Black hole

Source: X (formerly Twitter)

The Government's decision to cut the winter fuel allowance for all but the country’s poorest pensioners looks particularly harsh when set against revelations about gifts to the prime minister and Cabinet members.

From BBC News: Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has paid back more than £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality received since becoming prime minister, following a backlash over donations. A Labour peer donated more than £32,000 worth of clothing and spectacles to Sir Keir when he was leader of the opposition, which he has not paid back.

Addressing the Labour Party Conference Liz Kendall MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said, "Conference, focusing Winter Fuel Payments on the poorest pensioners wasn’t a decision we wanted or expected to make. But when we promised we could be trusted with taxpayers’ money, we meant it. And when we’re faced with a £22 billion black hole which the Tories left this year – we had to act."

The absurdity of the Government's position can be observed from this clash between Money Saving Expert Martin Lewis and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy. On the one hand the Government claims to be desperate to save money by penalising the elderly while on the other they claim to be doing all they can to pay out money to thousands of pensioners who are eligible for pension credit but have not claimed because of their inability to do so through personal circumstances such as dementia or the complexity of doing so.

The £22 billion black hole has been disputed by the Tories but even if true, the government with an economy of £2.27 trillion does not need to penalise vulnerable pensioners. There is money available.

The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband, is to spend £22 billion on a Carbon capture and storage project when, according to Recharge, "Capturing CO2 emissions using direct-air-capture (DAC) technology requires almost as much energy as that contained in the fossil fuels that produced the carbon dioxide in the first place, according to new analysis."

The United Kingdom does not exist in a bubble. Other countries produce much more CO2 which is released into the atmosphere.

Better to plant more oxygen producing trees to capture CO2 for a fraction of the cost than to put pensioners at risk.

Postscripts 

[10.10.2024] From Age UK: 

Yesterday, Age UK’s own Equality Impact Assessment was released. It presents the true harm of the Winter Fuel Payment cut. 82% of pensioners in poverty or just above the poverty line will lose up to £300 in energy support this winter.

The assessment looks at age, sex, disability, living arrangements and region – it’s the most important moment for the campaign so far. It shows that the vast majority of older people on low incomes won’t get the Winter Fuel Payment, so the Government must change course.

Will you help by sharing these findings with your MP?

  

 Yes, I'll email my MP    

[11.10.2024] 
1, The Prime Minister describing the plight of pensioners when in Opposition.
2. Financial Times report: "UK Treasury refuses to disclose key details of £22bn fiscal ‘black hole’. 

The government has also refused to publish an assessment of the impact of means-testing winter fuel payments on pensioners.

Time for the Beeb to red card Lineker?

Lineker has been the main presenter of Match of the Day for more than 20 years          Source: BBC

Following news that the TV licence fee is to be increased from £157.50 to £159 Mail Online reported this reaction from a community nurse after Gary Lineker tweeted his 'heartless' reaction to the increase.

The mother-of-two who specialises in dementia and palliative care said she is facing being kicked out of her home for missing a TV licence direct debit.

"She fumed: 'I'm an NHS nurse, worked all through the pandemic. Me and my two children are facing homelessness and TV licensing are taking me to court for a missed direct debit. She said she questioned if she could be taken to court and added: 'Explained it to the inspector that came to the house. 'But as I had a BBC channel on it was deemed a breach as the licence was not renewed due to the failed direct debit. 'Paid it on the spot. Got told to change my plea to guilty to avoid more fees. 'It's been a long nightmare'." 

Mail Online reported that BBC star Gary Lineker was accused of 'mocking the poor' after joking about his £1.3million salary in response to the corporation ramping up the cost of the licence fee. The 60 years old former England soccer player responded to news of the hike from £157.50 to £159 on Twitter with 'But, but I've just taken a pay cut', followed with a zany face emoticon.

Lineker's attempt at a joke misfired badly and saw him described as 'heartless' and 'missing the mood of the public'. The community nurse responded with "I hope you manage to survive with your pay cut."

Lineker may have taken a pay cut from around £1.7 million but he is still paid £1.3 million, the cost of over 8,000 TV licenses when many pensioners over 75 and over-stretched workers cannot afford one.

I know soccer is a kin to religion for many but the cost of retaining this over-paid 'high priest' and other similarly over-paid 'stars' is depriving some of the most vulnerable in society of a link with the outside world, particularly when they are essentially under house arrest during lock-down.

BBC Gravy Train

The BBC has come under fire after it published accounts showing that staff pay had soared 3.5 per cent to £1.5billion this year - while the Corporation pushes ahead with its plans to strip a million over-75s of their free TV licences. (Mail Online)

The BBC's highest paid 'stars'.  Source: Mail Online

plus executive pay:

There are 91 BBC executives who are paid MORE than the Prime Minister and 11 bosses get more
than DOUBLE his salary.  Source: Mail online

The BBC's mission is "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain".

It is a job they do well at their best but 'Auntie' is not what she used to be. Pay and 'bias' have again been dominating the headlines. 

Their salary bill is similar to the cost of running their main TV channels: BBC One- £1.2bn, BBC Two- £481.2 million and BBC Four- £52.3 million according to the BBC's Annual Report and Accounts for 2017/18.

In 2015, the government announced that the BBC would take over the cost of providing free licences for over-75s by 2020 as part of the BBC fee settlement. 

In a staggering breach of faith the BBC later claimed that "BBC Two, BBC Four, the BBC News Channel, the BBC Scotland channel, Radio 5live, and a number of local radio stations would all have been at risk" if they honoured the commitment that guaranteed their fee settlement.

Delayed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, demands for licence fees are being received by pensioners over 75 year old at the same time as the BBC published accounts showing that staff pay had "soared 3.5 per cent to £1.5billion this year".

There is no recognition in the BBC that part of the problem in honouring their obligation to elderly pensioners is the unjustifiable amount of money paid out in salaries when they cannot afford to do so.

I suspect that I am not alone looking at the photographs of the highest paid 'stars' only to find that just two of the ten have any impact on my life and then only because they are BBC newsreaders.

Personally I prefer Reeta Chakrabarti and Ben Brown at less than half the cost.

Programme content has become dire with endless repeats. New series are built around murder and violence while frequent soccer programmes pervade the airwaves, something that could well be left to other providers given the cost to the licence payer.

New content is bogged down in the BBC's 'diversity' drive. Knee deep in political correctness and wokism BBC's mission is increasingly questionable. Not all change is for the better as the BBC should learn from their mishandling of their previously successful Strictly Come Dancing.

In the 2011 census over 86% of the population were white with 13% identifying as  BAME but often the BBC's news coverage conveys the impression that white people are the minority in the UK. 

The BBC's Breakfast time programme constantly undermines the Government's strategy to defeat Covid-19 while some of the presenters adopt the role of official opposition to the Government.

One ought to expect the highest standards from a public service broadcaster but some of the trailers are jaw dropping. 

Following on from their promotion of BBC 3's Drag Race, the BBC are currently promoting Little Mix in a series that encourages grotesquely made-up youngsters to mimic their hosts by cavorting around in clothing that could easily be mistaken for underwear.

I do not watch EastEnders but the trailers illustrate life in the East End as constant misery and angst. No wonder the programmes are accompanied by health warnings.

As a public service institution the BBC should be readily available to all, informing and educating. 

Instead we have an over-paid politically correct woke elite constantly lowering standards by foisting their own liberal views on audiences thus 'normalising' abnormal behaviour.

The announcement by Gary Lineker that Sue Barker is to be replaced on A Question Of Sport by ex-soccer player Alex Scott brought one of the best suggestions: Alex Scott should replace Lineker.

That would be diversity!

The great energy rip-off

When it comes to choosing Gas and Electricity suppliers I am baffled. Tariff type, Unit rate, Standing charges, dual fuel, DD, Exit fees, etc, etc. All I want to know is the overall price for supplying gas and electricity but dream on.

My fixed tariff agreement is about to expire. If I do nothing I will be transferred to the Standard Rate with a big hike in charges. Lest I should be bombarded with suggestions that online switching sites are the answer, I know but they can be part of the problem: The Charity Age UK earned £6m a year for encouraging thousands to sign up to special rate that was £245 higher than cheapest tariff.

Money Saving Expert assures me that by using the Cheap Energy Club I can make significant savings by switching to British Gas. That seemed like a good idea before I heard the boss of Centrica on the BBC's Breakfast Time show this morning justifying the rise in British Gas profits of 31%. What if I sign up and then they reduce their prices? I will be stuck with a fixed tariff until February 2017 unless paying exit fees makes a change worthwile.

After reading about a supposed good deal on a switching site a few months ago I decided to switch. My current supplier then phoned to tell me that comparison sites do not necessarily offer the best advice because "there are various ways of calculating costs". Also some sites do not include all suppliers in their comparisons. Then of course there were the meter readings; were they up to date? And don't forget the mild Winter effect.... I accepted the advice offered and left the decision to another day. My supplier couldn't offer a better deal at the time although there could be a better deal in February when new tariffs may be available. I am still waiting and it is decision time.

The Government assures me that competition is good for the economy benefiting customers with lower prices. But what about consumers who are unable to navigate the obstacle course and the many pensioners who do not have access to a computer or lack the necessary internet skills?

Competition has become a means of boosting profits at the expense of the vulnerable. In fact, a proposal considered by the Competition and Markets Authority is a plan put forward by energy companies themselves to end the use of indefinite standard tariffs and 'force' households to choose a new gas and electricity deal every year. A "licence to rip off consumers" was the verdict of the charity Citizens Advice.

Instead of being given a licence to rip off consumers, energy suppliers should be compelled to advertise their cheapest rates, thus enabling customers to choose between suppliers for the best deal.

Now that that would be an innovation!

Pensions plea

To lose one's hearing in old age is bad enough but to lose one's income through no fault of one's own is unfortunate. Many pensioners who lived frugally, putting aside what savings they could to provide that little bit extra in old age now find themselves sadly disappointed.

While bankers continue to reward themselves at taxpayers' expense with billions of pounds following their incompetence, savers have suffered a loss of £43 billion compared with their income before and after the Bank cut rates to 0.5%. In addition the value of investments is being eroded as markets fall.

Inflation is adding to their misery made worse by the Government's unilateral action to change the measure of calculating pension increases from the Retail Price Index to the Consumer Price Index resulting in lower increases. 

Last night I listen to complaints about the 50p tax rate payable by the top 1% of earners who receive over £150,000 a year (ie, ten times that of the average pensioner based on £29,000 for a couple). One man said he had had to work hard to achieve that. There are many who have worked very hard for much less. If they were to receive a bit extra they would be more likely to spend it.

An e-petition has been organised to protest against the unjust change in the method of calculating pension increases. Please sign it and ask others to do so. Thanks.


Update


E-mail received today (29/02/2012):



"The e-petition 'Public & Private Pension Increases - change from RPI to CPI' recently reached 109,392 signatures and a response has been made to it.
This e-petition has reached 100,000 signatures. The Government has notified the Backbench Business Committee in the House of Commons who will consider its suitability for debate when Parliament returns in September. This e-petition will remain live, and people will be able to continue adding their signatures. The Backbench Business Committe have announced that a debate relating to this e-petition will take place on Thursday 1 March 2012 in the Chamber of the House of Commons. Further information about the debate, and on the workings of the Backbench Business Committee, can be found on the Committee's website at http://www.parliament.uk/bbcom The Government will post a further response to this petition following the debate.


View the response to the e-petition."