Lynn Perry, Chief Executive of the children’s charity Barnardo’s, says: ‘The Spring Statement today offered little hope to the 4.3m children and their families who are living in poverty. In fact, the welfare changes announced today will make things even worse, putting an extra 50,000 children into relative poverty. These children face devastating impacts on their health, well-being and life opportunities long into adulthood.
‘While we welcome the investment to recruit 400 new foster carers, much more action is urgently needed to achieve the government’s ambition to create the healthiest generation of children. Planned freezes to universal credit will add to the worry facing families already struggling to make ends meet. Looking ahead to the Spending Review, we urge the government to prioritise investment in lifting children out of poverty – an investment in children is an investment in the country’s future.’
…
Dr Sarah Hughes, CEO of mental health charity Mind, adds: ‘The extra cuts to benefits announced today are devastating and will push more people into a mental health crisis.
‘It’s a political choice to try fixing the public finances by cutting the incomes of disabled people, including people with mental health problems. Benefits are a lifeline for so many people. Cuts will push people into poverty. This is policy making by numbers with little recognition of the impact on real people’s lives.
Keir Starmer confirms that he’s proud to be a red Tory continuing austerity and targeting poor and disabled scum.
Reducing the gap between the basic and incapacity rates of universal credit could mean billions more in cuts for ill and disabled people
The government is downplaying the true scale of planned cuts to social security, according to analysis from the New Economics Foundation (NEF), out today. NEF has calculated that planned overall savings of £6bn from the social security budget could actually result in support for ill and disabled people being slashed by between £7.5bn and £9bn a year by 2029 – 30.
Government proposals leaked last week contained a range of measures totalling over £6bn of savings. These included one major “cost neutral” measure that did not contribute to the total savings figure: increasing the basic rate of universal credit (UC) while cutting the additional rate received by people unable to work due to disabilities or poor health. This is intended to reduce the £400-a-month gap between the two rates. However, NEF analysis of Resolution Foundation figures shows that this would likely mean much greater cuts than the £6bn savings figure suggests to support for 1.7 million households with an ill or disabled adult.
Today’s NEF analysis has found that:
Closing the gap in monthly payments by £100 would result in cutting an extra £1.5bn in payments to ill and disabled people – equivalent to £73 a month for each person.
Halving the gap would result in cutting an extra £3bn in payments to ill and disabled people – equivalent to £146 a month for each person.
When combined with other planned cuts to personal independence payments (PIP), this could result in a total loss of support for ill and disabled people of between £7.5 and £9bn.
This figure does not include the £2bn of cuts to be achieved through changes to the work capability assessment, which were announced by the previous government and included in the autumn budget figures. If the government also proceeds with these changes, it could take the total cuts to around £10bn a year by 2029 – 30.
Tom Pollard, head of social policy at the New Economics Foundation (NEF), said:
“We urgently need honesty from the government about the scale of the cuts they have planned. We have seen a very real increase in the scale and complexity of poor health and disability in the working-age population, compounded by a cost-of-living crisis, crumbling public services and poor-quality, insecure work. We should be tackling these underlying causes and supporting more people to work and live independently where possible. But slashing the incomes of people in this situation will fail to deliver sustainable savings and will make millions of people’s lives even harder than they already are.”
Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves wear the uniform of the rich and powerful. They have all had clothes bought for them by multi-millionaire Labour donor Lord Alli. CORRECTION: It appears that Rachel Reeves clothing was provided by Juliet Rosenfeld.
There are plenty of ways we could enter a new global crisis. One might stem from a pandemic, a cyber attack, or any one of the current wars escalating out of control. Already underway, though, is the crisis of accelerating climate change.
That unfolding global catastrophe has long existed but is becoming more urgent week by week, as climate scientists issue increasingly strident warnings over what is happening and we see hard evidence in the form of extreme weather around the world.
The crisis is not remotely being met by the changes required to turn things around, and certainly not by the essential rapid economic decarbonisation.
The one saving grace is that there may still be time to make the changes, which raises the question of whether individual countries can push them forward. In a previous openDemocracy column, I briefly explored this question in relation to the UK, which was thought to be in a strong position to push change last July, when the apparently climate-focussed Labour Party had just won the general election.
Yet within a few months, there was bitter disappointment among climate activists and many others as Labour’s plans were scaled down and replaced by the dominant theme of ‘growth at almost any price’.
But, still, it is worth taking a more thorough look at what could be done by a country such as the UK – which is wealthy and has huge national potential for developing renewable energy resources – if it had a government determined to respond to climate breakdown in time.
We start with the need to implement an immediate and sustained acceleration of wind and solar power at a considerable scale, effectively trebling the rate of development within at most a couple of years. It will be supported by heavy investment in the power grid and by expanding the national skills base.
In parallel to this, the UK should immediately begin national investment in home and workplace insulation, as well as increasing the use of solar panels and solar thermal systems.
The experience of the late Noughties and early 2010s is relevant here, showing how modest fiscal measures can act as effective catalysts for wider progress. Before leaving office in 2010, Labour had set out to encourage home-based solar panels with a generous feed-in tariff system. That scheme survived and indeed thrived during the 2010-15 coalition government, mainly because of the Liberal Democrats’ insistence, but collapsed when the Conservatives came to power in 2015 and cut it back.
The UK could also speed up the transition from petrol and diesel transport to electric power, coupled with much-increased investment in public transport. There are many other steps to take relating to issues such as methane emissions and food production, but these are also areas where investment will pay off handsomely.
Of course, even if we succeed in curbing carbon dioxide emissions, it will take at least another 30 years to reverse the effects they’ve had, so we will need to invest heavily in the many resources needed to minimise the impact of storms, floods and wildfires to come. Coping with these will require increases in emergency services, which can be aided by a substantial change in the role of the military.
One eye should be kept on Donald Trump and the likely damage he and his people will do in the next four years. As well as head-hunting sacked US climate researchers (which will do much to restore optimism across the whole climate science community), the UK and other rich nations can do much to plug the research gaps that will inevitably emerge as the US president uses his wrecking ball.
We should at least treble our funding for key research into the whole global ecosystem, including atmospheric, oceanographic and polar studies and those in relatively under-researched regions of the world. Funding for carbon capture and storage, meanwhile, should be scaled back, as this will take far too long to have an impact.
A further task will be to boost the transition to renewables across the more marginalised parts of the Global South, especially if that enables states to make the transition to low-carbon economies by leap-frogging their current mix of energy uses.
All of this will be hugely beneficial in straight political terms, with the impact increasingly obvious within two or three years. Energy prices will fall, fuel poverty will ease, and effective political leadership will act as an effective catalyst. The UK would get a reputation for a truly relevant response to a manifest global security challenge.
The costs will not be exorbitant, either. Money could be redirected from the military, which is expected to cost UK taxpayers £59.8bn over the next financial year, up from £56.9, despite climate breakdown exceeding just about every other security challenge facing us.
There are plenty of other sources of funding, too. One symbolic if small option would be to remove all subsidies for fossil fuel production and transfer them to renewables. A more substantial one would be to increase efforts to prevent tax avoidance, and beyond that will be to greatly increase the control of illegal tax evasion, including the myriad forms of tax havens in which the UK is a world leader.
Beyond that there is plenty of scope to increase tax on those best able to bear it, undoing the cuts made under Thatcher in the 1980s, when the top rate of tax was slashed from 83% to 40% and even now is only 45%. Given the obscene levels of wealth that we have in 21st century Britain, largely down to the changes of those Thatcher years, just a thousand people now possess close to a trillion pounds of wealth. That surely calls for the introduction of substantial wealth taxes.
Devil’s advocates might say that the changes required are too big and too expensive, but that misses one key point. A decade or two ago, one might have reasonably argued that we needed proof that something was going wrong before we took such ‘extreme’ action. But we can now see with our own eyes that climate breakdown is happening.
This point will only be reinforced every time a catastrophic weather event hits any part of the world. The UK could be at the forefront of the necessary transformation that has to come globally. It could finally have found a worthwhile post-imperial role.
