Thursday, February 06, 2025

UK Pensioner poverty in the world’s sixth largest economy is a political choice

Prem Sikka 
1 February, 2025 


The hardship inflicted on retirees now will surely visit future retirees unless steps are taken to alleviate misery
.

The UK’s major political parties have declared open season on pensioners. Too many pensioners suffer from poverty and lack of heating and eating. Instead of lifting pensioners out of poverty, political parties are promising more misery and premature death.

Without any consultation or impact assessment statement the Labour government cut the winter fuel payment for pensioners, even for those living below the poverty line. Pensioners are deprived of £100 – £300 a year. The policy will force thousands to make hard choices between eating and heating.

The leader of the Conservative Party said “we are going to look at means-testing” of the triple-lock on the state pension. Under the triple-lock, the state pension increases by the highest of the rate of inflation, average earnings change or 2.5 % every year. Tomorrow’s retirees face an uncertain future.

Despite the triple-lock and pensioner benefits, nearly 2m pensioners out of 12.9m live in poverty. The rate of relative pensioner poverty has risen from 13% in 2011/12 to 16% in 2022/23, equivalent to 300,000 additional pensioners. The state pension is the main or the only source of income for nearly half of all pensioners. Around 4.1m retirees are eligible to receive the full post-2016 state pension (often called the new state pension) of £221.20 a week, or £11,500 a year for 2024/25. For pre-2016 retirees, the state pension is £169.50 per week, or £8,814 a year.

The amount received is determined by the number of National Insurance contributions. Only 26% of retirees receive the full post-2016 state pension of £11,500. In general, single pensioners with total income less than £218.15 per week (£11,336 a year), and couples with income below £332.95 per week can claim Pension Credit which opens the door to winter fuel payment and other means-tested benefits. Some 77% poor pensioners were receiving neither pension credit nor housing benefit in 2022/23. Despite the rhetoric of equality, women are penalised for child-bearing, rearing, domestic and carer duties, and receive lower state pension than men’s.

The UK devotes a smaller percentage of its GDP to state pension and pensioner benefits than most other advanced economies. In 2023–2024, the government spent £132bn on the state pension, Pension Credit, and winter fuel payment, which came to around 5.1% of GDP. For 2024-25, the UK is expected to spend £137.5bn, or 5.2% of GDP. France spends about 13.5% of GDP on pensioner welfare, and Italy about 16.3%.

The UK state pension, as a proportion of the average earrings, is one of the lowest in the industrialised world. The average (mean) UK state pension is £201.65 per week or around £10,500 a year, compared to average wage of £37,430. It is less than 50% of the minimum wage for a full-time worker. A single pensioner needs annual income of around £23,300, and a couple needs £34,000 for a moderate standard of living.

The pension rates are due to rise by 4.1% from April 2025 but only 26% of pensioners will receive the full benefit of £472 (£11,500 X 4.1%). Most of this has already evaporated in higher rents, energy, water, council tax and other bills. Pensioner poverty is also increased by the failure of income tax personal allowances to keep pace with inflation. Since 2021-22 personal allowances have been frozen at £12,570 a year and pensioners with modest income are caught in the income tax net. In 2024-25, around 8.95m over 65s are liable to pay income tax, compared to 4.53m in 2009/10.

Poverty inflicted on retirees brings misery and premature death. More than 1 million people aged 66 or over have been skipping meals. Around 1 in 10 people over the age of 65 are either malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. Some 7m pensioners are turning down heating or reducing the hours they turn it on to help them cope financially. Around 2m people aged 65+ have unmet needs for care and support. In 2022, 128,000 people died from fuel poverty, including 110,000 pensioners. A study covering the period 2012-2019 noted 335,000 excess deaths (48,000 a year) in England, Scotland and Wales due to poverty and austerity. Over one-third of the deaths were under the age of 65 years i.e. majority were senior citizens.

People power secures better treatment of pensioners. Faced with public protests, Poland reduced retirement age to 65 years of age for men and to 60 years of age for women. France is to increase the state pension age from 62 to 64 by 2030, which after mass protests may now be reconsidered. In sharp contrast, the UK state pension age is currently set at 66 years and is due to increase to 67 in 2026-2028. Britons have ended up with the worst of all worlds – low state pension and longer working life.

Senior politicians want to means-test the state pension, effectively breaking a contract with the people. Former Conservative leader Ian Duncan Smith advocated hiking the state pension age to 75 years, others call for the age to be hiked to 71. Life expectancy in England is around 79 years for males and 83 years for females. But working life depends on health, which in turn depends on access to good food, housing, healthcare and public services. The average healthy life expectancy in England has fallen to around 61.5 years for men and 61.9 years for women. So, hikes in retirement age will force unhealthy people to work for longer and hasten their death.

There is also a class element. For example, the average life expectancy of people living in Blackpool is 73.1 years for males and 78.9 years for females, compared to 83.4 years for males and 86.5 years for females in affluent Kensington and Chelsea. Any hike in the state pension age means that the poor will make tax and national insurance contributions for a longer period but will not live long enough to collect their pension. Their wealth would be transferred to the rich who tend to live longer.

Decent pensions are not an old v young issue as young people will get old too. The hardship inflicted on retirees now will surely visit future retirees unless steps are taken to alleviate misery. The weight of never-ending austerity and real wage cuts means that future retirees will be even more reliant upon the state pension. Around 28% of over 55-year-olds have no other pension saved and will be completely reliant on the state pension. Around 23% of 18-34-year-olds expect to solely rely on the state pension for their retirement.

Pensions are an issue about social justice, equity and humanity. The state pension must not be lower than the living wage. Anyone paying income tax for 25 years should receive it. Governments can use the £86.4bn surplus in the National Insurance Fund Account to boost pensions and pensioner benefits. Instead the last Conservative government raided the Fund to make National Insurance cuts, which mainly benefitted the rich. It has also been raided to give national insurance holidays to companies operating in Freeports.

A decent state pension would eliminate a plethora of pensioner benefits, which many find confusing and don’t claim. It will reduce administrative costs and stimulate the local economy as pensioners tend to spend on everyday things. Pensioner access to good food, housing and healthcare will also reduce pressure upon the National Health Service (NHS).

Neoliberals are not swayed by call for equity and justice and always ask how we are going to pay. That is a strange question as at the behest of neoliberals, governments have bailed out banks, energy companies and capital markets; funded foreign wars Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Iraq, showered tax cuts and subsidies on corporations and the rich. It is hard to recall any neoliberal protestations.

Governments can fund decent state pension and enable people to live with dignity. Vast sums can be raised by tackling tax anomalies. For example, by taxing capital gains at the same rates as wages, around £12bn a year can be raised. More than £5bn can be raised by taxing dividends at the same rates as wage. Another £8bn-£10n can be raised by charging national insurance on capital gains and dividends. Restricting tax relief on pension contribution to 20% for all will generate £14.5bn a year. Since 2010, HMRC has failed to collect over £500bn in tax due to fraud, avoidance and evasion. Others estimate this to be around £1,400bn. This does not include taxes lost due to profit shifting to low/no tax jurisdictions by corporations. These sources can be supplemented by wealth tax, financial transaction tax, higher income tax rates for the mega rich, higher corporate tax rates, and elimination of tax perks that benefit only a few and other measures.

Pensioner poverty in the world’s sixth largest economy is a political choice and must be challenged. The young and old must join hands to ensure that everyone can live a fulfilling life.


Prem Sikka is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield, a Labour member of the House of Lords, and Contributing Editor at Left Foot Forward.
16 Just Stop Oil activists to appeal ‘excessive’ UK jail sentences for peaceful protests


Olivia Barber 
 1 February, 2025 
Left Foot Forward

‘These excessive sentences are designed to put people off protesting’


TweetShareWhatsAppMail


Over the next two days, the Court of Appeal will review the jail sentences imposed on 16 Just Stop Oil activists between July and September 2024.

The sentences up for appeal include the five-year prison sentence imposed on Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, for taking part in a Zoom call to plan a protest against new oil and gas licences.

Phoebe Plummer’s two-year sentence for throwing tomato soup at the glass-covered Sunflowers painting by Vincent van Gogh at the National Gallery will also be reviewed.

Also among the group of 16 is Gaie Delap, the 78-year-old grandmother, who was recalled to prison just before Christmas, because government contractors SERCO were unable to find the right-sized tag for her wrist.

The activists have received combined jail terms totalling 41 years.

Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have been granted permission to intervene in the appeals of five activists who were sentenced for joining a zoom call to discuss a planned M25 protest.

Supporters have nicknamed the group the ‘Lord’ Walney 16, pointing out that the activists’ long sentences all came after crossbench peer Lord Walney published an independent report as the Conservative government’s advisor on political violence, calling for groups such as Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion to be labelled as “extreme protest groups”.

Activists argue that as a paid chair of The Purpose Coalition, of which oil company BP is a member, Lord Walney has called for groups who oppose his clients’ interests “to be silenced and jailed”.

Over 1,000 people are expected to gather at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand on 30th January between 12.30 pm and 2 pm to protest the activists’ sentences and block traffic.

Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Zoe Cohen said: “Every citizen should have the right to effective protest. It’s a crucial part of democracy. These excessive sentences are designed to put people off protesting.

But the laws that enable these sentences were written by think tanks that are funded by the corporations, oil money and the obscenely rich – the same actors who are responsible for brutal inequality and driving us to extinction.”

Katie de Kauwe, senior lawyer at Friends of the Earth, said: “To be jailed for up to five years for planning a peaceful protest over the UK’s laggard progress in preventing runaway climate and ecological breakdown, shows the chilling effect of the previous government’s anti-protest laws in stifling our democracy and allowing the government of the day to curb dissent.

“In what functioning democracy can it be right for those peacefully raising the alarm about the climate crisis to receive longer jail sentences than people who participated in racially-motivated violence this summer, and deliberately targeted migrants, refugees and Muslim communities? Peaceful protesters shouldn’t be locked up, period.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward.
UK

UCU warns of ‘serious industrial unrest’ over plans to cut Cardiff University jobs


 1 February, 2025 
Left Foot Forward

‘Cardiff’s vice-chancellor [...] needs to cut her own £290k salary before she attacks the hard-working staff who keep the university going’



Cardiff University has announced plans to cut 400 academic staff jobs—7% of its total academic workforce—and close degree programmes due to a funding shortfall.


Degree programmes in ancient history, modern languages and translation, music, nursing, and religion and theology could be closed.

In a statement, UCU general secretary, Jo Grady, said: “The unprecedented level of cuts we are seeing across the sector threaten not only the reputation of individual institutions, but UK higher education’s standing on the world stage.

“You simply cannot slash thousands of jobs and expect to offer anything close to the expected standards of research and teaching.”

Grady added: “Cardiff’s vice-chancellor has claimed brutal cuts are necessary, she needs to cut her own £290k salary before she attacks the hard-working staff who keep the university going.”

She added that UCU members would not stand by and let university managers “commit academic vandalism on such a grand scale”. Grady made it clear that if universities refuse to work with them to maintain provision, UCU is prepared to ballot for strike action.

“Unfortunately, serious industrial unrest cannot be ruled out,” Grady warned.

Vice-chancellor Professor Wendy Larner said it was “no longer an option” for the University to continue as it was without taking difficult decisions.

Speaking on BBC Wales radio, UCU Cymru chair, Estelle Hart, said there had been a “lack of communication” by university bosses which was causing “anxiety” to staff.

UCU Wales Official, Gareth Lloyd, said: “UCU members are neither able nor willing to carry the cost of inaction. If Welsh Government wants to avoid a cycle of redundancies and damaging strikes, then it will need to use 2025/26 budget to stabilise the sector.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
200 UK employers sign up for permanent four-day working week

 1 February, 2025 
Left Foot Forward


1933


The majority of the public expects a four-day week to be the norm by 2030


The push for a four day working week grows as two hundred UK companies permanently adopt the working pattern with no loss of pay for staff.

According to the latest analysis by the 4 Day Week Foundation, more than 5,000 workers will benefit from their employers becoming four-day week accredited employers.

Charities, marketing companies, and tech firms are the sectors with the highest number of four-day week companies.

Companies in sectors including the creative arts (18), engineering and manufacturing (12), recruitment and HR (12), entertainment (9), accountancy, banking and finance (8) and property development, trades and construction (6) have also recently been accredited by the foundation.

The 4 Day Week Foundation accreditation scheme recognises a four-day, 32 hour working week with no loss of pay as ‘gold standard’ and a four-day, 35 hour working week as ‘silver standard’.

“The 9-5, 5 day working week was invented 100 years ago and is no longer fit for purpose. We are long overdue an update,” Joe Ryle, Campaign Director of the 4 Day Week Foundation, said.

He added: “With 50% more free time, a four-day week gives people the freedom to live happier, more fulfilling lives”.

“As hundreds of British companies and one local council have already shown, a four-day week with no loss of pay can be a win-win for both workers and employers.”

A survey of 500 UK respondents and 500 respondents in the Republic of Ireland by Spark Market Research found that 68% of people think that in five years’ time, the four-day working week will become a norm.

Agreement with the statement was significantly higher among 18-34-year-olds, with 78% saying they believe the four-day week will become the norm by 2030, and 65% opposed to returning to full-time office-based work.

Spark managing director Lynsey Carolan said: “Our survey clearly shows a desire for change in traditional working patterns. 18-34s, the core workforce of the next 50 years, are making their feelings known that they don’t intend to go back to old-fashioned working patterns.

“This group also say that mental health and improving their overall wellbeing are their top priorities, so a four-day week is a really meaningful benefit and a key enabler of their overall quality of life.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

Starbucks CEO claimed $72,000 in expenses for commuting by private jet

Olivia Barber 
 1 February, 2025 
Left Foot Forward

Brian Niccol negotiated a deal whereby Starbucks pay for him to commute from California to Seattle in a private jet…



The new chief executive of Starbucks, Brian Niccol, was paid around $96 million after four months of work last year, one of the biggest compensation packages in corporate America.

Niccol, who took on the role at Starbucks last September, was not required to move to Seattle, where Starbucks is based.

Instead, the coffee chain agreed to cover temporary housing costs in the area as well as use of the company jet.

Between September and December last year, he claimed around $72,000 (£58,000) in expenses for flying between his home in southern California and Seattle.

Of this, around $19,000 (£15,000) was related to personal use of company aircraft.

He also got a $5 million (£4 million) sign-on bonus after his one-month anniversary with the company.

In their latest financial accounts, Starbucks said Niccol was a “highly sought-after, effective leader with a proven track record”.

If you were wondering why Starbucks coffee comes with a hefty price tag, this may offer some insight.

Thomas Fellows, the owner of CommenceAI, a company that uses AI to help businesses analyse efficiency, told Seattle-based Kiro 7 News: “It’s very unfair to your average worker (Starbucks) because he’s getting paid more than 6,000 percent more than the average worker and he hasn’t proven that he has turned around the company.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward



Brits regret Brexit: majority now say UK was wrong to leave the EU


Olivia Barber 
 1 February, 2025 
Left Foot Forward

More than half of voters support rejoining the EU, according to a new YouGov poll



More than half of Brits (55%) believe the country was wrong to vote to leave the EU in 2016, while 30% say it was the right decision, according to a new YouGov poll.

This means public support for Brexit has now fallen to its lowest level since YouGov began asking this question after the referendum.

On 31 January 2020, Britain left the EU, putting into action the 52% to 48% vote to ‘Leave’ the EU at the 2016 referendum.

Five years on, one in six Leave voters (18%) now say that it was wrong for Britain to choose to leave the EU, however, 66% still say Britain made the right decision.

Younger voters are particularly critical of Brexit, with three-quarters of 18-24 year olds saying Britain was wrong to leave, compared with just one in ten who believe it was the right decision.

When assessing Brexit’s impact, more than six in ten Brits view it as more of a failure, while just 11% see it as a success.

Another 20% take a neutral stance, considering it neither a success nor a failure.

In terms of the UK’s future relationship with the EU, nearly two-thirds (64%) of Brits support a closer relationship with the EU without formally rejoining any of its institutions.

This view is shared by 60% of Leave voters and 53% of Reform UK voters.

Support for reversing Brexit is also high, with 55% of Brits in favour of rejoining the EU.

The poll, conducted between 20 and 21 January, surveyed a sample of 2,225 adults.

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward


Brexit lies: How the cheerleaders prospered while the country paid the price



1 February, 2025 
Right-Wing Watch

The delusions of mystic Mogg and other Brexit diehards that the rewards will eventually come, are no longer tenable. Not only can we now measure the pitiful results and consequences, but they're impossible to ignore.




Five years ago on January 31, 2020, the UK officially severed ties with the European Union. The promises spun by the Leave campaign were bold and far-reaching. Greater control of our borders, lucrative global trade deals, a better-funded NHS, and a stronger, more independent Britain. Yet half a decade of post-Brexit Britain, and it’s clear that while some of the chief proponents of the Leave campaign have prospered, the nation as a whole has paid a painful price.

The delusions of mystic Mogg and other Brexit diehards that the rewards will eventually come, are no longer tenable. Not only can we now measure the pitiful results and consequences, but they’re impossible to ignore.

NHS

Take the NHS. One of the most striking promises was the £350 million a week that would supposedly be freed up for the health service, emblazoned on Boris Johnson’s battle bus. Instead, the impact of Brexit has compounded the strain on an already overburdened NHS, affecting everything from staffing and supply chains to funding and public health policy.

A slowdown in recruitment from the EU and EFTA countries has led to shortages in essential healthcare staff, from doctors and nurses to dentists and care workers.

“The economic hit of Brexit combined with the worst cost of living crisis for a generation is reducing living standards creating additional need for health and care,” said Mark Dayan, Nuffield Trust’s Brexit programme lead, in a damning report about Brexit and the NHS.

Trade

Then there’s the issue of trade. We were promised frictionless trade and new, lucrative deals around the world. But in reality, the majority of the trade agreements signed post-Brexit are mere “rollovers” of deals that the UK already had as an EU member, with little new economic benefit to show. Many of these agreements are with nations with which the UK has minimal trade, offering little relief for the disruption caused by Brexit with supposed trading opportunities mired in bureaucracy and red tape.

Immigration

Brexit was also sold as a way to take back control over immigration. But since Brexit, immigration has soared to record levels. Net immigration, which hovered around 200,000 people annually pre-Brexit, skyrocketed to an unprecedented 745,000 in 2022. The points-based system introduced in 2021 removed the automatic right of EU citizens to come to the UK without a visa, yet the result has been severe worker shortages across a range of sectors. A joint report by the UK in a Changing Europe and the Centre for European Reform shows that the end of free movement has significantly contributed to labour shortages, particularly in low-skilled sectors like hospitality, retail, construction, and transportation.

Northern Ireland

Then there’s the unresolved issue of Northern Ireland, a constant shadow over Brexit. The Northern Ireland Protocol was designed to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, ensuring that the peace process would not be jeopardised. But a report out this week warns that the ramifications of Brexit will become increasingly evident on the island of Ireland, as the UK diverges from the EU in areas not covered by the Protocol.

According to the think tank UK in a Changing Europe, areas not covered by the Northern Ireland Protocol, such as certain environmental protection standards or recognition of professional qualifications, will mean that the Northern Ireland border will become increasingly pronounced.

Rising ‘Bregret’

As the consequences of Brexit become impossible to ignore, the national mood has become one of ‘Bregret.’ The number of Britons who think Brexit was the right decision has hit a new low, as a new YouGov poll shows. Just three in 10 Britons (30 percent) say that it was right for the UK to vote to leave the EU, compared to 55 percent who say it was wrong.

Also speaking volumes about the growing doubts over the wisdom of the decision, was the news this week that all UK constituencies, including Nigel Farage’s Clacton, would prefer a trade deal with the EU over the US.

While the people are left to contend with the consequences, as the years pass, it’s increasingly evident that the primary beneficiaries of Brexit have been the political elites who championed it.

It seems there is no punishment for arguably betraying your country, or at the very least, committing a policy blunder on such a scale that it will reverberate for years to come.

Boris Johnson became PM

In his memoir published in 2019, former PM David Cameron argued that Johnson didn’t genuinely believe in Brexit. Instead, he backed the Leave campaign to boost his own political career.

Cameron criticised Johnson’s motivations, noting that he was eager to lead the Brexit charge to secure the party’s top spot, especially to prevent rival Michael Gove from seizing the crown.

Cameron also referred to Michael Gove, who was a cabinet minister at the time, as “a foam-flecked Faragist.”

The pair were “ambassadors for the expert-trashing, truth-twisting age of populism,” he wrote.

“Whichever senior Tory politician took the lead on the Brexit side – so loaded with images of patriotism, independence and romance – would become the darling of the party.”

Cameron also criticised Johnson’s use of the Vote Leave campaign bus adorned with the claim that leaving would mean £350m a week extra for the NHS.

“Boris rode the bus round the country, he left the truth at home,” wrote the former PM.

Despite his “Get Brexit Done” campaign mantra in 2019 and defeating Jeremy Corbyn in a landslide, Johnson failed to fulfil the promise.

As political scientist Brendon O’Leary wrote in an essay about Johnson’s downfall:

“Johnson did not get Brexit done. It is a continuing wound, a senseless collective act of self-harm which he encouraged; indeed, he directed the cutting.”


Michael Gove becomes Spectator editor

Michael Gove, a central figure in the governments of David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, stepped down from parliament at the 2024 general election. But instead of shunning the limelight and retiring quietly, Gove was named the new editor of the Spectator, just weeks after GB News backer Paul Marshall completed a £100m takeover of the right-wing magazine.

Despite gaining a reputation for enemy-making (even Liz Truss referred to him as a “snake” after he undermined her 45-day tenure by saying he would not vote for her budget), it emerged this week that Gove has been offered a peerage in Rishi Sunak’s resignation honours list. Then again, Gove did always stay faithful to Sunak, remaining one of his most staunch supporters during the final weeks of his premiership, so perhaps it’s not that surprising

.

Rishi Sunak lands lucrative ‘side’ jobs

Talking of Rishi Sunak, another ardent Brexiteer, who said it pained him to go against the David Cameron and his ‘illustrious predecessor’ Lord Hague, by campaigning to leave the EU, but said he believed the country will be ‘freer, fairer and more prosperous’ if the public voted ‘out,’ has landed a job at Oxford and Stanford universities (yes both!)

Just last week, the former prime minister announced he would be joining the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government as a member of its World Leaders Circle.

He will also take up a visiting fellowship at the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California.

This is as well as being MP for Richmond and Northallerton. Wow, what a remarkable trajectory, balancing academic roles with political life.

Jacob Rees-Mogg becomes a ‘sir’

Jacob Rees-Mogg, another ardent Brexiteer, who was accused of hypocrisy after encouraging investors to move to London when his City firm, Somerset Capitol Management, set up an investment fund in Ireland ahead of Britain’s EU exit, was given a knighthood by his old pal, Boris Johnson.

The former cabinet minister became a ‘Sir’ in the former prime minister’s 2023 birthday honours list.

Priti Patel and Andrea Jenkyns, both Johnson allies and Eurosceptics who supported the Leave campaign, also received gongs, becoming dames.

Nigel Farage our future PM?

But the most worrying of the lot is Nigel Farage. Now leading Reform UK, the self-styled Brexit architect, is so confident in himself that he told a packed party in Washington DC thrown in his honour, that he will become Britain’s next prime minister, and before 2030. He told the room overlooking the White House that Donald Trump’s victory isn’t just a victory for America but for the free world and expressed confidence that Reform’s rise would lead to a future in power.

His prediction marks a new goalpost from Farage for his own political ambitions. Then again, his refusal to retire from politics despite declaring that with Brexit he had completed his “life’s work,” a mission that had consumed “the best part of three decades,” suggests that the post-Brexit Britain Farage envisioned isn’t the utopia he promised.

Meanwhile, his party continues to climb in the polls. The first YouGov poll of 2025 found Reform is now in second place, just one point behind the Labour Party, while the Tories, under Kemi Badenoch, have been pushed into third place on 22 percent.

Kemi Badenoch

Then there’s Kemi Badenoch herself. An “anti-woke warrior” and fervent Brexiteer, Badenoch made waves within the party with her support for controversial policies like the Rwanda deportation plan.

But, as the party’s fourth leader in just over two years, it remains to be seen whether Badenoch will still be leader of the Tories heading into the next general election. One of her toughest tasks is avoiding further division between her own MPs – let alone the electorate.

Of course, there’s a long tradition of the Establishment not punishing failure. In 2015, a raft of failed former MPs was handed seats in the House of Lords, including the controversial Tory grandee Douglas Hogg. Viscount Hogg sparked outrage during an expenses scandal after it emerged, he had claimed £2,200 from taxpayers to clean his moat.

Even the former health secretary Andrew Lansley, whose Health and Social Care Act 2012 was described as maybe the most disastrous attempt of any Conservative government to decentralise and to allow local individual enterprise and autonomy, was handed a peerage, following a recommendation by David Cameron.

In politics, failure, it seems, is often rewarded with power and prestige rather than being penalised. And nowhere is this more evident than with Brexit, where the advocates prospered while the nation was brought to its knees.


Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch




Half of Brits support introducing Proportional Representation voting system, latest poll finds

3 February, 2025 
Left Foot Forward

The public also believe that it is more important for seats to be allocated proportionally between parties (46%) than for the largest party to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons (27%)

.

Half of Britons support introducing a proportional representation voting system, the latest YouGov poll has found, outweighing support for the current First Past the Post system.

Following the 2024 general election, which produced the least proportional result in British history, YouGov says that there have been renewed calls for elections to the House of Commons to switch to a system of proportional representation (PR).

The poll found that half of Britons (49%) would support the introduction of a PR system, almost twice as many as the 26% who favour retaining our present FPTP system.

When it comes to party affiliation, the poll found that support for PR is highest among Green Party voters (72%), Reform UK (67%) and Lib Dem voters (61%).

A majority of Labour Party voters (53%) also support moving to a PR system.

And the public also believe that it is more important for seats to be allocated proportionally between parties (46%) than for the largest party to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons (27%).

The public also favour having a greater number of smaller parties (44%) than a system with two larger main parties (27%).

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward
DEI UK
Thousands of Asda workers win latest stage of decade-long equal pay claim

4 February, 2025 
Left Foot Forward

A tribunal has found that most female shopworkers involved in the case have jobs of equal value to higher-paid positions in Asda’s warehouses.



Thousands of Asda workers have won the latest stage of a decade-long equal pay claim that could cost the supermarket chain £1.2 billion.

GMB Union has said that thousands of female workers are “on the cusp of justice” as an employment tribunal has ruled in favour of 12 out of 14 ‘lead claimants’ in the case.

The case, brought by GMB and Leigh Day, involves 60,000 workers and is challenging the pay gap faced by women in shop-based roles, who earn up to £3.74 less per hour than men working in warehouses.

The case has implications for workers in all the big supermarkets who are involved in similar cases.

The Employment Tribunal found that the following roles are of equal value to warehouse jobs: checkout operator and shop floor assistant in departments including ‘chilled’, bakery, produce, customer services and George.

Two roles were not found to be of equal value – online shopping packers and store workers who only handle packaged or canned groceries. GMB is looking at making an appeal on their behalf.

The women, who launched their claim in 2014, now face just one final hurdle; stage three of the claim, which requires Asda to provide a reason, not related to sex, for the difference in pay.

Nadine Houghton, GMB National Officer, called on Asda to “stop wasting time and money dragging this case through the courts and get round the table with us to agree a settlement”.

Houghton added: “This is a historic step towards securing equal pay justice for tens of thousands of Asda workers, but it is tainted with bitter disappointment for those who now face an appeal.”

“These women have been fighting for what they are owed for more than ten years and are close to ending the era of retailers systematically undervaluing women.”

An Asda spokesperson told ITV: “We strongly reject any claim that Asda’s pay rates are discriminatory.

“Asda will continue to defend these claims at the next stage of the litigation because retail and distribution are two different industry sectors that have their own market rates and distinct pay structures.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
The UK water industry shows how the state indulges corporations to the detriment of society

4 February, 2025

Since 1989, water companies have been the subject of over 1,100 criminal convictions, but governments are content for them to control the industry.



Anyone trying to understand how the state indulges corporations to the detriment of society need look no further than the water industry in England and Wales. This poster-child of predatory capitalism routinely dumps raw sewage in rivers, seas and lakes; creating health hazards, destroying marine life and biodiversity. Shareholders profited by £380 for every hour of sewage dumping in 2023.

Successive governments have permitted companies to fleece people. Customers’ bills have risen by over 363% since privatisation in 1989. No new reservoirs have been built since 1989 and investment in ramshackle infrastructure has been neglected. The companies have paid over £85bn in dividends since privatisation in 1989, and run up debts of over £70bn. Around 35p in every pound of customer bills goes on interest and shareholder dividends.

Since 1989, water companies have been the subject of over 1,100 criminal convictions, but governments are content for them to control the industry. With huge extraction of cash, most water companies are teetering on the edge of financial bankruptcy. Public ownership and end of the profit motive is the only way out of the morass but successive governments have refused to do that.

In October 2024, ahead of the launch of a Commission to examine the water industry, Ministers hinted that water companies could be banned from making a profit. However, in January 2025, water regulator Ofwat permitted companies to increase customer bills by up to 47% over the next five years.

This is accompanied by impression management. With great fanfare regulators and the governments soothe public opinion by announcing fines, but these are not necessarily collected. We now have fines which are discretionary, and may not actually be paid.

When fines are not fines

On 6 August 2024, Ofwat announced fines totalling £168m on three water companies – Thames Water, £104m; Yorkshire Water, £47m; and Northumbrian Water, £17m. These three companies have nearly 400 criminal convictions. The fines arose out of an investigation that began in March 2022 and relate to offences before that date. The Ofwat press release said that the fines were “for failing to manage their wastewater treatment works and networks … these companies not having properly operated and maintained their wastewater treatment works … [causing] harm to the environment and their customers.” To date, not a penny of the fines has been collected.

The Ofwat press release contained some key words – it “proposed” that three water companies will be fined, and penalties are subject to “consultation”. The consultation period ended 10th September 2024, but Ofwat has not announced whether the penalty has been confirmed or varied, and when it will be paid.

When pressed in parliament, the Minister said:

“Ofwat has the option of accepting regulatory settlement in lieu of imposing an enforcement order and/or fine. If Ofwat decides to impose a fine, it will issue a notice to the company specifying the date of payment. This must be after 42 days from the date that notice is served on the company.”

So, fines don’t have to be paid if companies promise to behave or limit damage. When was the notice served? Was it on 6th August, 10 September or 42 days after that or has it been served at all?

The regulatory policy means that organisations with nearly 400 criminal convictions are permitted to negotiate the amount and timing of financial penalties. No court permits habitual criminals to negotiate the amount and timing of penalties, but this is the new norm in the water industry. The obfuscation is in line with the regulator’s new role, which requires it to promote growth of the industry. Seemingly, growth is being promoted by obfuscation, lack of penalties and a green light for more predatory practices.

There are also other matters of concern. It has been reported that since March 2021, Ofwat has actually fined only two companies, and these do not relate to sewage dumping. In 2021 Thames Water was fined £1 because of data errors which led to some customers being charged incorrectly. The company paid £11.3m compensation to affected customers. In 2024, Welsh Water was fined £1 as it misreported data on leakages over several years. Ofwat’s rationale is that the company proposed a £73m compensation and investment package. Arguably, investment should have been made anyway and customers should not have been overcharged. The investment increases the value of the company and stake of its shareholders. So, what is the penalty for wrongdoing? And why have no penalties been levied for sewage dumping?

Non-fines fines are also to be found for other offences. For example, in March 2023, Ofwat said that it will “stop the payment of dividends if they would risk the company’s financial resilience, and take enforcement action against water companies that don’t link dividend payments to performance”. Thames Water went ahead and paid dividends. In December 2024, Ofwat announced that it will fine Thames Water £18 million for unjustified dividend payment of £37.5m in October 2023, and a further dividend payment of £158.3m in March 2024. The announcement was couched in the usual terms – “its proposed decision”. The consultation period closed on 16 January, and no confirmation has been announced by Ofwat.

Last week, after announcing price rises of 23% and 32%, Pennon and United Utilities announced that they plan to increase dividends in line with inflation i.e. maintain the real value of returns to shareholders. Is it reasonable that real value of shareholder returns be maintained whilst the real value of wages and benefits is not?

During the parliamentary passage of the Water (Special Measures) Bill, the Secretary of State said that the government will “ban bonuses if water company executives fail to meet high standards”. Thames Water responded by stating that it will circumvent any ban by increasing the base pay of company directors.

What happens to the financial penalties? In November 2022, the government said that “at present, money from these fines is returned to the Treasury. Under the new plans, ringfenced funds will go to Defra and will be invested directly back into environmental and water quality improvement projects.” This initiative led to the creation of a Water Restoration Fund (WRF) and certain parties could request money to protect and improve rivers, lakes, and streams. The first round of the Fund was launched in April 2024 with a pot of £11m, but no information about any grants is available. The Treasury has refused to say whether the £168m fine (see above), when collected would form part of the WRF.

The use of fines for cleaning-up the mess is welcome, but it still raises questions about penalties for predatory practices. Following the ‘polluter must pay’ principle companies must bear the cost of cleaning-up but the use of the fines for that purpose lets companies off the hook. They do not suffer any penalties for predatory practices.

The water industry non-fines are another example of the state-corporate nexus. Companies are permitted to fleece people, but are shielded by the state from retribution as that threatens their profits. The government strategy has been to manage public anger by announcing financial penalties and curbs on dividends and executive bonuses, but doing little for any timely enforcement. Despite criminal convictions companies are allowed to negotiate the amount and timing of fines, with no guarantee that they will actually be paid. Such strategies will deepen as regulators, instead of solely protecting customers, are now required to promote growth of the industry. They could grow industry by promoting ethical practices, but have chosen to protect water company profits through obfuscation, higher customer bills and low or no financial penalties. The chances of criminal prosecutions against directors who directly benefit from predatory practices are non-existent. None of this will promote confidence in the industry or persuade companies to act in a socially responsible way.


Prem Sikka is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield, a Labour member of the House of Lords, and Contributing Editor at Left Foot Forward.
‘Unprecedented’ month-long strike begins at leading London museums

2 February, 2025
LEFT FOOT FORWARD

It's the “longest strike in the history of all three institutions.”



Security guards at the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A), the Science Museum, and the Natural History Museum have begun a month-long strike over pay disputes. The action also includes guards at the V&A Museum in Stratford and the Young V&A Museum in Bethnal Green.

The strike will run daily until February 28. It has been described as “unprecedented” and the “longest strike in the history of all three institutions” by the union leading the action, United Voices of the World (UVW). Approximately 100 UVW members, employed by security provider Wilson James, will take part.

The workers are fighting for a pay increase to £16 per hour, sick pay from the start of their employment, and full parity with directly employed museum staff. This includes more annual leave and an annual bonus. UVW is urging the public to support the strike by avoiding visits to the museums during the action.

The action follows a similar strike in January, when security guards protested against “stagnant pay.”

In response to the ongoing industrial action, a Wilson James spokesperson stated that the strike would last “a couple of hours” each day, and claimed the company offers “competitive compensation,” and is seeking a resolution that “balances fair pay with the need to remain financially responsible.”

“We respect the right to strike, whilst remaining confident that we will continue to deliver excellent service to the museums and their visitors throughout this period of industrial action…We continue to engage with UVW, seeking to formalise a recognition agreement that will support finding a resolution that is fair for all,” they said.

The strike comes amid three legal claims filed against Wilson James by UVW. The claims include allegations of race and disability discrimination, victimisation, unlawful pay cuts, and blacklisting. One claim involves a migrant worker and union member who alleges experiencing racist remarks.

Another claim concerns a zero-hours worker who, after refusing to cross a picket line during October strikes, reportedly faced cancelled shifts and reduced wages. A third claim involves a female guard recovering from cancer, who alleges she was repeatedly denied a chair during her recovery.

Responding to the legal action, a Wilson James spokesperson said: “The safety of both our team members and the public are our top priority and we are committed to maintaining a respectful and fair working environment. We are aware of the situations relating to the individuals in UVW’s statement and are working with the relevant parties towards resolution. We do not condone or practice any form of coercion related to attendance.”