Thursday, October 10, 2024

UK Budget 2024: £25bn tax rises needed to avoid austerity, think tank warns

Janusz Pienkowski / Shutterstock.com

Rachel Reeves could be forced to raise billions of pounds in additional tax revenue if she wishes to avoid public service cuts, a leading think tank has warned.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has claimed £25 billion of tax increases would be needed to keep spending rising with national income.

Both Reeves and Keir Starmer have said their government would not see a return to austerity, but the IFS’ statement suggests such large tax increases could be needed to avoid this.

The think tank’s director Paul Johnson said: “It is easy to think that we face a short-term challenge somewhat artificially created by a particular set of arbitrary fiscal rules. That would be a mistake.

“Pressures on health and pension spending will continue to increase, and revenues from fuel and tobacco duties will fall. That will make remaining on course for current budget balance harder over the course of this parliament. If Ms Reeves does not grasp the nettle on 30 October, it could come back to sting her again before the next election.”

Debates around the levels of taxation in Britain have long been fought in Labour circles, with many of the party’s activists and politicians arguing for higher taxes in order to fund public services.

But critics of this approach point to a record high tax burden faced by many working people in Britain today – and caution against deterring investment with too high taxes.

Budget 2024: FBU warns Tory austerity ‘needs to stop’ to rebuild fire services

The Fire Brigades Union has called on the government to rebuild the nation’s fire service after more than a decade of austerity so fire crews can tackle future risks and build resilience.

Hundreds of firefighters packed the Emmanuel Church near Parliament for what was billed as “the first national trade union rally of its kind since the general election” to demand the new Labour government provide greater funding and provide national standards on training and equipment.

Addressing fire crews from across the country, FBU President Ian Murray said: “For the new Westminster government, it’s now time to deliver.

“The Tories got absolutely walloped – they absolutely deserved it. Everybody in this room knows what they’ve done to the fire and rescue service. The jobs that have been lost, the stations that have been closed. The pay and pensions that have been attacked.

“We now have a new government and whatever you may think of it, it presents to us an opportunity to get an improvement in our fire and rescue service.

“We’re here to demand investment so that those that work in the fire service can do their jobs to the best of their ability as safely as possible, and in doing so keep our communities safe.”

READ MORE: What do trade unions hope to see in Budget 2024?

Photo: Jess Hurd

The Labour-affiliated union outlined ten demands for the Labour government including the creation of a new statutory advisory body, scrapping anti-union legislation, safeguarding collective bargaining and setting national standards to keep firefighters and communities safe.

Speaking to LabourList at of the event, general secretary Matt Wrack said: “You can see firefighters from across the country gathering here.

“They’re here because every single fire service for the past 14 years has faced devastating cuts to the numbers of jobs, fire stations and fire engines under austerity, but also the fire service is fragmented, with different standards applying in different parts of the country.

“We’re here to say to the new government that needs to stop and we need to invest in the fire service.”

Wrack said that the rally had “sent a firm message to the government that the fire service is in crisis”.

© Twitter/@Keir_Starmer

A ban on “exploitative” zero hour contracts, bolstered day-one rights and strengthened statutory sick pay are among the measures set to feature in Labour’s flagship employment rights bill, due to be brought before parliament today.

This legislative first step of Labour’s New Deal for Working People, which was promised within 100 days of Labour entering office in its election programme, is set to introduce 28 individual employment reforms.

The details of this legislation have been closely awaited by unions and businesses alike, with it likely to go down as one of the most significant reforms put forward by the Labour government to date.

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said: “This Labour government’s plan to make work pay is central to achieving our growth mission, boosting productivity. After years of stagnation under the Tories, we’re replacing a race to the bottom with a race to the top, so employers compete on innovation and quality.”

The details of this legislation have been closely awaited by unions and businesses alike, with it likely to go down as one of the most significant reforms put forward by the Labour government to date.

 Workers will have protection against unfair dismissal from day one rather than having to wait two years, though this and some other measures may not come into effect until 2026, despite union calls for immediate delivery of the government’s package.

The government has also notably promised to consult on a new statutory probation period that Labour says will enable firms to still “take chances on hires with a lighter touch process”.

The government is reportedly considering probation periods of up to nine months, longer than wanted by unions.

The legislation also does not include the right to switch off, which is reportedly set to be enacted as a code of conduct instead, and government and Labour press releases do not mention collective bargaining plans in social care. More documents will be published later on Thursday, however.

Reforms to zero-hours, fire and rehire, workplace flexibility and statutory sick pay

Reforms proposed under the bill include an overhaul to zero hour contracts, with plans to introduce a right to a guaranteed hours – unless the employee chooses to remain on their existing zero-hours contract, in a revision of past party plans to ban them altogether.

The government also intends to close loopholes that allow “fire and rehire” practices to continue – something that has long been pushed for by campaigners.

Meanwhile improving workplace flexibility and supporting working families are two key themes the legislation aims to focus on, with plans to make flexible working the default unless an employer can show it is not viable, and a new right to bereavement leave.

The new bill also aims to bring 30,000 fathers or partners into scope for paternity leave and introduce unpaid parental leave as a day one right – a move the government claims would give extra flexibility to 1.5 million parents.

Statutory sick pay rights will receive a boost too, with the lower earnings limit for all workers to be removed and the wait period abolished.

READ MORE: Labour’s first Budget 2024: What policies could Rachel Reeves announce?

Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said: “It is our mission to get the economy moving and create the long term, sustainable growth that people and businesses across the country need. Our plan will give the world of work a much-needed upgrade, boosting pay and productivity.

“The best employers know that employees are more productive when they are happy at work. That is why it’s vital to give employers the flexibility they need to grow whilst ending unscrupulous and unfair practices.

“This upgrade to our laws will ensure they are fit for modern life, raise living standards and provide opportunity and security for businesses, workers and communities across the country.”

The government is also set to consult on a new statutory probation period to allow for “proportionate” assessment by employers of a new hire’s abilities while still granting better day one rights.

Further measures expected include the creation of a Fair Work Agency to enforce certain workers’ rights and the removal of age bands from the minimum wage – which will also see cost-of-living taken into account when it is set.

Unions welcome reforms

Reacting to the reforms, TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “The government’s plan to Make Work Pay – delivered in full – would improve incomes and the quality of work across Britain.

“It’s time to turn the page on the Tories’ low-rights, low-pay economy that has allowed good employers to be undercut by the bad. It’s time to make work pay again.”

GMB General Secretary Gary Smith echoed Nowak’s sentiments, describing the Employment Rights Bill as a “groundbreaking first step” towards better employment rights.

However, he added: “The government won a huge mandate for the New Deal, now they must make sure unions and workers are front and centre of the detailed discussions needed to deliver it.

“The legislation must be watertight and without loopholes that could be used by those wanting to delay the rights workers so desperately need.”

Fire Brigades Union General Secretary Matt Wrack called the programme a “very significant extension of workers’ rights” and a “huge victory for the FBU and other unions”. But he warned “there must be no delay in the full implementation”.

But Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “This Bill is without doubt a significant step forward for workers but stops short of making work pay.”

Meanwhile Tina McKenzie, policy chair at the Federation of Small Businesses, claimed:  “This legislation is rushed job, clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned – dropping 28 new measures onto small business employers all at once leaves them scrambling to make sense of it all.

“Beyond warm words, it lacks any real pro-growth element and will increase economic inactivity, seriously jeopardising the Government’s own 80 per cent employment target.”

But Reynolds told the BBC: “I would reject that very strongly. First of all, there’s no surprises here. Everything in this package was in the manifesto.

“Second of all, there is a very strong business rationale for these measures in terms of getting more people into work, in terms of making sure there’s a link between job satisfaction and productivity.”

Nicola Ranger: ‘The New Deal must enshrine care workers’ pay rights in law – so they’re not ignored or repealed’

Credit: P.Cartwright/Shutterstock.com


Last week, a would-be Tory leader insulted care workers with a comment about wiping bottoms. This week, a Labour government has a chance to get on the front foot again with transformative plans for the sector’s workers. The employment rights bill, expected tomorrow, could be one of the most important changes in the law since the Equality Act.

“I’m on an insecure contract and dread being sick. It is so stressful for me and my kids always being skint.” I cannot stress how often I hear words like this.

Nine in 10 of my members are women and a large and growing number are international recruits – the very migrant care workers that Kemi Badenoch appeared to be taking aim at.

In the Royal College of Nursing, we represent registered nurses, carers and support workers in social care just as much as the NHS. But their employment terms and conditions could not be more different.

Negotiating a good deal

In the UK, there are over 30,000 organisations providing social care to adults, children and young people. They are a crucial part of the health and care system. Some are genuinely good employers who value and reward their staff but the reality is that too many force workers to live with low pay, insecure employment and few rights.

Without sick pay provision, nursing staff choose between their own health and their much-needed income. And protections around workplace harassment, women’s health and flexible working could not be needed more. Advancing women’s rights in the workplace must be central to the government’s bill on Thursday.

Care workers, the vast majority of whom are female, are at the intersection of an undervalued profession considered ‘women’s work’ and a sector so vast and atomised it resembles a ‘Wild West’ of employment standards – employed by their local authority, a private care firm, or even a hedge fund.

There is no opportunity for staff to negotiate and make their voice heard on a sector-wide level, allowing a race to the bottom on pay and rights. And at worst – as we were part of exposing this summer – flagrant, unchecked exploitation of migrant workers.

The government’s proposals must mark the beginning of the end for this disgrace. We expect proper sectoral bargaining finally introduced first for adult social care. This should allow consistent pay, terms and conditions to be set across the sector, providing better job security and, crucially, raising employment standards for everyone working in the sector. Along with all unions, we have called for this for many years.

Protecting our workers’ rights

In the consultations and debates around the new Bill, we will push the government to properly enshrine sectoral bargaining in law. The absence of that could simply allow rogue employers to find loopholes and pave the way for a future government to easily rip up or quietly abandon the measures entirely.

The government’s plan to introduce statutory sick pay from day one is a crucial first step. Next, we need commitments to enhance the level of sick pay itself – and make that a right from the very start of employment too. Like so much in society, changes during the pandemic saw sick pay paid from day one only for the progress to be lost in the years after.

Tomorrow’s Bill is expected to transform the work of unions as well as the working lives of their members. The promised repeal of anti-union laws – reaffirmed in a letter I received last week from Jonathan Reynolds – along with the introduction of e-balloting, could pave the way for a new era in the business of industrial relations and trade unionism.

These changes will give nursing staff greater power to organise, demand fair pay and improve working conditions in a profession historically characterised as a vocation. Female-dominated professions remain some of the worst paid, with inferior terms and conditions. The last government learned the hard way that ignoring nursing staff and stripping away their rights will not be tolerated.

These vital discussions on health and safety at work or strengthening protections for women – and all workers – would be enriched by reaching out to our nursing staff and working with one of the country’s  biggest professional bodies and unions.

Sectoral bargaining in social care, advancing women’s workplace rights, and bringing down the curtain on some of Europe’s most restrictive trade union laws is the strong starting point our profession is already expecting of this government on Thursday.

Let’s collaborate further so that the bold and new approach truly delivers for working people.

UK

'Labour needs to learn lessons from Finland in tackling homelessness’

© Olesea Vetrila/Shutterstock.com

Eradicating homelessness and rough sleeping must be a key ambition of the Labour government as we prepare to mark World Homeless Day on October 10.

Those in the sector know only too well the damage homelessness causes to individuals and their loved ones as well as the cost to society, including the loss of potential and talent.

A stable home is the bedrock of good physical and mental health, happy relationships and the springboard from which to develop a career and raise a family.

Creating a strong economy and fairer society, with opportunities for all and a safety net to stop people falling through cracks, should be the big picture after 14 years of Tory failure.

While tackling homelessness in the here and now requires a systemic approach.

We should draw inspiration from the last Labour government with its Rough Sleepers Unit but also Finland’s Housing First programme which has virtually eliminated street homelessness and is now close to ending all forms of homelessness.

Earlier this year, in my then role as shadow minister for homelessness, I joined charity Crisis for a whistle-stop visit to Finland to see what has been achieved.

This coincided with research highlighting the contrasting reality in Tory Britain where our badge of dishonour was having the highest rate of homelessness in the developed world.

The following is my takeaway from an intense but informative couple of days, which I’m sharing with the new Labour administration.

Strong foundations

By 2008, Finland had reached a crossroads. The old ways of tackling homelessness were not working. Emergency night shelters were a sticking plaster at best; reproducing trauma and trapping people in a vicious cycle of destitution.

Housing First was a new philosophy based on everyone being able to access a decent home as a human right rather than being conditional on engaging in services for addictions or mental health. In a reversal of traditional thinking, policy makers realised having a place to call home was a necessary foundation for people to begin tackling their problems.

In practice, it meant building affordable social homes as well as hopes and dreams.

Political leadership with a missionary zeal to end homelessness was the driver. Directed from the centre but owned and shared across government departments, local government, the third sector and trade unions.

It’s not rocket science really. A national plan to increase the supply of affordable homes for social rent, with wrap-around support for people with complex needs and vulnerabilities. It even included converting the former night shelters into apartments.

While it’s true upfront costs may be high, in the long-term Housing First saves money, with cost reductions in areas like healthcare, social services and the justice system.

Successive administrations, from across the political spectrum, stuck to the plan and the results are impressive.

In the early hours, I walked around Helinski, near the main train station, passing shop doorways and public parks. No cardboard, quilts, blankets or sleeping bags. No sign of a person so desperate they must sleep on the streets.

Housing First pilot schemes are taking place here – in Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and the West Midlands – guided by similar principles.

I’ve visited the projects in Manchester and Liverpool where homeless people with complex needs are helped through the provision of safe, secure homes upfront, together with person-centred support.

At the time, tenancies were being sustained in both cities at around the 80% mark.

Putting housing first

But Housing First is not immune to the housing supply and affordability crisis that remains the fundamental problem in the UK. Project leaders have started to bump up against that particular brick wall in terms of sourcing future properties.

If such pilots remain tiny islands of hope surrounded by a sea of rising waters, then our approach won’t be transformative.

So, it’s welcome news for everyone that Labour is committed to building 1.5 million new homes over five years, including ramping up the amount of social and council housing being built – and this latter element is crucial.

I want to see 90,000 social homes, available for genuinely affordable rent, being constructed every single year – on a scale we have not seen for a generation. Building these homes will provide dignity and security to working people.

And it’s vital ‘right to buy’ on new social homes is paused to protect the housing stock otherwise, as my friend and colleague Andy Burnham has pointed out – ‘it’s like trying to fill a bath but with the plug out’.

If increased supply can be twinned with a laser-like focus on tackling homelessness along Finnish lines, we can make a real difference.

Because what’s needed is early intervention and wrap-around support to stop people becoming homeless in the first place and to pick them up quickly if they lose their home or are forced to sleep rough.

Over time the Finnish model has evolved in this way, focusing more and more on prevention and the rapid rehousing of people, with support, if they do become homeless and applied to all forms of homelessness.

As a result, they have dramatically reduced the use of temporary accommodation for individuals and families.

We all want to see homelessness become a thing of the past. It’s a national scandal and a tragedy that one of the wealthiest countries on the planet is failing the hundreds of thousands of people recorded as homeless, including children.

It’s time for us to unite across government departments, charities and organisations; pooling our resources, knowledge, and expertise to get behind the common goal of a future free from homelessness.

I wish colleagues including my good friend, Deputy PM Angela Rayner, and ministers, well in this endeavour.

We have the wherewithal to make this vision a reality. Let’s do it.

UK
Report finds what campaigners have long-suspected – ‘Affordable’ housing products increases rents for low-income Londoners

By the Public Interest Law Centre’s Gentrification Project

October 8, 2024
Labour Hub Editors

Last month, we – Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) – released a report authored by Dr Joe Penny of UCL’s Urban Laboratory.  It found that estate regeneration projects which feature demolition routinely underproduce truly affordable housing for low-income Londoners and increase rents of council and social housing by an average of more than £80 per week.  The residents we support, who are part of campaigns to save their estates from demolition, have long suspected this. This report lays out the evidence.

We commissioned this report  to research cross-subsidy estate regeneration projects where estates are demolished with the promise of funding new ‘affordable’ housing. The report found that these projects routinely overproduce housing that London has little need for – market homes for sale and rent – and either underproduce or more often reduce truly affordable council houses that Londoners desperately need.  

Main findings of the report

The report studies six of the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ regeneration projects across three London Boroughs including the Aylesbury Estate, and the Heygate Estate.

It considered three different models of cross-subsidy estate regeneration: developer-led approach, local-housing company approach, and council-led approach.

Across all three cross-subsidy models in the report:

  • The loss of social and council housing and the displacement of low-income working-class tenants are embedded features of regeneration projects that involve demolition
  • All underproduce the housing that Londoners need the most (council rent and social rent)
  • All overproduce the type of housing London has the least need for (market sale and rent)
  • The total number of council and social housing was reduced by all but one of the regeneration projects
  • Demolition and redevelopment of council estates increase the rents of council and social housing by more than £80 per week on average
  • 23,551 new homes have been or are expected to be delivered by 2035
  • 8,629 council rented homes have been or will be demolished across the six cases
  • There will be a net loss of 2,151 truly affordable council homes
  • Of the homes due to be built, just 6,478 (27%) of these homes are replacement social rented homes
  • Almost double the amount of social or council homes will be for private market sale or rent (11,961, 51%).

Cross-subsidy models don’t produce affordable housing

The cross-subsidy approach to estate regeneration has been the dominant model of estate regeneration for the past two decades and looks set to continue under the Labour Government.

This is when council estates are demolished to make way for expensive properties which are put on the market or rented privately. In theory, the new private homes fund the construction of ‘affordable’ homes on the sites.

However, the report has found that the word ‘affordable’ is used with no consideration for what is truly affordable for people who need these housing options the most.

The report benchmarked affordability using the UN-Habitat’s definition: rent that costs no more than 30% of a household’s total monthly income. The report found that for some tenures on redeveloped sites, so-called ‘affordable’ rent could be as high as 76% of a household’s income.

For example, a person impacted by the benefit cap and living in the redeveloped Aylesbury Estate will be expected to spend 55% of their income on rent, despite paying Social Rent. This highlights the gap between true affordability and the so-called ‘affordable’ housing options available.

The report reveals that the unaffordability of ‘affordable’ housing options replacing council-rent homes after estate demolition is worsening the housing crisis for working-class Londoners. This raises the crucial question of which policies are effectively addressing the needs of those on the lowest incomes.

This is not the first time this model has come under scrutiny. Is cross-subsidy dead or resting?  was published as a comment piece in Inside Housing in 2019. It advised that: “Housing leaders lined up this week to warn that the current system of cross-subsidy is no longer working.”  Yet, there has been no notable break from this approach by Labour-run councils or Government. 

Council-rent housing?

Campaigners we support regularly raise the issue of why council-rent housing is disappearing from local-authority or Governmental policy when it comes to affordable housing targets, despite it being the lowest cost and therefore most affordable housing for the majority of Londoners.  It is not mentioned in the National Planning Policy Framework and not mentioned in the majority, if any, of local plans. 

In fact, it is so rare, that it was a nice surprise to see a development by Haringey council which shows a number of the homes they are building are council-rent.   This is what those we support want to see.

This is the ideal moment to challenge the dominance of cross-subsidy models in housing provision, which are driving gentrification in London and spreading across major cities nationwide. Communities are calling for sustained Government investment to preserve housing estates and prevent further displacement.   We hope those committed to addressing the housing crisis will use this evidence to elevate solutions that prioritise working-class communities.

Download the report

The promise of cross-subsidy: Why estate demolition cannot solve London’s housing emergency.

Download the guide to the report

To make the evidence as accessible as possible, PILC have created a guide to the report called What Golden Era: A guide to help challenge estate demolition plans with hard facts.

Watch our short film

What Golden Era? 5 things you need to know about council house building in London – YouTube



A national scandal – but will Labour fix it?


Mike Phipps reviews The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence, by John Pring, published by Pluto.

 October 9, 2024

As John McDonnell MP points out, this book provides “definitive proof of how government austerity hasn’t just harmed disabled people, it has killed them.”

It has taken over a decade of research by disabled journalist John Pring, who is founder and editor of the Disability News Service, to uncover the hundreds of deaths of disabled people resulting from the slow, bureaucratic violence inflicted on them by those running the UK’s benefits system. The  individual stories of the suicides and deaths by starvation and other causes that Pring includes in the book are utterly harrowing.

First victims

When did the deliberate targeting of disabled claimants start? Pring starts his story in the late 1980s when the then Department for Social Security begins to deliberately brief the media about ‘workshy’ disabled claimants in preparation for a harsher benefits regime.

The change comes in the early 1990s. The government plans to cut the benefits bill by bypassing the claimant’s GP and using their own doctors from the Benefits Agency – “an objective medical test”. Henceforth the insurance industry, and other parts of the private sector, will gain an increasingly tight grip on disability assessments. The aim is to make about 20% of those who previously qualified for benefit ineligible under the new regime.

One victim of this reform was David Holmes, a man who had suffered a massive heart attack in 1982 and been awarded a lifetime mobility pension. Under the new rules, he was seen by a DSS doctor for 40 minutes and assessed as fit for work, his benefits ended. When he collapsed and died a few weeks later, he hadn’t even had time to post his appeal to the Department, explaining that on some days he struggled for breath getting out of bed.  The local paper ran the story under the headline “Worried to Death”.

The minister responsible said that cases of this kind were isolated. In fact,  a 1997 report found that, of the 60% of claimants who appeal against being disallowed benefit, more than half have it reinstated on appeal.

New Labour makes it tougher

A change in government brings no respite. To cut the benefits bill, New Labour outsources the assessment process to a private company. Reflecting the new ‘work ethic’, intensified job-search requirements are imposed – alongside tougher sanctions.

In May 1998, the government faces a significant, but unsuccessful, backbench rebellion, over its plans to means-test and tighten access to incapacity benefit. Despite the absence of evidence, a widespread belief in claimants’ malingering and propensity to fraud remains embedded in the Department and the private sector companies it works with.

From 2005 to 2007, the Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions is John Hutton, who is later elevated to the House of Lords, works for the nuclear industry and takes a job with the Tory-led Coalition examining public sector pensions. While DWP head, he absurdly claims that “the vast majority” of people on incapacity benefit want to work – in fact, most know they are simply unable to do so.

Hutton proposes to cut the number of incapacity benefit recipients by a million over a decade. One of the experts who works on the Department’s attempts to fine-tune its plan later describes it as “reckless”. He tells the author that “everybody thought” the reforms would harm claimants and were simply about cost-cutting.

The Tories and most of the media – the Guardian included – appear to be in lockstep with this approach. By the time Labour leaves office, a Citizens Advice report finds that “high numbers” of seriously ill and disabled people are being found fit for work. Pring documents some of the tragedies that result from this – and the ensuing rise in disability activism.

The austerity Coalition

During the Coalition, it is these activists who raise the alarm about the harm the DWP is causing – the distress, self-harm, suicide attempts and hospitalisations that occur in anticipation of claimants being reassessed. But in 2012 the Welfare Reform Act introduces universal credit, the bedroom tax and a new disability benefit that ministers hope will cut spending by 20% in that area.

As media reports about disability benefit fraud more than double between 2005 and 2011, a crossbench peer tells Parliament that disabled people are now facing public hostility, with strangers accosting them and accusing them of faking their disability. Meanwhile, Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Rachel Reeves announces Labour will be tougher on welfare than the Coalition.

As the deaths of people wrongly found fit for work mount up, the DWP denies – falsely – that it keeps records of these. The author concludes that the Department is doing everything possible to prevent the fatal consequences of its assessments being made public.

The dire quality of assessment interviews is an important feature of the author’s research. One man, Michael O’Sullivan, who suffered from extreme anxiety, panic attacks and  depression, is declared fit for work after a twelve-minute assessment by a physiotherapist – because by now you don’t have to be a doctor to carry out these vital assessments. Later Michael says he was left “humiliated… feeling like a criminal.” He is called for another test four months later, at which the doctor, from the private contractor Atos,  who also finds him fit for work, subsequently admits – at the inquest following Michael’s suicide – that he had not asked him if he had suicidal thoughts because he “looked OK.” This was despite Michael declaring in his pre-assessment form that he had indeed had such thoughts.

These are not isolated cases. Public health research shows that across England the reassessment of incapacity benefit claimants between 2010 and 2013 was “associated with” an extra 590 suicides.

Tories turn the screw

Meanwhile the Tory government cuts disabled people’s benefits again in 2016. Furthermore, new guidance to Maximus, the contractor which replaces Atos, makes it harder for claimants who are at significant risk of harm because of their mental health to avoid work-related activity.

In 2018, research from Essex University finds that the system of sanctions imposed on disabled people, including having their benefits cut for weeks, is “psychologically toxic”, “incoherent”, “arbitrary” and causes “a state of almost constant anxiety”. The DWP announces plans for a review of its sanctions policy – which it later scraps. Further research in 2021 shows how the Department inflicts psychological harm on claimants, imposes unofficial sanctioning targets and pushes disabled people into work despite the risks to their health.

In 2018, Roy Curtis, who suffered from chronic depression, panic attacks and Aspergers Syndrome, publicly posts online his intention to kill himself because he no longer has the energy to fight the DWP who have cut off his benefits. Although they are subsequently reinstated, he is then called in for a further face-to-face assessment, in a letter automatically generated by the Department’s IT system. A few days later Roy commits suicide. Without visiting his flat, social workers close his case. His benefits are stopped; so is his rent. Only when bailiffs break in nine months later to evict him is his body discovered. At his inquest nobody from the DWP or Maximus give evidence.

The idea that lessons might be learned so that such tragedies are not repeated is contradicted by the evidence of further deaths. This book documents a consistent refusal by the Department to take any notice of either the tragic deaths caused by its vicious policies, or the academic findings that systematically criticise them.

On the contrary, by 2023 the Conservatives are proposing to allow jobcentre staff with no medical qualifications to decide whether disabled people are able to carry out work-related activity. How far this mentality will change under a Labour government remains to be seen.

Accountability thwarted

There are many villains that emerge from Pring’s work, in all governing parties. But one who deserves special mention is Iain Duncan Smith, who presided over the DWP from 2010 to 2016, introducing Universal Credit, the Work Programme and real-terms benefit cuts. It was under him that the Department employed debt collectors to retrieve overpaid benefits and tried to introduce retrospective legislation to re-establish the legality of its ‘workfare’ policy after it was overturned in the courts – which itself was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. And it was under him that statistics showed 2,380 people died in a three-year period shortly after a work capability assessment declared them fit for work – which led Jeremy Corbyn MP rightly to call for his resignation. TheIndependent newspaper recently highlighted eleven ways Iain Duncan Smith made life harder for the most vulnerable people in Britain.

During the 2024 general election campaign, I went to Chingford to support local Labour activist Faiza Shaheen in her effort to unseat local MP Iain Duncan Smith, whom she had come close to defeating in 2019. I was not alone. Supporters of disability rights had travelled from far afield to help bring down this perpetrator of so much misery.

Two days later, mid-campaign, Faiza Shaheen was removed as Labour’s candidate in one of the most unpleasantly factional manoeuvres of the entire Starmer leadership. The Labour apparatus’s parachuting in of a careerist replacement with no connection to the area helped this much-detested Tory get re-elected.

John Pring has written a hugely important book which highlights a neglected national scandal. A copy has been delivered to every MP – let’s hope they read it!

John Pring writes about his book for Labour Hub here.

Mike Phipps’ book Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: The Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn (OR Books, 2022) can be ordered here.

South Korean same-sex couples make push for marriage equality

Seoul (AFP) – Eleven gay and lesbian couples will attempt to register their marriages in South Korea on Friday, expecting to launch a legal process they hope will get the country to recognise marriage equality.


Issued on: 10/10/2024 
A group of same-sex couples are launching a bid to force South Korea to legalise same sex marriage © Jung Yeon-je / AFP

The couples expect the local authorities will decline to register their marriages because South Korea does not currently recognise same-sex unions.

They plan to file a lawsuit if they cannot register and, eventually, to force the constitutional court to give a ruling.

One of the women planning to register, Kim Sae-yeon, described at a news conference on Thursday how a verdict in favour of marriage equality would be much more than symbolic for her family.

She said she has no legal relationship with her daughter, who was born to her partner through IVF.

"I worry that, in an emergency, I may not be recognised as my daughter's legal guardian," Kim said.

"Most of all, I fear that if something happened to my wife, I might lose my daughter too."

Such lawsuits are rare in South Korea and the couples expect their petition could take five years to wind through the courts.

Hwang Yun-ha, who will seek to register her marriage to her wife, said they just want "to become a normal couple like any other married couple".

Public support for marriage equality has grown in South Korea over the years, up from 17 percent in 2001 to around 40 percent last year, according to Gallup polls.

"Discrimination has no place when two people love each other and want to make a family," said Hwang's mother Han Eun-jeong.

Activists scored a legal victory in July when a court ruled that it was discriminatory for state health insurers to treat same-sex couples differently from heterosexual common law couples, who are allowed joint coverage.

Former lawmaker Jang Hye-young, who introduced the country's first marriage equality bill in May 2023, said that things were also changing in parliament, even if the law did not pass.

"The biggest issue in South Korean politics has been the silence long accepted when it comes to LGBTQ discrimination," Jang told AFP.

Around a quarter of South Korea's population identifies as Christian and there has been vocal opposition to any recognition of same-sex marriage from such groups, purportedly on religious grounds.

© 2024 AFP
THAT 'OTHER' HURRICANE
Hurricane Kirk remnants reach France, leaving at least one dead

After leaving power cuts and uprooted trees in its wake throughout Western Europe, the remnants of Hurricane Kirk reached southern France, producing torrential rain that killed one amateur sailor in the French port city of Sète and prompted authorities to put all French departments on orange alert.

Issued on: 10/10/2024 -
A couple try to shelter under an umbrella on the Pont des Arts bridge as remnants of hurricane Kirk causes heavy rainfall over central Paris, on October 9, 2024.
 © Kiran Ridley, AFP

The remnants of Hurricane Kirk swept into western Europe Wednesday, tearing up trees in Portugal and Spain before dumping heavy rains on France that left at least one dead.

A storm swell in the Mediterranean off the port city of Sete in southern France overturned three boats, killing one amateur sailor and putting another in the hospital in critical condition, said Herault department authorities.

Some 64,000 people in the south of France were also left without power, network supplier Enedis told AFP, while several departments reported roads cut off by floodwaters.

Following a crisis response meeting in Paris, Energy and Ecological Transition Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher told journalists the government was mobilising "all state services" and urged citizens to be careful.

"These episodes will have a tendency to recur. We're living at a time when climate change is making itself felt in concrete ways in our daily lives," she said.

Authorities put the Seine-et-Marne department near Paris on red alert for flooding as the rain swelled the Grand Morin river, a tributary of the Seine, which runs through the French capital.

Another 29 of the country's departments were placed on orange alert, with heavy rains and high winds expected.

There were 35,000 households that lost electricity in the worst-hit department of Pyrenees-Atlantiques, with a clutch of other departments in the southwest and central east of the country also affected, Enedis said.

Weather forecasters had predicted the storm would dump a month's worth of rain on a swathe of the country, including Paris.

Portugal power cuts

Portugal's civil protection authority reported more than 1,300 incidents overnight Tuesday to Wednesday, three-quarters of which involved fallen trees in the north of the country.

Porto, the main northern city, was hit hardest, with 400 trees uprooted. Cars were also damaged and rail services interrupted near Barcelos, also in the north.

The storm also cut power to more than 300,000 households, said the country's electricity supplier.

Weather and civil protection officials, having predicted winds of up to 120 kilometres per hour (75 mph) and heavy rain, put the coast on a yellow alert, as waves reached up to seven metres (23 feet) high.

Spanish weather officials issued an orange alert for the north and northwest of the country, warning of winds of up to 140 kilometres per hour in the Asturias region.

Galicia, in the northwest, reported some roads blocked by mud slides and fallen trees in urban areas.

(AFP)

Storm Kirk tears through Spain, Portugal, heads for France

Issued on: 10/10/2024 -


01:03 Video by FRANCE 24

The remnants of Hurricane Kirk swept into western Europe Wednesday, tearing up trees in Portugal and Spain, before high winds and heavy rains hit France.