Work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall speaking in parliament. Image: House of Commons/ Flickr
The High Court has heard a legal challenge against a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) plan to reform disability benefits under the guise of helping people into employment
“We are determined to have a welfare system that encourages and supports people into work, while providing a vital safety net for those who need it most.”
So began the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) consultation into changing disability benefit assessment rules – changes that are predicted to cut the financial support given to around 450,000 disabled people by 2029, but which the consultation presented entirely as helping them.
But contrary to this rose tinting, internal DWP documents revealed at a High Court hearing last week suggest the proposals were at least as much about the Tories’ determination to cut benefits spending as they were about helping disabled people into work.
In fact, DWP officials warned that evidence was needed to justify their line that the measures were about supporting disabled people rather than saving money, while the government rushed the consultation through in time for the savings to be counted in last year’s Autumn Statement.
DWP officials were also aware of the potential mental health impact of cutting benefits to some claimants who would be affected by the measures.
And while an official impact assessment into the plans has still not been published, the court disclosures suggest up to 100,000 disabled people could be pushed into absolute poverty by the changes – although the exact basis of this figure is uncertain.
The revelations came as a result of a judicial review into the legality of the consultation that was heard last week. The case has been brought by disability campaigner Ellen Clifford, a member of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC).
And while the consultation took place under the last government, the current Labour government has not dropped the planned cuts – and has fought the judicial review at every step.
Genocide denier and Current UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is quoted that he supports Zionism without qualification. He also confirms that UK air force support has been essential in Israel’s mass-murdering genocide. Includes URLs https://www.declassifieduk.org/keir-starmers-100-spy-flights-over-gaza-in-support-of-israel/ and https://youtu.be/O74hZCKKdpAUK Foreign Minister David Lammy confirms that UK government and military are active participants in Israel’s genocides and that the F-35 parts that they suspended from supplying to Israel are instead simply diverted via the United States. He says see https://youtu.be/QILgUHrdWRE
Adrian Ramsay MP, Green Party Co-leader. Wikipedia CC.
Reacting to news that government and regulators have broken the law by being too lenient on water companies that spill sewage, and on the day Thames Water seeks a £3bn bailout, Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay MP said:
“For too long billions have been leaking out to shareholders instead of going into fixing our broken water system. But it will be water customers who are expected to bail out this failed model of privatisation through steep hikes to water bills.
“The way to end this fiasco and ensure government and regulators keep within the law is to put failing water companies into special administration and ultimately to bring water back into public ownership.”
Demands for renationalization of water services in England grows as private London water supplier requests bailout
Social justice organizations in Britain are urging judges to reject a bailout request from Thames Water, one of the country’s largest water providers, serving some 16 million people in the greater London area. Campaigners argue that approving the bailout of the private utility provider would allow Thames Water to continue its mismanagement while forcing consumers to shoulder the burden—raising annual water bills by £250 (USD 317) per user.
“This is daylight robbery. There are two people who can stop it, the judge in court today and Steve Reed, the environment secretary. He can protect billpayers from this by withdrawing Thames Water’s license, on the basis of financial insolvency, illegal sewage dumping, or both,” Cat Hobbs, Director of We Own It, told Peoples Dispatch. “Tony Blair’s government defended the public interest when Railtrack went bust, why won’t this government do the same for Thames Water?”
The company warned that without the bailout, it would run out of funds by March next year. However, Thames Water customers predict that they will be unfairly burdened with the costs of the bailout, including the high interest rates that will follow, while company management will face little accountability. The We Own It campaign noted that “it is obvious that the consumer as the sole source of revenue will indirectly fund this amount by way of increases in their water bills.”
While claiming financial difficulties, Thames Water has managed to secure substantial profit margins for its investors—many of whom are based outside Britain and remain unaffected by the declining quality of local water services—while awarding generous bonuses to its management. This pattern is not unique to Thames Water: all water and sewage companies across England have followed a similar path since privatization under Margaret Thatcher’s administration. During this time, these companies have paid out £72 billion (91 billion USD) to shareholders while accumulating £60 billion (76 billion USD) in debt. The result has been a chronic lack of investment in infrastructure, leading to leaks of both water and money.
“The argument for privatization was that there would be more investment, the water would be cheaper, and the service would be more efficient,” independent MP Jeremy Corbyn remarked during a discussion on water services earlier this year. “It’s really worked out well on that, hasn’t it?”
A risk to ecosystem and human health
In addition to financial losses, privatization has led to a significant decline in water safety and quality. Private operators have regularly discharged untreated sewage into rivers and the sea, causing harm to ecosystems and posing a direct threat to human health. Regulators, meanwhile, are unable to enforce compliance with safety standards due to conflicts of interest, low fine thresholds and the fact that the infrastructure itself remains under the companies’ ownership.
Unlike other European countries that experimented with water privatization by outsourcing service provision but mostly retaining ownership of infrastructure, England sold everything. As a result, rather than waiting for contracts to expire and reclaiming control, the government would need to buy back the entire water system from companies like Thames Water. According to We Own It, the initial cost for this process could start around £15 billion (19 billion USD)—an amount the campaign estimates could be repaid within just six years.
Re-nationalizing water services has led to significant successes in other countries, according to Matthew Topham, Lead Campaigner at We Own It. “Paris took back control of its drinking water in 2010 from an outsourced private contract. Bills were immediately lowered, customer satisfaction levels are high, and last year, they were able to reinvest 89 million euros in improving the network,” he explains. He adds that public ownership has also sparked community participation, with cities like Lima, Terrassa, and Paris establishing observatories to give communities, workers, and activists a voice in managing water services.
Campaigners against the Thames Water bailout are calling precisely for a return to public ownership. They argue that this approach would not only lower costs for users but also create space for more investment in infrastructure, improving water quality. This demand resonates with over 80% of the British public, who support the idea of water services being brought back into public hands.
The Labour government, however, does not share this vision. Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, the party’s program included an ambitious plan to renationalize water services. By 2024, Labour’s election program had moved away from this idea, keeping only the possibility of granting “new powers” to regulators to block bonuses for companies proven to pollute watercourses. As many on the left predicted ahead of the July 2024 election, Keir Starmer’s administration has shown a clear inclination toward privatization, not only in water services but also in healthcare and other sectors.
The final decision on Thames Water’s bailout request is expected in early 2025, with campaigners urging the court to consider users’ concerns and reject the proposal, paving the way for better water services.
The song uses the tune of the 1974 Mud classic Lonely This Christmas, which also topped the charts at number one when it was first released.
The parody version goes: “It’ll be freezing this Christmas, without fuel at home, it’ll be freezing this Christmas, while Keir Starmer is warm. It’ll be cold, so cold, without fuel at home, this Christmas.”
The song then uses a clip of Starmer saying: “She told me that she doesn’t get out of bed till midday because she doesn’t want to turn the heating on.”
