radiofree.asia

Category: poverty

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

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

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

    DWP benefit fraud: another dangerous idea

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

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

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

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

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

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

    When things go wrong…

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The fear over DWP benefit fraud is the point

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

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


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

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

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

    Winter fuel payment: putting pensioners health at risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Winter fuel payment petition goes to Westminster

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

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

    Chief executive of Independent Age Joanna Elson said that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Campaign groups come together to call Labour out

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

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

    Age UK showed its support for the campaign on X:

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

    Half a million voices the government cannot ignore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Feature image via X – Fuel Poverty Action

    By Hannah Sharland

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

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

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

    The NEU’s Free School Meals campaign

    The NEU’s campaign website describes how it is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    From a fellow campaigner,

    Sharon

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

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

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

    Hodgson keeping kids in poverty

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

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

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

    speak freely on issues she cares about.

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

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

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

    Living it up on industry lobby hospitality

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

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

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

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

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

    Additionally, it also boasts that:

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

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

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

    Association representing Free School Meals scandal firms

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Food boxes for the clinically vulnerable

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Free School Meals: dining without the wining

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hodgson leaving many children behind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Feature image via Youtube – Sky News/the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Chimney Rock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Epigraph sources:

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

    * Helene damages North Carolina Tourist Destinations.

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

    *** North Carolina State Parks Facebook Post.

    The post Chimney Rock first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

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

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

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

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

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

    As Joseph Rowntree Foundation principal policy adviser Katie Schmuecker said:

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

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

    15 year old Amara told CPAG:

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

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

    Chief Executive of the charity, Alison Garnham, said:

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

    Corporate profits are major benefit recipients

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

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

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

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

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

    Featured image via Channel 4 News – YouTube

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A Declaration of War on the Poor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Parliament sees protests and petitions over outrageous energy company profiteering

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

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

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

    Ofgem has now implemented a higher energy price cap of:

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

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

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

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

    Jonathan Bean of Fuel Poverty Action said that:

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

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

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

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

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

    Fuel Poverty Action take the petition to Parliament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Tax the rich companies profiteering off the energy price cap

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

    General Secretary of the National Pensioners Convention Jan Shortt said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Tommy Vickerstaff at 350.org therefore argued that:

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

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

    An energy guarantee to keep people warm and safe this winter

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

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

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

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

    Fuel Poverty Action’s Jonathan Bean said of this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Featured and in-text images via Angela Christofilou

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

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

    Energy price cap about to rise for winter

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

    Specifically, it will implement a higher price cap of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Winter fuel payment cut and standing charges

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

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

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

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

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

    Ofgem failing households in poverty

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

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

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

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

    Energy price cap: rationing power to get by

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

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

    In particular, it highlighted that:

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

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

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

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

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Whither White Poverty

    I joined the Poor People’s Campaign (PPC) in 2018 on the fiftieth anniversary of Dr King’s assassination. Rev. Dr. William Barber II, who Cornell West has described as “the closest thing we have to Dr. King,” envisioned the new PPC as a “re-consecration” of King’s life’s work to “change the coversation about what is possible in our life together.”

    The first PPC dissolved after King’s assassination and I felt this rebirth, with its dynamic leadership, organizational skills, social media savvy  and empathetic young membership,had the potential to evolve into a radical itransformative movement. There was a palpable sense of camaraderie at the meetings and as a left-wing atheist I felt welcome from the outset.  I heard Rev. Barber issue calls for nonviolent direct action and I participated in a June 4, 2018 civil disobedience protest at the Capitol in Harrisburg, PA. in which 13 of us were arrested for blocking an entrance to the building.

    My sense was that the PPC was exposing the “Four Evils” of poverty, racism, ecological devastation, and our war economy, the most egregious maladies of our society. For me, the  PPC was tantalizingly close to taking the next logical step: To move from publicly calling out these symptoms to diagnosing and naming the disease. In other words, as King advocated, the radical reconstruction of society.

    However, even at that early Harrisburg rally, one of many occuring across the country on that day, the pink elephant in the Capital Rotunda was the capitalist system but neither capitalism nor socialism was mentioned by a single speaker at the rally.  Making this explicit connection would be in keeping with Dr. King’ own political evolution as he eventually embraced socialism and in his later years said, “If we are achieve real equality the United States will have to adapt a modified socialism.”1  He also spoke openly about class struggle and the need to go beyond rallies and marches. I was also confident that King would have been unsparing in his criticism of the Black (mis)leadership class in Washington and their craven fealty to the Democrats.

    Over my 50+ years as a would-be radical public scholar and activist, I’d witnessed too many promising efforts come to grief on the shoals of trust in the Democratic Party where, as activist Danny Haiphong said “social justice movements go to die.” I began to worry that the PPC might fall into sheep dogging and corralling people for the Democratic Party. When I gently raised these concerns with conversations among PPC members they sensibly responded that this was a new organization still finding its way.  After writing to state leaders about my concerns I was promised “exciting new changes in the near future.”

    My late comrade Bruce Dixon, who was then the managing editor of Black Agenda Report (BAR) was writing about PPC, and asserting that “A ‘moral revival’ to explain our past and present but which fails to mention capitalism or socialism was problematic at best.” That is, how can we explain the aforementioned “Four Evils” without utilizing these concepts “makes Barber’s and the PPC’s actual politics of change more than a little cloudy.” And although I knew Dixon was right when he criticized PPC’s prioritization of voting our way out of this situation and that a “galaxy of foundations and wealthy individuals” were financing the PPC, I decided to remain a bit longer in hopes that those members who agreed with me would be able to affect a change in direction.2 That proved more and more difficult and in early 2002, Rev. Barber fell into step with U.S. imperialism by voicing his considerable moral support for Washington’s proxy war in Ukraine. BAR’s Executive Editor Margaret Kimberley’s expressed what I was feeling when she wrote “It is sad to see the name Poor People’s Campaign, which was launched by Martin Luther King, being used to support the war machine. It is even sadder to see a man like Rev. Barber succumb to the very worst narrative of American exceptionalism and demonization of another nation.”3

    PPC’s endgame remained opaque to me and I became a disillusoned inactive member. I was aware that on August 1, 2002,  200 members were arrested in Washington, D.C.during a protest at the Hart Office Building. They were demanding that Congress pass voting rights reform legislation. And in 2023, the PPC celebrated the 10th anniversary of Moral Mondays, a weekly event initiatiated by Dr. Barber. Given this background I was eager to read Rev. Barber’s new book White Poverty: How Exposing Myths About Race and Class Can Reconstruct American Democracy (New York: W.W. Norton, 2024), written with Jonathan Wilson-Hargrove. What was their take on the subject and did it hold promise of new direction for the PPC.

    Rev. Barber writes, “I have written this book to ask Americans to look at its poor — all its poor —  in the face and acknowledge that these faces are overwhelming white.” Barber, who Cornell West calls “the closest thing we have to Dr. King,” intones that he must be a “watchman” as in, “The ancient prophets remind us that when we can’t see a problem, a watchman must remind us.” He continues, “I sound the alarm about white poverty because I’m convinced that we expose the peculiar exceptionism of America’s poverty without seeing how it impacts the very people that our myths pretend to privilege.”  And writing about the poor in white skins, Barber suggests that “degradation that poor whites have learned to aim at Black people is precisely what keeps them from joining a coalition that could reconstruct America and end the humiliation of poverty for all us.”

    Barber contends that if we look at poverty in terms of measured practical necessities, only interrupted by a small emergency, there are 140 million poor and low wage people or 43 percent of the population in the United States. Some 24 million of them are Black and 66 million are white. Thus, to say that poverty is only a Black issue is to dismiss tens of millions of white people. Note: according to Health and Human Services (HHS) the official poverty measure (OPM is $15,060 in 2024). Accordingly, we are called to embrace a “new idenity” that unites poor and working people of every race.

    Barber is calling for a Third Reconstruction, a new “Moral Fusion” movement, the  first one occuring from 1865 to 1872 during which  poor whites and poor Blacks briefly engaged in a coalition based on shared economic interests. Barber agrees with most historians that although the First Reconstruction produced the 13th,14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, it ultimately failed because whites were manipulated into terrorizing new Black citizens through the KKK and other organizations.4 In Gerald Horne’s acute observation, during Reconstruction, “Whiteness become the battle pay, for many poor whites in order to protect the interests of the elite only they don’t know they’re doing it.”

    The Second Reconstruction was the civil rights movement of the 1960s when some voting rights were gained but again, the Republican “Southern Strategy”  of persuading Southern whites to leave the Democratic Party worked for them in the South and beyond. Further, voter suppression continued under the reaity of what Barber terms “Jim Crow, Esquire — the result of Jim Crow’s son going to law school and coming back to undermine democracy through more sophisticated means.”  However, as the authors point out, the claim has always been “If Black folks do better, white folks are going to do worse.”

    Barber is reminding readers that in1965, Dr. King said that the greedy oligarchy’s greatest fear was that poor whites and Blacks would join in a voting bloc that would fundamentally change the country. Poor people make up 30  percent of potential voters and thus a “Fusion Politics” could be the decisive factor promoting a progressive agenda and determine “who sits in the White House, who sits in the Senate and who sits in the governor’s office.”

    In the September 19, 2024 issue of Forbes Magazine, Subramiam Vincent notes that votes in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Georgia will likely decide who becomes president. Because the margin of victory in these seven states is likely to be narrow, poor and low income voters could be decisive — if they vote.This is why Barber titles a chapter in the book “Poor People Are the New Swing Votes.”

    This 259 page book often reads like a righteous jeremiad, replete with compelling personal stories from (mostly) white people in dire straights plus supporting data that provides a look at an egregiously neglected topic. And it’s not the least bit disparaging to suggest that this deeply empathic, faith-based, powerful message and movement should be linked to a political economy diagnosis of the problem. That is, the  class and power structure of American capitalism are responsible for the “Four Evils.”

    Early in the book, Barber quotes James Baldwin’s observation that “Not everything that is faced can be changed but nothing can be changed until it is faced” and elsewhere Barber delclares that “to tell the truth in a time of lies is itself a revolutionary act.”  One can heartily agree but that means facing and uttering the uncomfortable truth that democracy does not and never has existed in this country. Bourgeois democracy has served as a screen to conceal the class rule of capital. Unless I’m mistaken, Barber is prescribing a faux socialist, Bernie Sanders’ version of anti-democratic class rule under the Democrats. As Malcolm said in 1964 to Black people who vote for those who do nothing for them — like the Democrats — are “political chumps.” Put another way, liberal capitalist democracies can accommodate many things, including universal suffrage in  the interest of stability and creating the iilusion of democracy.There is every reason to believe that the later Dr. King (he was only 39 in 1968) would have  agreed with a mature Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois who stated that “Univeral suffrage does not lead to a real dictatorship until workers  use their votes to consciously rid themselves of the domination of private capital.”

    The late sociologist  Gerald Dawley concluded that “The ballot box was the coffin of class consciousness” and the Black anarchist revolutionary Lucy Parsons proclaimed “The ballot is only the paper veil that hides the trick.” And even after his earlier unqualified suppport for the franchise, the great W.E.B Du Bois refused to go the polls in 1956 and declared “Democracy is dead in the United States.”  Class consciousness was lacking during both the First and Second Reconstructions and my fear is that Barber’s well intentioned book, with its “Vote and Change the System”  slogan will not advance that class consciousness and may retard its development.

    Barber may be romanticizing the First Reconstruction in that the conditions for class consciousness and real international solidarity simply did not exist at the time. Even W.E.B. Du Bois wrote of the “lack of vision of vision” by both Black and White legislators in the South and my reading the Marxist Du Bois may have fallen to exaggerating  the “dictatorship of labor.”  And I’ve yet to see any evidence suggesting that the essentially  conservative Reconstruction governments were inclined to enact legislation hostile to capitalism. Such assertions reveal wishful thinking that to our peril in not umcomon on the Left.

    Again, there is a highly selective use of Dr. King’s writings in the book. We know know that in his final speech to the Southern Cristian Leadership Conference (SCLC) members he said, “One day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin asking that question, you are asking about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question you begin to question the capitalist economy.” And in a posthumously published essay, King wrote “…only by structural change can current evils be eliminated, because the roots are in the system rather those men in the system”  and a post gradualist reformer added, “The dispossessed of this nation — both White and Negro — live in a cruelly unjust society [and] they must organize a revolution against injustice.”5

    Finally, words “capitalism” and “socialism” did not make their way into the book and this reminded me of Bruce Dixon’s final bit of advice about the PPC: “We can and should march alongside them. What we can’t do as socialists is to consent to this cramped vision, a vision which refuses  to name the capitalist system.”6

    ENDNOTES:

    The post Whither White Poverty first appeared on Dissident Voice.
    1    Martin Luther King, Jr. “A Testament of Hope” in James Washington, ed. The Essential Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Harper and Row, 1991), p.315. As found in Paul Street, “Remembering the Officially Deleted Dr. King,” Counterpunch, January 17, 2014.
    2    “The Poor People’s Campaign Dishonors Martin Luther King,” Margaret Kimberley, Black Agenda Report, 04 2022.
    3    Rev. Barber’s Sermon on Militarism. MLToday/May 11, 2002. Barber and Wilson Hartgrove are respectively, the founding director and associate director of The Center for Public Theology and Public Policy at Yale Divinity School. The center is funded, in part, by the Ford Foundation and as Christian Parenti has noted, these foundations are adept at using social justice rhetoric reminiscent of the1960s. However, “…they are not established to and are not seeking to overthrow, undo or transform American capitalism.” See, “How Wokeness Kills Class Politics and Empowers Empire,” (w/Christian Parenti)/ The Chris Hedges Report, September 25, 2022.
    4    One could argue that the Federal government’s refusal to keep troops in the South that allowed for the failure of Reconstrucion. There were 17,657 troops in the south in October 1868 and 11,237 a year later. By 1987, the number had fallen to 5,000. It’s been estimated that a minimum of 20,000 troops and perhaps up to 180,000 would have been necessary to stabilize Reconstruction. Many of the troops were redeployed to the West to continue the genocide against indigenous peoples. See, Daniel Bynam, “White Supremacy, Terrorism, and the Failure of Reconstruction in the United States,” International Security, 46, 1, Summer, 2021. As Gerald Horne asserts, W.E.B. Du Bois could have performed an immense service if he looked at Reconstruction through the lens of colonialism, See his, “Abolition Democracy,” The Nation, May 16/23, 2022.
    5    Dr. King, “A Testimony of Hope,” Playboy, 1969-01.
    6    Dixon, Black Agenda Report.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

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

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

    Winter fuel payments cut: hitting the poorest households

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

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

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

    Specifically, the DWP detailed that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pension Credit uptake falling far short

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1.6 million: a reoccurring figure

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

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

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

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

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

    Soaring private renting prices

    The latest ONS figures on private rent inflation show that:

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

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

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

    What is Local Housing Allowance?

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

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

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

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

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

    Why is it a problem for private renters?

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

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

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

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

    Why is it a problem for the government?

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

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

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

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

    Local Housing Allowance must be unfrozen and fixed

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

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

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

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

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Peace: Well-Being for the Poorest

    Peace has always been fundamental to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

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

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

    20,000 call for Ofgem to ditch cruel standing charges

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

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

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

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

    demonstrated the strength of feeling among the public for change

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

    these costs to energy suppliers to absorb using profits

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

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

    Fuel Poverty Action’s Jonathan Bean said that:

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

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

    The ‘cruelty of our current system’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Therefore, Shortt argued that:

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

    Echoing this, Bean also said that:

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

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

    Compounding the energy crisis for chronically ill and disabled people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Corbyn backs the standing charges campaign – and you can too

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

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

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

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

    The campaign letter blasts Ofgem on this point, saying:

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

    Bean also summed this up, saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

    Standing charges: pushing households into fuel poverty

    Energy regulator Ofgem explained that standing charges are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Bills set to soar

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

    However, much like the unit price, Ofgem’s estimate was also only the average. In reality then, the standing charge can also be much higher for some households. This is because it can vary based on supplier, the area you live, and the type of tariff you’re on.

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

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

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

    ‘Inhumane’ standing charges cause ‘energy starvation’

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

    Naturally, these typically tend to be poorer households who can’t afford to use as much in the first place. In other words, the higher proportion of what they pay for their bills goes towards the standing charge. It can even literally mean that those who haven’t used any energy for months build up this inflated cost.

    The Energy For All letter therefore argues that:

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

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

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

    Ofgem not doing its job

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

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

    demonstrated the strength of feeling among the public for change

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

    these costs to energy suppliers to absorb using profits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Tell Ofgem what you think

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

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

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

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

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

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

    A devolved DWP work programme

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

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

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

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

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

    The scheme delivered value for money

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

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

    Working Well: Work and Health programme

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

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

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

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

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

    However, GMCA argued that:

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

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

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

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

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

    Passing the DWP buck?

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

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

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

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

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

    A ‘range of services’?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    DWP back-to-work results fall short

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Again however, GMCA contested this, stating that:

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

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

    Working Well not keeping people well

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

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

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

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

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

    Barriers to work

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

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

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

    However, there were two major issues with this.

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

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

    GMCA says…

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

    A spokesperson told the Canary that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A thin veneer of progressiveness

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

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

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

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

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

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

    Winter fuel payment motion

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

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

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

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

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

    Starmerite loyalists make shameless U-turns

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

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

    Spoiler alert: he abstained.

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

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

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

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

    Losing the whip

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

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

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

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

    Labour lies over winter fuel payment vote

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

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

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

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

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

    Feature image via Youtube – Rachel Reeves

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Martin Crewe added:

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

    “Things were so hard”

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Barnardo’s can help

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

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

    Martin Crewe added:

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

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

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

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

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Real-world impacts of cuts

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

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

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

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

    DWP Pension Credits campaign: a mixed message?

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

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

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

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

    What is Labour thinking?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour faces protests over toxic London City Airport expansion

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Labour: putting wealth above health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Labour puts corporate wealth over children’s health

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

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

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

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

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

    Feature and in-text images via Fossil Free London

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rachel Reeves’s bullshit black hole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Convenient framing as a pretext for austerity

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

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

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

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

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

    Punching down by Labour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rachel Reeves: it’s political choices, once again

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

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

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

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

    Energy price cap to rise this winter

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

    Between 1 October to 31 December 2024 the energy price cap is set at £1,717 per year for a typical household who use electricity and gas and pay by Direct Debit. This is an increase of 10% compared to the cap set between 1 July to 30 September 2024 (£1,568).

    This is lower than the same period last year. Crucially however, as the End Fuel Poverty Coalition pointed out, it means energy bills will still be well above pre-pandemic prices:

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

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

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

    Winter fuel payment double-whammy

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Brearley’s bitter cold and callous profit agenda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    GB Energy – where are those lower energy bills?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Feature image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

    School uniform: yearly stress

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

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

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

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

    How does the #UniformReform tool work?

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

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

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

    The financial impact of branded school uniform

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

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

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

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

    The response:

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

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

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

    Featured image supplied

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

    Energy companies: rolling in it

    Interim results this week show the following profits:

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

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

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

    “It’s just obscene”

    Climate Cymru Campaign Coordinator spokesperson David Kilner said:

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

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

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

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

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

    End Fuel Poverty Coalition coordinator Simon Francis said:

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

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

    Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift added:

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

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

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

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

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

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

    Starmer’s first test

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

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

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

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

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

    Sir Kid Starver

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

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

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

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

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

    Embedding poverty

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

    Charity Barnardo’s chief executive Lynn Perry said:

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

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

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

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

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

    Dissent

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Joke country

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

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Evening Standard

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A new benchmark for employers

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

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

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

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

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

    Making a “big difference” to in-work poverty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Featured image via Envato Elements

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

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

    Times’ latest DWP benefit fraud bullshit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ‘Dark money’ think tank has a take on it

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Fictitious fact-fiddling over DWP benefit fraud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Feature image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

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

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

    ‘Free School Meals For All’: campaigning at parliament

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Entrenched poverty and inequality

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

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

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

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

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

    Promoting equality, enhancing performance

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

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

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

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

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

    ‘An investment in all our futures’

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

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

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

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

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

    Overall, as the No Child Left Behind campaign says:

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

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

    Free school meals: do it now, Labour

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

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

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

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

    Featured image via NSSN – X

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

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

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

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

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

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

    Child poverty: Gordon Brown to the rescue with… multibanks

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    Not the first multibank on the block

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Feature image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.