Monday, 7 April 2025

Pensioner poverty


Pensioner poverty



A recent report by Age UK highlights that certain groups of pensioners continue to face significant challenges regarding the cost of living, with conditions deteriorating compared to the previous year.

The most adversely affected demographics include older individuals with disabilities, older renters, and those subsisting on low to modest incomes.

According to new research from Age UK, one in three pensioners (34%), representing approximately 4.1 million individuals, reported feeling less financially secure as they approach 2025 than they did at the start of 2024.

The overall financial situation has worsened for all pensioners, particularly among specific sub-groups such as older individuals with disabilities, older renters, and those with low to modest incomes. Additionally, other vulnerable groups include older women, individuals living alone, and older caregivers.

In a representative survey of individuals aged 66 and above, participants conveyed to Age UK that their concerns regarding the cost of living remain far from resolved.

The Charity's latest report expresses deep concern regarding the rising energy costs and the challenges faced by older individuals in affording essential items. This situation has been exacerbated by the withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Payment for many on low and modest incomes, including those with health issues.

Starting in April 2025, energy prices are projected to exceed 50% of their levels at the beginning of 2022. Although inflation has decreased to near pre-2022 levels, with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) recorded at 3% in January 2025, the prices of everyday necessities, such as groceries, remain significantly elevated compared to previous years.

Amidst these financial strains, Age UK's research indicates that nearly three in five pensioners (59%), equating to 2.9 million individuals, have opted to reduce their heating or electricity usage. A significant number of these pensioners would prefer to forgo heating altogether rather than incur debt, a sentiment that rises to 65% among female pensioners. 

The harsh truth is that it is essential to focus on increasing our savings to prevent the possibility of retiring in financial hardship, a challenge that has become increasingly difficult in today’s economic climate.

Will society be incapable of providing future pensioners with a standard of living comparable to what they enjoy today? Is there a looming generational conflict between the working population and retirees regarding the distribution of national income between wages and pensions?

The succinct answer is: No. These narratives are largely alarmist tales propagated by employers aiming to lessen their contributions to company pension schemes, as well as by insurance companies seeking to increase sales of private pensions.

However, in contemporary capitalist society, there exists another group that does not work yet relies on the labour of others for their upkeep: individuals who derive income from what has traditionally been termed "unearned income." This category includes earnings from rents, interest, and dividends stemming from property ownership. This serves as a fundamental definition of a member of the capitalist class: someone who possesses enough profit-generating assets to sustain themselves without engaging in labour.


Age UK Report





Sunday, 6 April 2025

Young People Are Resisting

Young People Are Resisting

It’s ill-mannered to point a finger at someone we were taught. It’s more ill-mannered to use a pointing finger to con, persuade, influence and sway young men to sign up and fight capitalism’s conflicts for it.

Lord Kitchener, Secretary of War during World War One was featured on a propaganda poster pointing his finger and exhorting, (threatening?) those viewing it. Under his picture were the words ‘Wants You. Join your country’s army! God save the king.’ This appeal to patriotism, or stupidity, was considered an effective way of persuading British young men to voluntarily enlist. Based on this original, there were many other capitalist states who issued similar brainwashing images.

Young people today are often more informed and critical of the narratives presented to them.

This resistance often manifests in various ways, including protests, activism, and vocal opposition to policies they perceive as unjust or outdated.

So well done Youth Demand!

Youth Demand

Mike Martin, a veteran of the Afghanistan conflict and the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Tunbridge Wells, issued a serious caution to the British public as Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine continues unabated.

Mike Martin advocates for the UK government to contemplate the reintroduction of conscription. He argues that the current geopolitical climate necessitates a robust defence strategy, which may involve mobilising a larger segment of the population to ensure national security.

I think young people today in this Modern Age are not as gullible as they once were, they are better educated to know better that's why there is so much talk of "Conscription" in the media, and from politicians Army generals.

Indeed, young people today are often more informed and critical of the narratives presented to them, thanks in large part to the accessibility of information through the internet and social media. This heightened awareness allows them to question authority, scrutinise motives, and engage in discussions about the implications of war, nationalism, and economic systems.

The conversation on the other hand from young people is around "construction" and reflects a desire for building a better future, focusing on peace, sustainability, and social justice rather than conflict. Many young individuals are drawn to movements that advocate for constructive solutions to global issues, such as climate change, inequality, and systemic injustice. They recognise the importance of collaboration over conflict and see the value in collective action to address these pressing challenges.

Furthermore, contemporary education emphasises critical thinking and media literacy, equipping young people with the tools to analyse and deconstruct propaganda and persuasive messaging. This shift in mindset represents a significant departure from previous generations who may have been more susceptible to simplistic appeals to patriotism or duty.

As a result, the discourse has evolved from one of blind allegiance to a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of global conflicts and the responsibilities of citizenship. Young people are increasingly advocating for dialogue, empathy, and innovative approaches to problem-solving, demonstrating that they are not just passive recipients of information but active participants in shaping the future.

The discussion around conscription today often reflects a broader awareness among young people about the implications of mandatory military service and the historical context surrounding it. Unlike previous generations, many young individuals are equipped with the knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary to evaluate the reasons behind calls for conscription, especially in the face of modern conflicts and geopolitical tensions.

This heightened awareness has led to debates about the ethics and necessity of conscription, as well as an understanding of its impact on personal freedoms and societal obligations. Young people are increasingly questioning the motivations behind such policies, exploring whether they serve national interests or merely perpetuate cycles of conflict and militarization.

Moreover, with the rise of social media and global connectivity, young people are able to share perspectives and experiences from around the world, fostering a more informed dialogue about the consequences of war and the value of alternative forms of service, such as community engagement or humanitarian work. This shift signifies a movement towards prioritising constructive solutions rather than military ones, reflecting a desire for peace and collaboration in addressing global challenges.

As discussions about conscription continue, young voices are advocating for a reconsideration of what citizenship and service mean in the modern age. This generation is increasingly focused on building bridges rather than walls or wars, emphasising the importance of diplomacy, dialogue, and understanding in a complex world.



Sunday, 16 June 2024

The General election July 4 2024




This General election is the most Boring ever! 

What's the point?


50 years ago, October 1974 was my very first General election.

 

And I was thinking...

How times and the parties have changed since then?  

Labour In particular has changed beyond my wildest imagination. From a warm Social Democratic Broadchurch that I remember, to what was and has become today under  Sir Keir Rodney (Plunker) Starmer, Conservative Mark 2 a party for Business.

These are bad and uncertain times in the world both at home and aboard, However, the Tories are going to be annihilated and consigned to the dustbin of history possibly (Fingers crossed) permanently?

Tory Britain is about to fall... But what follows could be far worse.

When Britain goes to the polls on 4 July, it is certain Keir Starmer’s Labour Party will surge to victory. A victory by default, the Tories after 14 long years are hated more than Labour is distrusted. 

Starmer has changed the Labour Party

Starmer has changed the Labour Party since taking over from Jeremy Corbyn, many say he has been ruthlessly purging the left, deselecting candidates from the left, Imposing candidates on constituency parties and much more.

Starmer has moved Labour towards the Liberal right of the old Conservative Party, and Labour could move further, more to the right once in office.  

Politics in general is moving to the right in Britain, In Europe, in the US.

I think new waters are flowing in all directions, a turning point in establishment politics is merging that could combine to change the politics of this country and around the world. 

The legacies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are still playing out before our very eyes all these years later. 

They both planted the seeds of the world’s move to the deep right politically. In Britain Thatcher, implemented sweeping reforms concerning the affairs of the economy, eventually including the privatisation of most nationalised industries, and the weakening of trade unions

Reaganomics and Thatcherism

The fact that British and US elected leaders within a year with strong anti-government, anti-Keynesian, and advocates of the private market sector and tax reductions was a remarkable coincidence.

Both President Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher had the distinction of getting their names linked to a special line of thinking. 

Both leaders attempted to shift the centre of the political spectrum sharply to the right in their policies.

Reagan set about undoing a half-century of legislation which had built up the public sector while opening up America to expansion led by the private sector. 

Mrs. Thatcher was occupied with doing the same thing in Britain. Both leaders believed that government itself was partly the cause of their mutual economic problems, including high inflation and slow economic growth. The answer they believed was less government. In contrast, all previous leaders since the 1930s had assumed that if things went wrong, the remedy would be government intervention.

Neoliberalism

The term neoliberalism has become more prevalent in recent decades A prominent factor in the rise of conservative and right-libertarian organizations, political parties, and think tanks, and predominantly advocated by them, neoliberalism is often associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.The neoliberal project is also focused on designing institutions and is political in character rather than only economic.

How does neoliberalism affect the poor?

Higher rates of poverty; less protection against poverty, unemployment, and healthcare risks; social exclusion. Austerity-driven financial policies leading to an increase in unemployment and poverty; reduced labour costs.

The origins of Neoliberalism lie in early 1920s, in the works of Austrian economist and sociologist Ludwig von Mises, as a response to the powerful organizations of German and Austrian workers (Misses, 1981 , 1983 , 2005). It represented a means of justifying the concentration of capital, the subordination of the state to the market and an anti-socialist system of social control. Mises became an economic advisor to the Austrofascist dictator Engelbert Dollfuss. He argued for corporate tax cuts, balanced budgets, wage cuts and the repression of trade unions. He believed that Mussolini’s seizure of power had “saved European civilisation. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history”. Moreover that “the capitalistic market economy is a democracy, in which every penny constitutes a vote”. Elected by means of what he called a “consumer plebiscite”, the rich depended on the “will of the people as consumers”

The Conservative Party learnt a very salutary lesson in 1972 when five shop stewards in the London docks were imprisoned for breaching a court order. This lead to massive unofficial strike action and the, normally moderate, Trades Union Congress (TUC) called a one-day general strike. The government climbed down and found a legal excuse to release the so-called “Pentonville 5”. Thereafter, the basic principle of British anti-trade union law has been to avoid direct penalties on workers, but rather to threaten the funds of trade unions that do not obey the law to the letter. This drives the trade union bureaucracy to protect its assets by making sure that their members only engage in lawful industrial action.

Neoliberal politicians make a big play of their opposition to regulations.


However, they are quietly in favour of the maximum regulation of trade unions,

particularly restricting their right to strike.

Successive governments have imposed increasingly draconian restrictions on the normal functioning of trade unions, in particular making it increasingly difficult to hold a legal strike. Currently, not only must a postal ballot be held, but ballots have to achieve at least a 50% turnout of eligible union members, with a majority voting in favour of strike action. In important public services – including in the health, education and transport sectors – an additional threshold of 40% in favour of industrial action from all eligible members must be met for the action to be legal. A Government website said: “Tougher ballot thresholds will reduce industrial action in important public services like transport, health and education by 35%, and 1.5 million working hours a year will be saved from strike action. These measures will provide a £100 million boost to UK economy over 10 years”.

A split in the Conservative Party between its pro- and anti-EU wings finally forced Thatcher out of office and, indirectly gave birth to Ukip (United Kingdom Independence Party) in 1991, a virulently right-wing, racist, anti-European party, led by Nigel Farage. Farage confirmed his neoliberal credentials when the 1997 Ukip manifesto said “Regulations destroy jobs and the Ukip is determined to reduce the regulatory burden on industry and on small businesses in particular” ( United Kingdom Independence Party, 1997 ). Since then Farage has used Ukip, and latterly the Brexit Party, to pull the Conservative Party to the neoliberal right by threatening to attract their voters.

In 2012, a group of Conservative Members of Parliament published a book entitled Britannia Unchained that argued that that the UK has a “bloated state, high taxes and excessive regulation”. It continues: “The British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor”.