the last drop and profited from. Everyone is regarded as a consumer, every nation, city or village analysed as a potential marketplace.

    It is a deeply materialistic, extremely crude, albeit complex way of organising society, that humanity is enthralled to and entrapped by. Obsession with objects and sensory experiences has resulted in mankind being divorced from him/herself, from the natural world and that underlying reality, which we call god. It is choking the life out of humanity,  poisoning the planet and driving climate change.

    Yes, the underlying cause of climate change and ecological vandalism is consumerism, therefore greed. Not consumerism within poor developing nations (including China) of course, but relentless irresponsible consumerism in rich western nations (US leads the pack by some margin), particularly the richest members within these societies. “The richest 1% globally emit as much carbon pollution as the poorest two-thirds of humanity [roughly 5.4billion].”

    It doesn’t have to be like this

    Keeping the masses poor, physically exhausted and emotionally drained, whilst concentrating wealth into the pockets of the already rich is not a new game, of course. As Priya Sahni-Nicholas of the Equality Trust explains, “The super-rich have spent centuries diverting wealth into their hands, making our democracy less responsive to people’s needs and damaging our communities. The result is we [society/nations] are poorer, sicker, less productive, unhappier, more polarised, and less trusting.”

    The values of the market are destroying communities and literally making people ill – physically and psychologically (and, of course, the two are inter-twinned). These insidious tools of control create the conditions for all kinds of conflict, individually and collectively. They fuel tribalism, deny/pervert democracy, encourage corruption, and make peace impossible. All of which is by design; the last thing the ruling elites want is a contented happy, and well informed  populace.

    Despite the dogmatic rhetoric from politicians of all colours this is not the only way to live, the only option. We can change this, and if we are to prosper, we must change this.

    At the heart of any re-imagining must be the inculcation of that simple attitude and spontaneous action that parents routinely encourage in their children – Sharing. We need to learn to share; fundamentally to share the essentials required to live – water, food, shelter; share the knowledge, information, and technology. Ensure everyone, irrespective of income has access to good quality health care and stimulating education, and begin to create a just world where trust can blossom, differences dissolve and relationships form.

    Sharing is the first step of such a shift. If introduced as a guiding principle, it would have a profound impact, not just in the way basic needs are met, but in the collective consciousness. It would facilitate a kinder, fairer, society and allow a space to open up in which stress could gradually dissolve. The mechanisms for building sharing into the machine could easily be designed and introduced, if — and, of course, it’s a colossal if — the political will was there.

    In parallel with structural simplification, purpose needs to be rediscovered and actions cleansed. Humanity must – or potentially face extinction – move away from the relentless pursuit of material, sensory pleasure, which demands constant stimulation through consumption, and therefore, ensures perpetual discontent and environmental catastrophe, to a quieter, simpler mode of living.

    This may sound ridiculously ambitious, and given the determination by corporations, the exceedingly rich and weak politicians with vested interests, it may well be. But unless purpose is re-imagined, and unless ‘root and branch’ economic ‘reform’ takes place, the social-economic-political divisions will not just continue, they will intensify, and the unbelievable extremes will become normalised, baked into everyday life and everyday politics.

    Everything is in a state of collapse; all the forms, all the systems and, in societies throughout the world, particularly the West, many of the people are falling apart. This is the time for such a move; if not now, when?

    The post 2024: People Starve as the Rich Get Richer first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A think tank has given a briefing on just how bad poverty and destitution are in the UK, as the general election is launched. It shows the depth of the problem. The think tank says ‘all political parties’ must recognise this – and act.

    ‘Unacceptable levels of poverty’

    The UK has unacceptably high levels of poverty. All political parties must recognise the seriousness of the current situation and tackling hardship must take its rightful place as a key issue in the election campaign. Our political leaders must be serious, specific and ambitious in telling the British people what they plan to do to solve the urgent problem of people facing avoidable hardship.

    Think tank the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has outlined the following details on the situation.

    Overall levels of poverty in the UK are high and have been for decades

    More than one in five people in the UK were in poverty in 2022/23. This is around 14.3 million people and includes 4.3 million children, 8.1 million working-age adults, and 1.9 million pensioners.

    Poverty is deepening.

    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.

    Destitution is rising fastest of all

    Nearly four million people experienced destitution in 2022, including around one million children. This is almost two-and-a-half times the number of people experiencing destitution in 2017 and nearly triple the number of children.

    Our social security system is not protecting people from destitution: 72% of people who are destitute are in receipt of benefits. Destitution is the most severe form of material hardship. Living in destitution means you can’t afford to meet your most basic physical needs to stay warm, dry, clean and fed.

    Living in poverty worsens people’s health

    Men living in the most deprived areas can expect to live 9.7 years fewer than men in the least deprived areas and women 7.9 years fewer. Those in the most deprived areas can expect to live more than 18 fewer healthy years than those in the least deprived areas. In every English region outside London, life expectancy has fallen in the most deprived group.

    Swing voters want to see an end to hardship

    JRF research on swing voters shows they are concerned about hardship. People feel that addressing these issues should be a top priority, but that politicians are not taking the issues seriously enough.

    Most voters saw very little distinction between Labour and the Conservatives on this agenda, with neither party demonstrating compassion. People want to see tangible and actionable plans for how politicians are going to reach their stated goals, not just what those goals are.

    Political parties must share their plans amid the general election

    Our social security system should offer adequate support to anyone in need of help, but right now it is not even protecting people from destitution.

    Katie Schmuecker, Principal Policy Adviser at JRF, says:

    We need to see some urgency from all political parties on the need to deal with hardship. Almost four million people, including one million children, have experienced destitution in a single year. This means they have been unable to keep themselves warm, dry and fed.

    They can’t wait for promises of economic growth and they shouldn’t have to. We’re one of the richest countries in the world, so failing to tackle hardship right now is a choice. We need our politicians to tell us what they will do straight away to help families who can’t afford life’s essentials, as well as their long-term plans to tackle poverty.

    There isn’t one single policy choice at the general election that will solve this deep level of hardship but pledging that people will always be able to afford the essentials like food, and household bills, through the social security system is a good place to start.

    Featured image via Unsplash

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A Washington Post columnist, Catherine Rampell, headlined on April 5, “The Great Medicaid Purge was even worse than expected” and reported:

    It’s a tale of two countries: In some states, public officials are trying to make government work for their constituents. In others, they aren’t.

    This week marks one year since the Great Medicaid Purge (a.k.a. the “unwinding”) began. Early during the pandemic, in exchange for additional funds, Congress temporarily prohibited states from kicking anyone off Medicaid. But as of April 1, 2023, states were allowed to start disenrolling people.

    Some did so immediately. So far, at least 19.6 million people have lost Medicaid coverage. That’s higher than the initial forecast, 15 million, even though the process hasn’t yet finished.

    Some enrollees were kicked off because they were evaluated and found to be no longer eligible for the public health insurance program — maybe because (happily!) their incomes rose, or because they aged out of a program. But as data from KFF shows, the vast majority, nearly 70 percent, lost coverage because of paperwork issues. …

    These “paperwork issues” were added by self-alleged conservatives, or Republicans, in order to reduce the number of beneficiaries, supposedly in order to protect taxpayers against “waste, fraud or abuse,” by poor people, against taxpayers. Wikipedia’s article on Medicaid says:

    Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with low income in the United States, providing free health insurance to 85 million low-income and disabled people as of 2022;[3] in 2019, the program paid for half of all U.S. births.[4] As of 2017, the total annual cost of Medicaid was just over $600 billion, of which the federal government contributed $375 billion and states an additional $230 billion.[4] States are not required to participate in the program, although all have since 1982. In general, Medicaid recipients must be U.S. citizens or qualified non-citizens, and may include low-income adults, their children, and people with certain disabilities.[5] As of 2022 45% of those receiving Medicaid or CHIP were children.[3]

    Medicaid also covers long-term services and supports, including both nursing home care and home- and community-based services, for those with low incomes and minimal assets; the exact qualifications vary by state. Medicaid spent $215 billion on such care in 2020, over half of the total $402 billion spent on such services.[6] Of the 7.7 million Americans who used long-term services and supports in 2020, about 5.6 million were covered by Medicaid, including 1.6 million of the 1.9 million in institutional settings.[7]

    Medicaid covers healthcare costs for people with low incomes, while Medicare is a universal program providing health coverage for the elderly.

    Medicaid is means-tested (it’s for only poor people), whereas Medicare is not. President Lyndon Baines Johnson introduced Medicaid in 1965, and Medicare in 1966. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had introduced the federal taxation-based trust-funded Social Security retirement program in 1935; and both of those Presidents were Democrats, which used to be the Party that had some ideological commitment to workers, whereas the Republican Party, ever since a Confederate’s (pro-slavery) bullet assassinated the first (and the only progressive, or pro-democratic) Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, in 1865, has been, and is, committed only to investors, which is to say, only to the class of only rich individuals, the owners of businesses — managers instead of workers and consumers.

    There are just two basic philosophies of government: either it is democratic, meaning one-person-one-vote rule (rule equally by all residents), or else it is aristocratic (rule unequally by residents on the basis of each person’s wealth), meaning one-dollar-one-vote rule (which is the way that a corporation is run: the more shares a person owns, the more of a say in managing it the individual willl have). The Democratic Party used to believe in democracy (government rule as being a right that each resident has equally), and the Republican Party after Lincoln was shot has always believed in aristocracy (government rule as a privilege that only certain residents have, they generally being the rich ones, but also sometimes only Christians). Consequently, the Democratic Party was “populist,” and the Republican Party was “elitist.” (Republicans — after Lincoln — were the Party of “business,” meaning of the owners of corporations.)

    In America, as in all countries, there is also race as a political factor, and it’s traditionally categorized as being based upon either nationality or else religion of a person’s ancestors, or else (for instantaneous categorization) the individual’s appearance marks one’s ‘race’. But, whatever a ‘race’ is, racism or support for race being considered as a qualification for receiving a benefit from government or else as being a qualification for exclusion from receiving that benefit, can be supported both by populists and by elitists.

    However, whereas racism is intrinsic to aristocracy, it is not intrinsic to democracy. Aristocracy believes in hereditary right, such as to pass wealth on to one’s children, whereas democracy rejects that and can survive only where intergenerational transmission of privately acquired wealth is by law either severely limited or else totally prohibited. And that exclusionary right for an aristocrat, to pass on to the next generation the person’s private wealth, is what produces, after many successive generations, increasingly concentrated wealth, and increasingly widespread poverty, which then institutionalizes aristocratic government and rule by privilege, instead of rule by individuals’ work and merit. Consequently, any democrat (or populist) who tolerates aristocracy, is tolerating the end of democracy.

    For example, many of America’s Confederates considered themselves to be democrats but supported slavery of Blacks. Not only the Confederate aristocracy did. But — just as in Israel, there is no democracy, because only the Jews can vote there — the Confederacy was no democracy, because only the ‘Whites’ could vote there.

    Similarly, Germany’s Nazis weren’t only the aristocracy, but also many Germans who considered themselves to be populists, and Hitler exploited this widespread illogicality among the public, in order to create his extremely elitist-racist-imperialist (or ideologically nazi) nation.

    The theory behind the cutbacks in Medicaid is that the poor are to blame for their poverty. Any aristocrat believes it to at least some extent, despite its being stupid. It is stupid because any aristocrat knows that money is power: the power to hire people to do your will, and to fire ones who won’t or can’t. Any aristocrat experiences that reality all the time. The most-powerless individuals in any society are the poorest. Obviously, something causes a person to be poor, but heredity — being born poor and surrounded by only poor people — will always be the biggest portion of that cause. The people with the power are the aristocrats, the super-rich few who own the vast majority of the nation’s private wealth. They create — and, by means of their lobbyists and media and politicians, constantly impose — the system that produces, the ever-increasing concentration of wealth and so of power. The poor don’t, and can’t. And won’t. Consequently, any theory that the poor ought to be blamed for their poverty is an obvious lie, which benefits the richest. Of course, an individual also has some effect on his or her getting and staying out of poverty, but, in an aristocracy, the system itself has a much bigger effect on that.

    By contrast against the aristocratic view, an intelligent democrat acknowledges (not merely to oneself but also publicly) that money is power, and consequently blames the super-rich — the very few who possess most of it — for society’s problems. Not the poor. And not any ‘race’. This isn’t to say that there aren’t intergenerational factors that help to explain how wealthy a given individual is — of course, there are (and that is the problem). But whereas a democrat tries to reduce them, an aristocrat tries to enlarge them. And that’s the ideological difference between an aristocrat and a democrat.

    If America’s supposed effort to increase economic opportunity for poor people is to rely upon the poor ‘raising themselves up by their own bootstraps’, then it isn’t relying upon the billionaires to have the responsibility for solving this problem. But they, the super-rich, are the ones who actually caused the problem by their controlling not only their corporations but the press, and the lobbyists, and the politicians, who have so deceived and so controlled the public, as to have instituted this widely oppressive system, which the poorest suffer the most. It would not exist in an authentically one-person-one-vote government and nation and culture. It can exist only in an aristocracy (which is what post-WW2 America is).

    The most efficient way to minimize social inequality is to replace aristocracy with democracy. It’s that simple, and that difficult. Only the super-rich possess the means to do it, but none of them actually wants to. Are all of them psychopaths? They benefit from the system that they have imposed. They benefit not only in wealth but in their corporate protective immunity from having to go to prison for any corporate crimes they require their subordinates to do in order to generate their wealth. For example, on April 10, Good Jobs First headlined “The Trillion-Dollar Mark: Corporate Misconduct Cases Reach a Dubious Milestone,” and reported:

    Regulatory fines, criminal penalties, and class-action settlements paid by corporations in the United States since 2000 have now surpassed $1 trillion. Total payouts for corporate misconduct grew from around $7 billion per year in the early 2000s to more than $50 billion annually in recent years, according to a new report by Good Jobs First.

    This amounts to a seven-fold increase in current dollars — a 300% increase in constant dollars.

    These figures are derived from Violation Tracker, a wide-ranging database containing information on more than 600,000 cases from about 500 federal, state and local regulatory agencies and prosecutors as well as court data on major private lawsuits.

    The database shows that 127 large parent companies have each paid more than $1 billion in fines and settlements over the past quarter-century. The most penalized industries are financial services and pharmaceuticals, followed by oil and gas, motor vehicles, and utilities. …

    Among the findings:

    • Bank of America has by far the largest penalty total at $87 billion. It and other banks, both domestic and foreign, account for six of the 10 most penalized parent companies.

    • Other bad actors include BP (mainly because of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill), Volkswagen (because of its emissions software cheating scandal), Johnson & Johnson (largely because of big settlements in cases alleging its talcum powder causes cancer), and PG&E (due to cases accusing it of causing or contributing to wildfires in the West).

    • Recidivism is a major issue. Half a dozen parent companies—all banks—have each paid $1 million or more in over 100 different cases, led by Bank of America with 225. Two dozen parents have at least 50 of these cases on their record.

    • All of the top 10 and 95 of the 100 most penalized parent companies are publicly traded. The most penalized privately held company is Purdue Pharma, which is going out of business for its role in causing the opioid crisis.

    • In more than 500 of the cases involving criminal charges, the U.S. Justice Department offered the defendant a deferred prosecution or non-prosecution agreement. …

    That’s $1T during the reported 23-year period, and these fines are mere wrist-slaps to those stockholders’ annual profits. But the victims lost vastly more than that, and this report made no mention of anyone having gone to prison for any of these corporate crimes, though at least two of them did — Bernie Madoff and Sam Bankman-Fried, both of whom had robbed their fellow-investors. But, for example, the Purdue Pharma case had killed at least hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, and yet none of the Sackler family that owned it, and that drove their employees to perpetrate it, had even a possibility of going to prison for any of those deaths, nor for the vast other harms that their personal wealth-building had driven.

    In an aristocracy, the only super-rich who ever get imprisoned are ones who have harmed other corporate investors — never ones who have harmed or even killed vast multitudes of the middle and bottom economic classes.

    Remarkably, the corrupt Democratic Party President of the United States has taken to the hustings in his fake-‘populist’ re-election campaign by citing a 2021 White House economic study, which calculated that America’s billionaires are taxed at far lower rates of income than regular Americans are. It found that if the 400 richest (highest-wealth) Americans (all of whom were multi-billionaires, and not merely billionaires, and who donate collectively around 30% of all of the money that is expended in U.S. political campaigns) had been taxed including their “income” from the corporate stock that they own (which now and always has essentially never been taxed because there are so many ways to avoid ever being taxed on it), then they were collectively being taxed at only an 8.2% rate on all of their income. It was a sound study. However, the billionaires-controlled think tanks and media slammed it by deceiving their public about it. For example, PolitiFact rated Biden’s statement “False” because (and this displays its contempt for the intelligence of its readers): “Under the current tax code, the top 1% of taxpayers pay an effective tax rate of 25% on the income the government counts.” But that’s exactly what the White House economists had been criticizing! They were criticizing the current tax-laws in the U.S., which DON’T include as reported income those stock profits.  For once (while campaigning for re-election), Biden told the truth, even though it’s a truth that his billionaire backers want the public NOT to know. (And PolitiFact is funded by numerous billionaires, both Democratic Party ones such a Soros’s Open Society, and Republican ones such as the Charles Koch Institute.) Is it any wonder, then, why the U.S. wealth-distribution is becoming increasingly skewed to the billionaires, even though so much of their wealth is being hidden and not even reported to the Government?

    The post The Most Efficient Way to Minimize Social Inequality first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • If you ever wanted a job bootlicking for Tory big brother Britain, look no further, because the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has you covered. Champing at the bit to snoop into the DWP benefits of the most marginalised members of society?

    Well, it has a role just for you – as per the government’s latest machinations to persecute disabled, chronically ill, poor, and vulnerable people across the UK. Naturally, these new fraud-finder general jobs are part of the department’s suite of new plans to “crack down” on so-called “benefit fraud”.

    DWP’s “benefit fraud” fiction

    On 3 April, journalist Rachel Charlton-Dailey broke the news that the DWP has posted job listings for up to 25 “covert surveillance officers”. As the Big Issue reported:

    The job roles are, according to the advertisement on GOV.UK, part of the DWP’s response to tackling fraud within the welfare system.

    The ad says: “The department utilises covert surveillance to gather evidence to prove/disprove offences” – although it is not clear what these offences are.

    Of course, this wasn’t to tackle the multi-billions in dud covid PPE type of fraud. Instead, these jobs are to wrangle with the criminal masterminds that are, largely, sick and out-of-work people barely surviving on the lowest social security benefits in Northern Europe.

    As the Canary’s Steve Topple has previously pointed out, “benefit fraud” is, of course “a right-wing construct not grounded in reality”. More specifically, he has highlighted that a significant proportion of the DWP’s fraud estimates are not in fact from actual claimants. Instead, Topple has detailed how:

    much of the £8.3bn the DWP promotes as fraud (and that the media dutifully laps up) is just based on assumptions and guesswork.

    But why let the facts get in the way of a good scapegoating? Moreover, Charlton-Dailey noted that:

    This latest recruitment drive comes after the government has upped its commitment to benefit fraud with its Fraud Strategy, which was released last year. According to GOV.UK the plan “sets out bold new measures to fight fraud against the welfare state” and they say it will save the DWP £1.3bn.

    So, let us get this straight. The government spaffed multiple billions of pounds up the wall for rich Tory donors, and this new slick surveillance could help save the DWP – wait for it – a grand sum of £1.3bn.

    Hang up your ballet shoes, as according to the DWP’s latest hiring drive, your next job could be in benefit snooping (you just don’t know it yet.)

    Sweeping new surveillance powers

    Of course, the roles are part and parcel of the Tory government’s sweeping new surveillance plans for the DWP.

    Specifically, it’s currently trying to ram through a series of new powers to enable the department to spy on the bank accounts of benefit claimants. It is doing so through the innocuously titled Data Protection and Digital Information Bill.

    So far, campaigners and media outlets have lambasted a litany of the DWP’s souped-up surveillance schemes for things like:

    • The use of AI to detect fraud (What could possibly go wrong? I’m old enough to remember when faulty AI wrecked the lives of 900 postmasters)
    • Posing a serious risk to disabled people who have set up bank accounts for social care
    • Threatening the dignity and privacy of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and other disability benefits claimants

    Over 40 organisations condemned the bill’s surveillance powers in March in an open letter to work and pensions secretary Mel Stride. In it, groups including Disability Rights UK and Big Brother Watch argued that:

    There are approximately 22.6 million individuals in the welfare system, including those who are disabled, sick, caregivers, job seekers, and pensioners. They should not be treated like criminals by default

    Meanwhile, a petition is calling on the DWP to ditch the new surveillance plans.

    Scapegoated as “scroungers”

    As the Guardian’s Frances Ryan pointed out, the surveillance roll-out is the inevitable end result of the government (and its corporate media lapdogs) painting benefit claimants as “scroungers” and a burden on the taxpayer:

    Invariably, scapegoating is exactly the point. Ostensibly, the Tory government is shirking accountability for fomenting a devastating cost-of-living crisis. No changes there of course – it’s Tory writ large.

    As Topple also recently reported for instance, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) accused the UK government of systematically violating disabled people’s human rights – and for the second time, no less. There too, the government of course denied responsibility.

    But back in morally-bankrupt Tory Britain, the government’s putrid weaponisation of welfare benefits has had devastating consequences. The DWP has presided over tens of thousands of deaths, as claimants waited for benefits, or after the DWP told them they were fit to work. Repeated inquests into the deaths of benefit claimants have revealed the rot at the heart of its routinely punishing and deadly system.

    So, it’s not hard to imagine what these new DWP benefit fraud-busting jobs will mean for the people claiming this social security. What’s more, finding new ways to deny people benefits – in this instance, by criminalising them – sits comfortably alongside the government’s plans to push people into work. Of course, this drive has particularly targeted sick and disabled claimants.

    Naturally, the Tories want you to blame your neighbourhood “scrounger” for all social ills. After all, it has spent years peddling this pernicious rhetoric, demonising disabled, chronically ill, and vulnerable claimants to manufacture consent for stripping back the welfare state.

    Spy on your DWP benefits-claiming neighbours

    So, enter the era of “covert surveillance officers”. The Big Issue explained that the new roles:

    are based in 20 locations across the country with salaries ranging from £29,500 to £33,979.

    Moreover, it highlighted that:

    The job’s description is very vague on detail as to what the job actually entails. It includes “leading in taking forward tasking requests”, sometimes leading “on the activities of the surveillance team” and “actively participating in surveillance operations”, with hours described as “unsociable”, starting early and ending late.

    The ad does however state that hirees will be producing “evidential packages” which include obtaining and writing up witness statements to provide evidence of the activities witnessed. Successful applicants may be required to wear “covert audio equipment” and will also have to present the evidence obtained, which includes compiling and editing video and audio data.

    In other words, for five figures, you can become a dutiful agent of the UK’s fascist, eugenicist state. But hey, be grateful for the opportunity, or the DWP might deny you social security.

    Whilst the bigshot corporate bosses have the government eating out of the palm of their hand, millions in the UK can’t afford to eat at all.

    As ever, in Tory UK, it’s blame your benefit “scrounger” neighbour, not the slimy rich elite that grease the wheels of this despicable government. Now, you can even spy on benefit claimants’ spending too – and get paid to do it.

    Feature image via Hannah Sharland.

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Suppose 53 million low wage workers across the United States seized control of politics. See the hotel maids washing bedsheets and migrants in blood-splattered aprons at meat plants mobilizing for their interests. See baggy-eyed nurses and fast-food staff take part in mass uprisings. Now imagine millions of poor people standing in long lines to vote. America would marvel at this sleeping giant…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Households across all continents wasted over one billion meals a day in 2022, while 783 million people were affected by hunger and a third of humanity faced food insecurity. Food waste continues to hurt the global economy and fuel the climate crisis, nature loss, and pollution. These are the key findings of a UN Environment Programme (UNEP) food waste report published on Wednesday 27 March, ahead of the International Day of Zero Waste.

    UNEP food waste report

    The UNEP Food Waste Index Report 2024, co-authored with WRAP, provides the most accurate global estimate on food waste at retail and consumer levels. It provides guidance for countries on improving data collection and suggests best practices in moving from measuring to reducing food waste.

    In 2022 there were 1.05 billion tonnes of food waste generated (including inedible parts), amounting to 132 kilograms per capita and almost one-fifth of all food available to consumers. Out of the total food wasted in 2022, 60% happened at the household level, with food services responsible for 28 per cent and retail 12 per cent.

    Inger Andersen, executive director of UNEP, said:

    Food waste is a global tragedy. Millions will go hungry today as food is wasted across the world. Not only is this a major development issue, but the impacts of such unnecessary waste are causing substantial costs to the climate and nature.

    The good news is we know if countries prioritise this issue, they can significantly reverse food loss and waste, reduce climate impacts and economic losses, and accelerate progress on global goals.

    One billion meals wasted

    Key points from the report include:

    • In 2022, the world wasted 1.05 billion tonnes of food. This amounts to one fifth (19%) of food available to consumers being wasted, at the retail, food service, and household level. That is in addition to the 13% of the world’s food lost in the supply chain, as estimated by FAO, from post-harvest up to and excluding retail.
    • Most of the world’s food waste comes from households. Out of the total food wasted in 2022, households were responsible for 631 million tonnes equivalent to 60%, the food service sector for 290 and the retail sector for 131.
    • Reducing food waste provides compounding benefits: Food loss and waste generates 8-10% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – almost five times the total emissions from the aviation sector. It occurs while 783 million people are hungry and a third of humanity faces food insecurity.
    • Households waste at least one billion meals a day: On average, each person wastes 79kg of food annually. The equivalent of at least one billion meals of edible food is being wasted in households worldwide every single day, using a very conservative assessment on the share of food waste that is edible. This is the equivalent of 1.3 meals every day for everyone in the world impacted by hunger.
    • Food waste is not just a ‘rich country’ problem. Following a near doubling of data coverage since the 2021 Food Waste Index Report was published, there has been increased convergence in the average per capita household food waste. High-income, upper-middle income, and lower-middle income countries differ in observed average levels of household food waste by just 7 kg/capita/year.

    UNEP food waste report: countries lack ‘adequate systems’

    Since 2021, there’s been a strengthening of the data infrastructure with more studies tracking food waste. Globally, the number of data points at the household level almost doubled.

    Nevertheless, many low- and middle-income countries continue to lack adequate systems for tracking progress to meet Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 of halving food waste by 2030, particularly in retail and food services.

    Only four G20 countries (Australia, Japan, UK, the US) and the European Union have food waste estimates suitable for tracking progress to 2030. Canada and Saudi Arabia have suitable household estimates, with Brazil’s estimate expected late 2024. In this context, the report serves as a practical guide for countries to consistently measure and report food waste.

    Food must ‘feed people – not landfills’

    Harriet Lamb, CEO of UK climate action NGO WRAP, said:

    With the huge cost to the environment, society, and global economies caused by food waste, we need greater coordinated action across continents and supply chains. We support UNEP in calling for more G20 countries to measure food waste and work towards SDG12.3.

    This is critical to ensuring food feeds people, not landfills. Public-Private Partnerships are one key tool delivering results today, but they require support: whether philanthropic, business, or governmental, actors must rally behind programmes addressing the enormous impact wasting food has on food security, our climate, and our wallets.

    Featured image via BBC London – YouTube

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The boss of British Gas’s parent company Centrica, Chris O’Shea, was given over an 80% payrise in 2023 – despite customers struggling to pay their bills, controversy over it sending bailiffs to force-fit prepayment meters – and the CEO himself saying just weeks ago he was paid too much.

    British Gas: money for nothing

    As investing.com reported:

    Centrica CEO Chris O’Shea’s total pay package in 2023 was £8.2 million, a jump of more than 80% from 2022, the British Gas owner’s annual report showed on Tuesday.

    O’Shea’s total remuneration in 2023 included bonuses and awards of about £7.3 million.

    Centrica in February had hiked dividends by about 33% after annual profits surged last year, partly driven by one-off benefits as the government provided help for consumers struggling with high-energy costs and compensated energy suppliers for unpaid debts they could not recover.

    O’Shea’s pay can hardly be down to an ethical performance by British Gas. For example, as the Canary reported in February 2023, a month earlier an undercover investigation by the Times newspaper found that contractors working for British Gas sent debt collectors to “break into” homes and “force-fit” meters.

    Some of the customers the report identified had “extreme vulnerabilities”. Journalist Paul Morgan-Bentley went undercover with British Gas and exposed its practice. He noted that the company was breaking into the homes of disabled people.

    Then, there’s fuel poverty. National Energy Action (NEA) reported that some four million households across the UK were in fuel poverty by October 2021. The NEA estimates there will be 6.5 million households in fuel poverty in the UK in April when the new price cap comes in.

    Amid this, British Gas’s profits surged – from £72m in 2022 to a staggering £751m in 2023.

    O’Shea: ‘nothing to do with me’

    Yet without irony, O’Shea himself told BBC Breakfast back in January that:

    You can’t justify a salary of that size… It’s a huge amount of money; I am incredibly fortunate. I don’t set my own pay; that’s set by our remuneration committee.

    His statement leaves you wondering what he has to say about his 80-something-percent increase now. People on X had a few answers to that:

    British Gas: happy to screw us over

    Meanwhile, Luke Hildyard is the executive director for the High Pay Centre – a think tank focused on pay, corporate governance and responsible business. He said:

    As Mr O’Shea himself admitted a few weeks ago, it’s not really credible to argue the work that he does is at all proportionate to a pay award even half this size, nor is it necessary to the success of the company. It’s a major governance failure and by extension a policy failure.

    The dysfunctional pay culture of corporate Britain is one of the biggest economic problems facing the country. We should stop major employers from wasting so much money on a tiny number of executives and investors, and put it towards something more efficient and socially useful like raising the pay of the wider workforce or investment in research and technology.

    Amen to that. O’Shea’s preposterously high salary has no justification – apart from rewarding people who are happy to screw the rest of us over.

    Featured image via BBC News – screengrab and Wikimedia

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A group of over 20 leading academic social scientists, including professors Prem Sikka and Danny Dorling, have written to the UK’s biggest investment firms and pension funds in a letter highlighting the risks associated with increased executive pay awards. It comes after think tank the High Pay Centre found that many bosses are still earning 75 times more than their lowest paid employees; doing nothing to improve inequality in society.

    High Pay Centre: high pay does not equal productivity

    The letter was co-ordinated by the High Pay Centre. It follows claims by the London Stock Exchange and a number of business leaders that higher top pay awards would improve the competitiveness of the UK economy.

    The academics have expressed reservations about these claims, arguing that:

    • There is limited evidence, beyond individual anecdotes, of UK companies failing to attract or retain key executives because of low pay levels.
    • The link between higher executive pay and better business performance remains questionable.
    • Any shortage of capable candidates for executive roles should also prompt scrutiny of companies’ leadership training and development processes.
    • Top pay increases for senior staff could have opportunity costs in terms of, for example, pay for low and middle income workers or investment in the business.
    • Wider pay gaps between executives and ordinary workers could have a negative impact on employee engagement, productivity and ultimately business performance that should be considered alongside the arguments for higher top pay.
    • Higher executive pay at major employers could trigger an increase in income inequality, leading to socio-economic problems that would damage the UK’s long-term prospects of economic success.

    The letter does not express blanket opposition to higher executive pay at all companies. It instead recommends that investors treat proposals for top pay increases with appropriate scepticism before choosing whether or not to support them on a case-by-case basis.

    Professor Alexander Pepper, emeritus professor of management practice at the London School of Economic and Political Science, said:

    While I welcome constructive debate, it’s hard not to conclude that the London stock market’s unfavourable international competitive position is a consequence of political uncertainty, a confused approach to international trade, a shortage of capital, and the absence of a coherent industrial policy, rather than a failure to remunerate top executives at US pay levels.

    Wider social policy issues also need to be recognised. Business is not carried on in a social and political vacuum.

    Inequality is not good for anyone

    Luke Hildyard, Director of the High Pay Centre said:

    The debate about pay in the UK needs to recognise that there is considerable evidence and a number of expert voices opposed to very high top pay awards. While it is not a zero sum game, excessive executive pay does have implications for the pay levels of the wider workforce.

    There is also a well-documented link between higher levels of inequality and much worse lower levels of happiness, health and wellbeing across society.

    The letter comes off the back of High Pay Centre research that showed in 2022:

    • The median CEO/median employee pay ratio across the FTSE 350 was 57:1 in 2022, slightly up from 56:1 in 2021.
    • 2022 saw a slight decrease in the median CEO/lower quartile (25th percentile, or lowest paid) employee pay ratio for the FTSE 350, at 75:1 compared to 78:1 in 2021.
    • In the FTSE 100, the median CEO/median employee ratio was 80:1 and the median CEO/lower quartile employee ratio was 119:1 (83:1 and 111:1 in 2021).

    Previous High Pay Centre research found that 76% of people think top earners should not be paid more than 20 times their low and middle earning colleagues, while just 3% thought that it was right for CEOs to make more than low and middle earners.

    Signatories

    Signatories to the High Pay Centre’s letter are:

    • Professor Sandy Pepper, Emeritus Professor of Management Practice, London School of Economic and Political Science
    • Professor Ruth Bender, Emeritus Professor of Corporate Financial Strategy, Cranfield University
    • Professor Gwyn Bevan, Emeritus Professor of Policy Analysis, Department of Management, London School of Economic and Political Science
    • Professor Christine Cooper, Chair in Accounting, University of Edinburgh Business School
    • Professor Chris Cowton, Emeritus Professor of Accounting, University of Huddersfield
    • Professor Danny Dorling, Halford Mackinder Professor of Geography, Oxford University Centre for the Environment
    • Professor Patrick Dunleavy, Emeritus Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, Department of Government, London School of Economics
    • Professor Gary Fooks, Professor of Criminology, School of Policy Studies, Bristol University
    • Dr Aditi Gupta, Senior Lecturer in Accounting and Financial Management, King’s College London
    • Professor Lynn Hodgkinson, Professor in Accounting and Finance, Bangor University
    • Professor Jonathan Hopkin, Professor of Comparative Politics, Department of Government, London School of Economic and Political Science
    • Stewart Lansley, Visiting Fellow, School of Policy Studies, University of Bristol
    • Professor the Baroness Ruth Lister of Burtersett, Emeritus Professor of Social Policy, Loughborough University
    • Professor Brian Main, Professor of Business Economics, University of Edinburgh Business School
    • Professor Kate Pickett, Professor of Epidemiology, University of York
    • Professor Andrew Sayer, Emeritus Professor of Social Theory and Political Economy, Lancaster University
    • Professor the Lord Prem Sikka of Kingswood, Emeritus Professor Accounting, University of Essex
    • Professor Tracy Shildrick, Professor of Inequalities, School of Geography Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University
    • Professor Peter Taylor-Gooby, Research Professor of Sociology, School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent
    • Dr Ben Tippett, Lecturer in Economics, School of Accounting, Finance and Economics, University of Greenwich
    • Professor Richard Wilkinson, Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology, University of Nottingham Medical School
    • Professor Steven Young, Professor of Accounting, Lancaster University Management School

    Featured image via nmarnaya – Envato Elements

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On 22 March, Jeremy Hunt accidentally agreed that more Britons than ever are underpaid in Tory Britain. On Sunday 24 March, he went on a media blitz to confirm this.

    Guess how well that went down?

    Jeremy Hunt’s cost of living

    The following is what Jeremy Hunt originally said:

    Finally I spoke to a lady from Godalming about eligibility for the government’s childcare offer which is not available if one parent is earning over £100k. That is an issue I would really like to sort out after the next election as I am aware that it is not huge salary in our area if you have a mortgage to pay.

    ‘£100k’ is a noteworthy figure right now, as it was reported on 15 March that MPs are set to get a 5.5% raise which will take their salaries up to £91k.

    According to The Salary Calculator, a salary of £100k will net you about £5.7k a month after deductions. When Hunt first made his comments, Sky News reported:

    According to the Office for National Statistics, the average salary for someone in full-time work was £34,963 in April 2023.

    Mr Hunt is standing for the Godalming and Ash constituency, having represented the Farnham and Haslemere constituency.

    According to Rightmove, the property marketplace website, the average price of a house in Godalming has been £683,463 in the past year.

    Looking on RightMove, if you bought a house that cost that much right now, you’d be looking at monthly mortgage repayments of £3.5k a month with a 10% deposit.

    Notably, mortgages are much higher than they’ve been in years, so the majority of Godalming homeowners will not be paying that much, but even if you’re paying £2.5k, the cost-of-living in that area (including childcare) will definitely mean that many are feeling the pinch for the first time.

    So, going through the figures, the man has something of a point. There are certainly areas of the country in which you can be earning three times the national average and yet still be affected by the cost-of-living crisis.

    Before you raise an eyebrow, we’re not pointing this out because we think people are being unfair to Hunt; we’re pointing it out because it highlights the absolute state of this country under the Tories.

    After all, this is a party which runs on a platform of hounding and impoverishing benefit claimants. Now, with the cost-of-living crisis becoming the cost-of-living reality, the chancellor can think of no solution other than to extend benefits to cover Middle England’s middle-class middle managers.

    In other words, if you live in Tory Britain and you’re not in a position to pay yourself, you’re probably underpaid.

    A Hunt’s trick

    All that aside, it’s staggering that Jeremy Hunt didn’t realise how bad it would sound to suggest £100k is a benefits-worthy income. Most people don’t live in areas in which you need to win the lottery to buy a bungalow. It’s even more staggering that he’s now gone on the Sunday politics shows to smirk and repeat this statement:

     

    Several tweets demonstrated that many can’t actually fathom £100k being a low wage:

     

    People are right to feel like this.

    How can you operate a functioning country in which cost-of-living varies so wildly from place to place? Because let’s not forget – even in areas like Godalming, many people will still be earning the minimum wage.

    What happens to them when £200k becomes the benchmark? Things will spiral even further, of course, as the managerial classes have to choose between paying their cleaners £80k a year or bussing them in from several counties over.

    Some pointed out why the gap between the rich and the poor is increasingly widening in Toy Britain – namely because the Tories have pushed the two realities apart with a crowbar:

    The above tweet references a story in the Mirror from 2018 which reads:

    Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt saved almost £100,000 in stamp duty on his purchase of seven flats after exploiting a Tory loophole.

    Stamp duty rules changed in 2016 so anyone buying a second home or buy-to-let property pays a 3% surcharge.

    But bulk purchases of six properties or more are exempt, meaning Mr Hunt will have saved at least £94,500 by buying the seven homes at once .

    Properties in the Southampton development are on the market for between £450,000 and £1million.

    He already faces a parliamentary sleaze probe into his alleged failure to register an interest in the company he used to purchase the flats in Ocean Village.

    Britain is increasingly a country in which hard work – or indeed any work – doesn’t pay.

    What does pay is having the cash to buy into an economic system which prints off free money for those without need.

    Greed eats itself

    Runaway greed is increasingly a problem for the Tories.

    It’s getting harder and harder to squeeze the poor, so the system has no option but to squeeze the middle class.

    Tories like Jeremy Hunt tend to sit in affluent constituencies, and now – when they make their once-an-election-cycle appearance at the village fetes – they’re having to say: ‘I’m sorry, Mr and Mrs Miggins, but it turns out you’re poor now. Don’t worry, though, because we’re lining up a spiffing benefits package for you to sign on to’.

    Given this situation, it’s clear to see why the Tories are losing support all over. And while Labour and the Liberal Democrats don’t have a plan beyond ‘more of the same’, they probably won’t get found out until five years from now when they’re on the telly telling us £500k is the new Universal Credit threshold, and Channel 4 films season 16 of Benefits Street on Park Lane and Mayfair.

    Featured image via Sky News

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The poor and marginalised have not seen any gains in almost 30 years of democracy. The poor remain poor and unemployment, poverty and inequality are worse today than at the end of apartheid. Many more people live in shacks than in 1994.

    Those who live in shack settlements continue to be denied access to basic services such as water and sanitation. Violent evictions continue. Those in the rural areas continue to walk long distances to the nearest health facilities. Those who live in farms continue to be abused by farmers who see them as less than human.

    For almost thirty years we have been treated as human waste and not as human beings. For as long as our dignity and our existence as humans is not recognised we will not be celebrating Human Rights day. For as long as rights on paper do not mean rights in reality we will not celebrate. Instead we are mourning the betrayal of democracy by the ANC, a democracy that so many ordinary people fought so hard for.

    The ANC is a corrupt government with immoral leaders who have no integrity. They came to power claiming to represent the people but have made themselves the enemy of the people. They have vandalised our humanity.

    The ruling party will be using this holiday that is held on the anniversary of the massacres in Sharpeville and Langa in 1960 for its own electioneering. It will do so despite the fact that it perpetrated its own massacre in Marikana in 2012, and despite the fact that it has never acted to stop the assassinations of grassroots activists. It will do so despite the fact that the people of Sharpeville and Langa continue to live under inhuman conditions, like so many other poor people across the country.

    The rights to equality, dignity and justice – as well as the more concrete rights to land and housing – have not been realised because the ANC is led by people who do not care about society. They continue to steal from the poor and deprive us of even basic services such as water, sanitation, electricity and refuse collection. They continue to deny us access to land, to a fair share of the wealth of the country and to a right to participate in all relevant discussions and decision making. Thirty years of rule by the ANC has been thirty years of shame.

    When we organise to build our power from below to struggle for justice we are met with repression, including assault, arrest, imprisonment and assassination. Even our most basic rights to political freedom are denied under the ANC. For us the rights and freedoms on paper do not exist in reality. Repression ensures that we remain oppressed.

    For this reason it is essential to use our collective vote to remove the ANC from power and to give a clear lesson to all politicians in all parties that if they disrespect the people and repress their struggles they will also be removed. We know that there is no socialist or even progressive party on the ballot and that we cannot vote for freedom and justice in this election. All the political parties are funded by factions of the elite and not one of them is on the side of the people. Not one of them is a mass democratic formation. We know very well that whatever coalition of parties rules us after the election we will have to keep struggling against them from the day that they form a new government.

    However we can vote against repression, against the political party that has murdered our comrades and the government that has allowed it to happen and often acted in support of repression. We will be using our collective vote as the poor to remove the ANC.

    Outside of the electoral process we will be organising to keep building our collective democratic power from below and using it to advance towards a more just society.

    The post Still No Human Rights for the Poor first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A new report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) shows that the public are footing the bill for poor-quality private rent homes in some of England’s most poverty-stricken towns. Blackpool and Hartlepool top the list – with a third of all private rents being paid for by housing benefit.

    Housing benefit: propping up rogue landlords

    The JRF’s new analysis has found that:

    • Over £1 in every £3 of private rent in Blackpool and Hartlepool is paid for with housing benefit.
    • Around £1 in every £4 of private rent is paid for with housing benefit in Hull, Great Yarmouth, Hastings, Oldham, Wolverhampton, Bradford, and Sunderland.
    • The majority (70%) of local authorities with below average private rents have a greater share of private rented homes that are more non-decent than average (23%).

    The towns spotlighted in JRF’s new report follow this pattern, with close to a third or higher of private rented properties categorised as ‘non-decent’ in some local authorities. A home is non-decent if any of the following apply – that it:

    • Does not meet the basic legal health and safety standards for housing.
    • Is not in a reasonable state of repair.
    • Does not have reasonably modern facilities and services.
    • Has insulation or heating that is not effective.

    There has been a rapid expansion of the private rented sector in coastal and ex-industrial towns across England. Enticed by lower house prices and higher rental yields, private landlords have bought up homes which are being let out to tenants in poor or even dangerous condition.

    Subsidising poor-quality housing

    Housing benefit is paid to low-income or non-working tenants to help them with their housing costs. In the towns like those JRF highlights, this money is being used to subsidise poor-quality housing. A lack of social housing leaves low-income tenants with no choice but to live in these poorly maintained private rented homes that could pose serious risks to their health.

    The report also finds that in over one in ten local authorities over £1 in every £20 spent in total is spent on temporary accommodation. As demand for temporary accommodation has soared there has been a dramatic rise in private companies renting poor-quality homes to local authorities by the night at a significant premium.

    This can cost councils up to five times more than similar homes that are local authority owned and is pushing some councils to financial breaking point.

    JRF is arguing that bringing private homes into social ownership can make high-cost temporary accommodation cheaper, drive up housing standards in lower-cost areas and make applicable local housing markets more equitable overall.

    Housing benefit for social housing

    This could be achieved by:

    • Supporting local councils to buy existing homes to let as better-quality and less expensive temporary accommodation: for example, by extending the current Local Authority Housing Fund.
    • Growing the community rented sector in lower-cost housing markets where homes are in poor condition and aren’t benefitting local communities.
    • Reforming Right-to-Buy to stop social housing from being sold off and to keep subsidies in the system: for example, by allowing councils to keep 100% of Right-to-Buy receipts and capping the Right-to-Buy discount at 30%.

    Darren Baxter, principal policy adviser at JRF, says:

    Taxpayers and local councils shouldn’t be footing the bill for poor-quality properties owned by private landlords. Tenants on low incomes and homeless people living in temporary accommodation are also paying the price by being forced to live in poor-quality and even downright dangerous homes.

    We need to get this dysfunctional system working again. Strategically bringing private homes back into social ownership is a rapid way to fix this crisis. Doing so would stop vast sums of public money paying for poor-quality homes and rebalance local housing markets towards more affordable homes.

    Featured image via Vice – YouTube

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As the fiscal 2024 budget battle unfolded, congressional Republicans made their position clear — they wanted spending on anti-poverty efforts to be dramatically slashed. Among the cutback targets were two longstanding nutrition programs: the nearly 50-year-old Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, and the 60-year-old Supplemental Nutrition Assistance…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Campaigners across the UK have been demanding that the Tories sort out rip-off energy bills. This saw protests from Newcastle to Bristol – with one directly outside parliament featuring Labour MP Zarah Sultana, just as the chancellor was delivering his Budget.

    Energy bills: nothing in the budget

    On Wednesday 6 March, the day of the final Budget announcement before a general election, groups joined together across the UK to protest after years of government policy leaving families struggling to make ends meet and costing lives.

    Participants expressed anger at another feeble budget which offered few crumbs of comfort to those suffering most from high energy bills. The chancellor failed to close the 91% loophole in windfall taxes, and failed to invest in the green jobs that would deliver cheaper home-grown energy for us all, and healthier homes.

    Stu Bretherton, Energy For All campaign coordinator at Fuel Poverty Action said:

    Hopefully today will be the last budget of a government that has driven mass poverty, broken public services, illness and death. But none of the parties are offering the bold changes that we desperately need so today we’re seeing trade unions, pensioners, tenants and health workers Unite for Energy For All.

    The next government’s energy policy should set their goal at ending fuel poverty, not managing it, and the money is there in energy company profits to guarantee a basic supply of energy for all.

    Cold homes kill

    The participants pointed to 4,950 excess deaths during the winter of 2022/23, demanding the next government take action to prevent further loss of life through an Energy For All guarantee, along with a national retrofitting scheme and public ownership of the energy sector. All this would reduce energy bills.

    Dr Isobel Braithwaite, a housing and health researcher at University College London, said:

    So much preventable illness is caused or worsened by living in cold damp homes, and healthcare workers see the impacts of poor housing conditions in clinics and hospitals every day. This government should be doing everything it can to bring down energy costs and upgrade housing.

    But right now, Government subsidies for oil and gas extraction, together with expensive energy bills, are enabling fossil fuel companies to make record profits whilst people struggle to heat their homes.

    A transition to cheap, clean, renewable energy that looks after our health and that of our planet, and retrofitting our homes so they waste less energy and stay warmer in winter, are urgently needed public health interventions that could save thousands of lives each year.

    Events highlighted deaths from cold and damp homes in support of the Unite 4 Energy For All campaign. The campaign was launched by Unite Community in 2023 in support of Fuel Poverty Action’s Energy For All demand.

    Protests across the UK over energy bills

    Unite National Officer for Energy, Simon Coop, said:

    Greedy governments and callous corporations are blighting the lives of millions. Every household must be guaranteed enough energy to cover essential needs. No one should be forced to choose between heating or eating. Last year alone, private firms reported profits of £45 billion from our country’s domestic energy system. It must stop.

    The day kicked off with a ‘Cold Homes Kill’ banner drop during the morning rush hour in Chesterfield:

    Protestors caught the attention of passengers at Birmingham New Street Station, where a die-in was held symbolising those killed by the conditions of their homes and extortionate energy bills:

    Mock funeral processions passed through the Arndale Centre in Manchester:

    One also happened in Leeds, from the bus station to the BBC studios:

    funeral procession in Leeds over energy bills

    Events involved among others members of Fuel Poverty Action, Unite Community, the National Pensioners Convention, Disabled People Against Cuts, Friends of the Earth, and health workers from Medact.

    Meanwhile, locals held outreach and information stalls on energy bills in around 15 towns across England, Wales, and Scotland – including Newcastle:

    Ipswich:

    energy bills stall ipswich

    And Swansea:

    Matthew Knight, a coctor in Bradford who joined the day said:

    As doctors, all through winter we are seeing patients coming into hospital with illnesses that have been caused or worsened by living in cold and damp homes. If this government wants to reduce the burden on the NHS, it should be tackling the determinants of health, in case this by bringing down energy costs and insulating homes.

    We need to transition to cheap, clean, renewable energy that looks after the health of people and our planet, instead of lining the pockets of shareholders.

    Drowning out the Hunt in parliament

    One of the largest demonstrations took place in Westminster itself, where people chanted as the Budget was being read by the chancellor. The crowd were addressed by individuals with direct experience of fuel poverty, rip-off energy bills, and cold homes, as well as organisers and members of parliament including Labour MPs Zahra Sultana and Kim Johnson:

    National Pensioners Convention general secretary Jan Shortt said:

    With a staggering 5.3 million now in debt to their providers due to years of rocketing costs, even a lower price cap on energy bills in April is unlikely to help them pay off what they owe. Worse still, those who have been forced onto pre-payment energy meters (PPMs) will simply be cut off and left in the cold because they cannot afford to top them up. This can only serve to endanger more lives.

    Featured image and additional images via the Canary and Fuel Poverty Action

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On Tuesday 5 March, the United Nations’ (UN) food and farming agency published a report highlighting the gendered impacts of the climate crisis in poor agrarian communities. The UN Food and Agriculture Agency’s (FAO) “The Unjust Climate” study detailed the financial disparity between men and women in rural households in light of climate-fueled extreme weather.

    Specifically, it expressed how the climate crisis intensifies existing gender inequalities. As a result, heatwaves and floods inflict greater economic pain on rural women than men.

    Climate crisis harming poorest households most

    Scientists say the effects of rising temperatures are already harming the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet most acutely. The UN FAO analysed data from 109,341 households in 24 low and middle-income countries. It cross-referenced these with rain, snow, and temperature data over a 70 year period.

    In rural areas, poorer households have limited access to resources, services and jobs. Given this, they can find it harder to cope with climate crisis impacts. Notably, on average, they lose 5% more income than wealthier households due to heatwaves and 4% more due to floods.

    What’s more, the UN FAO report found that women-led households are even harder hit. Compared to men-led households, they lose around 8% more of their income due to excessive heat. During floods they would lose 3% more relative to men.

    This amounts to an average drop in income per person of $83 due to heat stress, and $35 due to floods. Extrapolating this across all developing countries, these losses totalled $37bn and $16bn respectively.

    UN FAO: it’s worse for women

    The UN FAO report said that:

    Failure to address the unequal impacts of climate change on rural people will intensify the already large gap between the haves and have-nots, and between men and women

    Crucially, it explained that rural, women-led households in low and middle income nations already face more financial burdens than men when disaster strikes. The UN FAO attributed this to deep rooted “social structures, and discriminatory norms and institutions”.

    For instance, the report highlighted that women are bearing a much larger domestic and childcare burden than men, limiting their opportunities to study and find a job. Additionally, this also makes it harder for them to migrate or make money from non-farming activities when the climate crisis affects their crops.

    On top of this, the UN FAO report suggested that if these “significant existing differences” in wages are not addressed, the gap will worsen. Notably, it calculated that if average temperatures increase by just 1°c, women would face a 34% greater loss in total income compared to men.

    The perfect storm of patriarchy and climate crisis

    Already, scientists have estimated that current global temperatures are around 1.3°c hotter overall than they were in the late 19th century. Moreover, multiple studies have linked the climate crisis with the relentless increase in destructive extreme weather such as floods, storms and heatwaves.

    Ultimately, the study illustrated that a perfect storm of patriarchy and the climate crisis are pushing women in land-based communities into further poverty. Importantly, it shows that gender justice must be front and centre of efforts to tackle the climate crisis and the work to mitigate its impacts.

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse.

    Feature image via Lomoraronald/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1200 by 900, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Parliament will be the scene of yet more protests – after chronically ill and disabled people blocked a major road in the area over benefit cuts and deaths. This time, the focus is fuel poverty, energy companies profiteering, and the Tory government’s failure to act.

    Fuel Poverty Action demanding #EnergyForAll

    On Wednesday 6 March campaign group Fuel Poverty Action is joining the national Unite 4 Energy For All‘s day of action. This is alongside not only Unite Community but groups representing pensioners, tenants, health workers, chronically ill and disabled people, and more:

    The actions are in support of the Energy For All campaign. Launched by Fuel Poverty Action in 2022, it demands that every household is guaranteed enough energy for safe and adequate levels of heating, lighting, cooking as well as protecting additional needs like medical and mobility aids. It would be paid for by ending fossil fuel subsidies, redistributing energy company profits, and higher tariffs on household energy use beyond necessities.

    Fuel Poverty Action said:

    With the final budget before an election, we’re fed up of being punished with low incomes and high bills!

    #ColdHomesKill so we’re demanding the next government end deaths from fuel poverty by delivering the demands of our #EnergyForAll Manifesto along with democratic control of our energy system.

    The group has also signed an open letter calling on the government to act:

    Parliament protest and across the UK

    So, protests and actions are happening around the UK as follows:

    • Barnsley – Meet 12pm at Tower Centre Precinct near Coffee Boy.
    • Birmingham – Meet 12pm New Street Station.
    • Bristol – Meet 11.30am at Tony Benn House, Victoria St, BS1 6AY.
    • Exeter – Meet 1pm at Exeter Central Train Station.
    • Glasgow (8th March) – Meet 12pm at The Platform Cafe, Easterhouse.
    • Halifax – Meet 12pm at Southgate, above Market.
    • Ipswich – Meet 11am outside Boots, Tavern Street.
    • Leeds – Meet 11.30am outside Leeds Bus Station (John Lewis End).
    • Manchester – Meet 1pm outside Boots, Market Street.
    • Newcastle – Meet 11am at Grey’s Monument.
    • Newport – Meet 12pm John Frost Square outside Kingsway Centre, NP20 1ED.
    • Portsmouth – Meet 12pm outside Civic Offices.
    • Sheffield – Meet 12pm outside the Moor Market.
    • Southampton – Meet 11am outside Poundland, Above Bar Shopping Precinct.
    • Swansea – Meet 11am outside Quadrant Shopping Centre.

    The national protest will be focused on parliament. People can join it at 12pm on 6 March, opposite parliament on College Green.

    Stuart Bretherton, Fuel Poverty Action’s Energy For All campaign coordinator, previously told the Canary:

    Last winter [2022/23] energy bills were at the forefront of headlines and people’s minds. But while the news cycle has moved on, energy bills are still double what we paid two years ago and over 5 million households were in energy debt before this winter even began. We’re not accepting mass poverty as the new norm. The UK Government is passing the buck when there’s concrete policies they can adopt today to reduce poverty and save lives, so direct action is the obvious step for us to push them to do so.

    Spring may be on the way, but the effects of fuel poverty during winter can be long term – or even deadly. Moreover, energy companies and the government working hand-in-hand to rip us off is a year-round issue. So, if you can please join a Fuel Poverty Action protest near you – because cold homes do literally kill.

    Featured image via

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.