Veterans for Peace UK Veterans for Peace UK is a voluntary ex-services organisation of men and women, who collectively have served in every war that Britain has fought since the Second World War. The group are arguing that: ‘War is not the solution to the problems we face in the 21st Century.’ Veterans for Peace UK belong within a wider international movement that began in the USA in 1985. The have members all over the UK with Action Groups in most regions. 

Dan joined the army in 2006, at 18, having grown up in an area of high unemployment. He was told that military discipline would keep him out of trouble. After training he deployed to Iraq, and when he came home he assaulted a warrant officer. He was sentenced to 18 months in military prison.

‘The army’s training changed me,’ Dan said, ‘it made me more aggressive as a person. I shouldn’t have attacked that warrant officer, but I believe I wouldn’t have if that training hadn’t changed me in the first place. After the conviction the army wouldn’t support me, my mental health deteriorated and I was left feeling isolated and alone. I resorted to alcohol abuse and became homeless for a year, and I have suffered with chronic PTSD. I really believe that underlying all my problems was the effect of the training I was put through when I joined the army.’

‘I hear stories like Dan’s all the time,’ said Ben Griffin, a former SAS soldier and the National Coordinator of VFP UK. ‘The report we are publishing today confirms that army training increases violent behaviour and heavy drinking even before recruits are sent to war, contradicting the common assumption that joining the army reduces antisocial behaviour.’ He went on, ‘We want to increase the public understanding of the impact military service, so that people can make better informed decisions.’

The First Ambush? Effects of army training and employment (70pp) draws on veterans’ testimony and around 200 studies, mainly from the UK and US, to explore the effects of army employment on recruits, particularly during initial training.

You can read the report below: 

Two subjects regularly in the news are spending on the National Health Service and migration. However, is our situation exceptional compared to other nations?

Are we overspending on healthcare and are we being overrun by migrants?

Figures from the OECD found that:

• Income inequality in the United Kingdom is the sixth largest in the OECD, in terms of the Gini coefficient, and has been well above the OECD average in the last three decades. In 2012 , the average income of the top 10% was 10.5 times higher than that of the bottom 10%, up from a ratio of 7 to 1 in the mid-1980s and 9 to 1 in the mid-1990s. This compares to an OECD average of 9.6 to 1 in 2013.
• Wealth inequality is higher than income inequality. In the UK, the top 10% owns around 47% of all net wealth, while the top 10% of income earners get 28% of income. The financial crisis has exacerbated the concentration of wealth at the top. While on average net wealth has declined since 2007, the net wealth of the top percentiles has increased.
• Income poverty (measured as half of the national median household income), concerns around 10.5% of the population in the United Kingdom, a rate close to the OECD average of 11%.
• Between 2007 and 2012 the average household disposable income fell by accumulated 8.6%, less at the bottom tenth of the distribution (6%) and more at the top tenth (11%).
• While the average household income in the UK is about 10% lower than in Germany and France, the average income of the bottom 10% in the UK is 40% lower than in France and 49% in Germany.

Image: Our healthcare spending is not exceptional. 

Image: Migration has grown enormously worldwide but the UK is not exceptional looking at the number of migrants we have accepted contrary to popular opinion. However there has been a significant increase since 2000 a trend now in decline. 

Simon, I am emailing to make you aware of the Social Security Committee’s call for views on the Social Security (Scotland) Bill.  Please find attached a link to it below. 

http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/105193.aspx

It will soon be available in a number of accessible formats including BSL, Easy Read, audio and large print. These will be available via the link above within the next couple of weeks.

Please let your audience see the video (shown below). We would be grateful if you could share it with any other interested parties / organisations you may be aware of.

The Committee would be grateful to receive written submissions by Wednesday 23 August 2017. 

You audience can keep up to date with the progress of Bill and the Committee’s work in general by following us on Twitter @SP_SocialSecur.

Kind regards

Suzanne Lyden

Committee Assistant

Social Security Committee

Scottish Parliament 

New data showing the widening gap between women’s and men’s average retirement income results from successive governments’ failure to invest in giving women equal opportunities to work and save, the Women’s Equality Party said on Thursday.

New data shows the gap between women’s and men’s average retirement income has grown by £1,000 in a year.

“Today we see the direct result of a political failure to act on the pension gap,” said Sophie Walker, Women’s Equality Party leader. “Women's pension poverty is unequal and unfair. WE have long called for a universal flat rate of pension tax relief to encourage women to save, that would in turn fund free childcare. It’s time for an end to gender-blind policy-making.”

Walker explained that women’s pension poverty was a consequence of the structural inequalities arising from the gender pay gap, occupational segregation and women’s unpaid, unvalued care work.

“Young women come out of our education system into jobs that often pay less. They are then far more likely to take on caring responsibilities that take them out of the workforce entirely or see them move into lower paid and part-time roles,” she said. “In addition, women often pay for childcare from their take-home pay, and therefore save less. Often those in work are less likely to benefit from auto-enrolment. The current pension system fails to see this, leaving women less able to contribute to and claim a decent pension. It is simply not fair that people who earn more get a higher pension top-up from the tax man.”

The Women’s Equality Party is the only party with a joined-up plan for tackling the pension gap. “We are working to create an equal education system that ends the practice of encouraging young girls into jobs that we value and pay less. We have fully-costed policies for free childcare that would create millions more jobs, increase the tax base and reduce out-of-work benefits.  We are the only party working to offer women real choices so they can work and save,” said Walker.

“Our plan to move to a flat rate of pension tax relief at 25 pence in the pound (up from the current 20p per pound for basic rate taxpayers) would boost the pension tax relief of up to 95% of working women by a quarter, stopping thousands of women retiring into pension poverty.”

She added: “It’s time for policy making that really sees women.”

Household savings have plummeted to their lowest level in 50 years, official figures published today have revealed.

It comes after figures yesterday showed household borrowing has continued to grow, with unsecured consumer credit increasing by £1.7bn in May.

Simon Collyer, the ABC founder has been appointed press officer of the Colchester Fabian Society which has just held their AGM. 

The Fabian Society was funded in January 4, 1884; 133 years ago and was an early version of whar we now know as a 'think-tank'. As one of the founding organisations of the Labour Representation Committee in 1900, and as an important influence upon the Labour Party which grew from it, the Fabian Society has had a powerful influence on British politics. The Fabian Society founded the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1895 "for the betterment of society", is now one of the leading institutions in the world, an incubator of influential politicians, economists, and journalists.

Image: Sir Mick Jagger was of course an LSE student. 

Following the AGM members were given an invigorating talk by Alex Mayer MEP.  There are 73 UK MEPs. They are elected in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Other EU member states elect MEPs from their countries. Elections take place every 5 years and the next elections, if held, would be in 2019.  European Office Unit 5, ESpace South 26 St Thomas Place Ely, Cambridgeshire CB7 4EX.

The UK is divided into 12 electoral regions made up of the nations and regions of the UK. Each region has between 3 and 10 MEPs and each MEP in a region represents each person living there. For example, if you live in Cambridge, all 7 Eastern region MEPs represent you and you can contact any or all of them. If you are not sure, please telephone 020 7227 4300 for more information. 

Ms Mayer MEP is a keen ‘Remainer’ and Alex gave an excellent talk about the future of the UK in Europe. 

One worrying point highlighted is that EU countries draw up and implement national programmes for the management, including the disposal, of all spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste generated on their territory. Most concerning is that having withdrawn from the EU, the transport of nuclear waste could once again become an issue. There were widespread protests about the transport of this waste by rail and road back in the 70's and released from EU agreements there could be a slackening of safety standards is a concern? 

BREXIT is vastly complicated matter and this was just one of many concerns that public will be faced with. 

It was another very successful year for the Colchester Fabians with Chairman Maurice Austin, his number two Tim Young, with the efforts of members and supporters will be continuing to build the organisation, against a backdrop of a 20% uplift in Colchester of the Labour vote.  Heady times indeed. 

In the meantime, in Australia. The Fabians are also getting some Corbyn inspired motivation. 

Andrew Giles, Federal Labor Member for Scullin and Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools wrote about Jeremy Corbyn's surprise electoral result in the UK and the possibilities of hope.

A week is a long time in politics. Just ask Theresa May.

Better still, ask Jeremy Corbyn. Since surprising the political establishment by becoming Labour Leader in 2015 Mr Corbyn has been derided, undermined and also discounted by his conservative opponents.

Thankfully, he persevered. Under his leadership Labour offered Britons hope, underwritten by a set of policies which squarely responded to a deepening inequality compounded by Tory austerity. Jeremy Corbyn clearly spoke to this agenda from the heart.

Whatever else Mr Corbyn might be seen as, he is most certainly consistent and driven by values. This was presented as a flaw; it has emerged a virtue.

Especially in the context of the political contest in the UK.

Theresa May, became Prime Minister after Britain chose Brexit – despite backing Remain. She called an election three years early, without meaningfully explaining this decision, or its consequences for voters. Her performance through the campaign showed her to be without purpose as well as opportunistic and deeply cynical. When pressed on controversial aspects of her manifesto, she changed tack – without indicating that she’d changed her mind.

Very Malcolm Turnbull.

While Mr Corbyn had a compelling story to tell, which he told with conviction. Labour’s policy manifesto deserves comment. Not because it was a deeply radical document: it wasn’t. In articulating a clear sense of the role of the state in rebalancing economic and social relationships it represented more of a continuation of the policy agenda proposed by Ed Miliband than a deviation from it.

But there were some important differences. Firstly, context: deepening inequality, coupled with a continuing Conservative commitment to trickle-down economics. Secondly, a preparedness to reject the neoliberal fiscal straightjacket on spending. And thirdly, the bold way in which Labour’s alternative was presented, as adding up to an argument for fundamental change to how Britain works – for the many, not the few, of course.

In an economy where too many Britons were being left behind as the wealth of a privileged few grew enormously, should it be surprising that this message resonated?

Too often when we speak of ‘credible’ policies what is meant is that they fit in with the sort of neoliberal prescriptions that crowd the opinion pages of the Australian. Like saying that there’s no alternative to $65 billion in company tax cuts at a time of record corporate profits, when Labor outlines just such an alternative.

There’s another kind of credibility, though. It’s sincerity – believing in things, unswervingly. It was this which struck me two years ago as the lesson to be learned from Mr Corbyn’s leadership ascension (though I confess I wasn’t as confident as I should have been in his prospects). His project was politics with purpose, offering the possibilities of rebuilding and reclaiming tarnished institutions so that these might be agents of real change. It’s the change that matters, the commitment to realising a vision of a better society.

This is why the hollow claims of Turnbull and Morrison to the mantle of budget fairness fell away so quickly, against Labor’s record and our reason for being.

In the ALP we should take heart, as well as inspiration from the performance of our British comrades. And we can do more than just emulate them. Under Bill Shorten’s leadership we have build solid foundations, at least comparable to those contained in UK Labour’s manifesto in terms of responding to this social democratic moment. We have committed to policies on tax which challenge wealth inequality, and offer young people a real chance to own their homes. To investments in education which would open up opportunities. To a decent social wage, as well as secure work.

The Malcolm Turnbull who promised exciting times has shrunk to a husk.

It’s Labor that is offering hope. It’s Labor that recognises that growing inequality is the challenge that government must respond to. It’s Labor that has a sense of purpose. A light, on the hill.

Of all the statistics that emerge from the UK poll, the one that strikes me the most is the engagement of young people – for Labour.

The experts doubted that these people would vote. After all, they hadn’t, in the past.

But, in the past, their concerns had not been listened to, much less effectively articulated. In the past, they hadn’t had a government which had deliberately foreclosed on their futures through provoking a referendum which was in large part a conflict between generations.

In the past, their activism hadn’t been effectively harnessed. In place of fatalistic despair, hope proved a terrific motivator. As it had been when Jeremy Corbyn surfed a wave of enthusiasm to the Labour leadership.

For all the crude caricatures of Mr Corbyn as a relic of politics past, the fact is that he boldly mobilised those most concerned about the future. He helped build a movement for change, through making the case for change.

Here, in Australia, we are doing the same thing. And we can win.

Image: Australian Federal Labor Member for Scullin/Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools

GFN and Banco de Alimentos Guatemala Certainly Can!

How can we tackle global poverty is the question? For American teenager, Annie Strong, food banking is an effective and proven way to help.

Annie is one of five finalists in a video contest that challenges YouTube creators to help end global poverty. Sponsored by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, VidCon, and Crowdrise, the contest wants you to pick a finalist and donate to its cause.

The Global Network is an international non-profit that works towards a hunger-free future in more than 30 countries by creating, sustaining, and strengthening food banks. 

Annie's video asks global citizens everywhere to meet her challenge: donate to The Global FoodBanking Network (GFN), give 25 cans to your local food bank, or record yourself doing the Can-Can Dance. So, can-can you support food banking and Annie by helping her win the contest? You can vote for her video by visiting the contest's website and donating to GFN.

GFN thanks Annie and her father, Tom, for recognizing food banking’s role in alleviating hunger in the video message below. And if you’re a food bank partner, watch until the very end. You just may have been nominated to be the next challenger…

GFN and Banco de Alimentos Guatemala respond to Annie's message, and nominate four other food banks to take on the challenge.  

Professor Bogdanor's most famous former student is David Cameron, who became Conservative Party leader and served as Prime Minister from 2010 to 2016. Bogdanor described Cameron as "one of the ablest" students he has taught, whose political views were "moderate and sensible Conservative.

This video explaining BREXIT following the general election, presents the options. 

Industrial thread manufacturing organisation Coats Group has agreed a £74 million settlement for one of its defined benefit (DB) pension schemes, which will bring an anti-avoidance case brought by The Pensions Regulator (TPR) to an end.

The settlement relates to the Staveley Industries Retirement Benefits Scheme (SIRBS), which is one of three DB pension schemes sponsored by employers within the Coats group, two of which the organisation inherited from business acquisitions.

Coats has signed a binding settlement agreement with the trustees of SIRBS, which includes an upfront payment of £74 million into the pension scheme, inclusive of recovery plan contributions of £39.5 million that have already been paid into the scheme since 1 January 2016. The agreement also involves a change in the statutory employer to Coats instead of a non-trading subsidiary of Coats, and a full buy-out guarantee from Coats to cover the liabilities of the DB scheme. The settlement also features annual deficit contributions of £2.2 million, as well as payment of administration expenses and levies, to be paid until 2028.

The scheme has approximately 3,700 members and an estimated ongoing deficit of £85 million.

The settlement is due to be completed by early July 2017.

The agreement follows an anti-avoidance investigation that TPR brought against Coats with regards to its three DB pension schemes. In addition to SIRBS, this includes the Brunel Holdings Pension Scheme (BHPS), which has 3,000 members, and the Coats Pension Plan (CPP), which has approximately 24,000 members.

TPR found that the schemes’ employers were insufficiently resourced to maintain the pension arrangements due to substantial deficits on a buy-out basis. TPR issued warning notices for SIRBS and BHPS in December 2013, and for CPP in December 2014 regarding its intention to use financial support directions (FSDs).

Coats presented its original settlement offer for the three schemes in September 2016. The organisation came to an agreement with trustees for CPP and BHPS in December 2016, which included upfront payments totalling £255.5 million, and a change in the statutory employer to Coates.

As a result of the agreement for SIRBS, confirmed in June 2017, TPR will cease regulatory action against Coats.

Mike Clasper, chairman at Coats, said: “Reaching this settlement with Staveley is a good outcome for all parties involved and following our announcement earlier this year, it now completes settlement with all three of our UK pension schemes. This, together with our recent entry to the FTSE 250, means Coats can continue to focus on growing the business to the benefit of all our stakeholders.”

Nicola Parish, executive director of frontline regulation at TPR, added: “The use of our powers in this case has led to an extremely positive outcome for pension savers and the group. The ongoing trading operations of Coats have improved and are sufficient to provide ongoing funding for the schemes. This is an excellent result for scheme members, bringing greater certainty that future benefits will be paid in full.

“Today’s report shows that even though our concerns about the funding of the schemes were enough to launch anti-avoidance action and issue warning notices, we maintained a strong working relationship with Coats and the trustee, allowing us to be flexible and achieve a fair resolution.

“We will not hesitate to use our financial support direction powers where we see member benefits put at risk, even where the sponsoring employer is solvent.”

The UK government has suffered a humiliating High Court defeat over their welfare policy – with the government guilty of causing “real misery” for “no good purpose”.

The High Court ruling found that applying the benefit cap to lone parents with children under two is unlawful and discriminatory, after a judicial review brought by four lone parent families.

The revised benefit cap, introduced by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, drastically reduced housing benefits, leaving lone parent families across the country unable to afford basic life necessities to care for their children.

Mr Justice Collins has ruled that the application of the revised benefit cap to lone parents with children under two amounts to unlawful discrimination and that “real damage” is being caused to the Claimants and families like theirs across the country.