I am not getting out and about much at the moment, which is unlike me. The cold is a factor, of course, but I can, thankfully, afford to have heating on in our house.
I think that in a country where we can realistically expect it to be cold quite often that it is a basic human right to be warm enough to avoid the harm the cold can cause to people of all ages, but most especially the elderly. My commitment to sustainability does not change that, although that does keep the thermostat lower than average, and encourages the wearing of pullovers. But what is apparent is that the government does not share this view.
I am aware that maybe £55 billion will be spent subsidising household energy costs this winter. But I am also aware of three other things.
The first is that this relief is very poorly targeted. Nadeem Zahawi does not need a subsidy to keep his horses warm, for example.
Second, it is apparent that the subsidy is insufficient for those on lower incomes.
Third, it is also widely known that many who are forced to use prepayment meters have not either had or have not been able to apply the credits that they are due.
The result is that there is serious harm to health and well-being happening in the UK right now because a basic human right to be warm in a country where the cold can kill is not being respected by our government.
Mismanagement on such a basic issue is indicative of something more than a failure to govern. It suggests a simple lack of care to ensure that help gets to those who really need it. That is unforgivable. That is why this government, the Tory party and the rotten ethos that underpins it should be consigned to history.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Like many baby boomers I grew up in an old house where ice on the inside of bedroom windows was a regular winter event, but once you managed to get out of bed I do not remember ever being cold.
And give or take the odd blip due to the megalomania of the Heath and Thatcher governments, that is exactly how it has carried on………. until now.
In one of the richest, most amply resourced countries in the world millions are cold and we are expecting worse to come.
If years of running businesses and managing education taught me nothing else it is that the expression “could not run a piss-up in a brewery”, is not a comic exaggeration, it is actually an accurate description of most of the rich and powerful in the UK.
Paul, the reasoning which underpins your argument is that the Tories are incompetent but I don’t think that is the case. IMHO the Tories are perfectly competent, it’s just that this mess is what they want because their unspoken belief is “you don’t deserve this”. The hark back fondly to the days of Oliver Twist and think “yes!”.
Today we see a new policy ( described as turbo-charging) to lift the restrictions placed on banks and financial institutions after the 2008 financial crisis.
The policy chair of the City of London Corporation is reported in the Guardian to be excited. Must be good news then!
And Santander has been fined over £100 million for regulatory non-compliance
How much did they make though, from this non-compliance? If it’s rather more than the fine then it can simply be dismissed as the cost of doing business and realistically cosmetic.
I fear that this is a cost of business
Mr Kruse,
From around 2010 or 2011 (if I recall correctly) onwards and for years thereafter, the FCA used to list the huge fines it exacted from financial institutions on its website. These were often on the £10s of millions, or multiples, for failings like “mis-selling” through and after the Crash (although the meaning of the term ‘mis-selling’ was never spelled out; ludicrously, it almost seemed as if mis-selling was a kind of accident/act of God). Cumulatively, over the many, many years and many fined instititions this was £100Mns, oreven £Bns. Over time it became obvious that something strange was happening. Several years after the crash, new regulations, new regulators, financial insitutions were still being fined, for transgressions still being discovered. It was as if the penalty for these activities had not been considered by institutions penal enough, but that fines that were simply a ‘cost of doing business’.
A cost of doing business does not mean the fine absorbs all the profit from the transgression. I did not see any evidence then that the fine was even calculated to achieve that. It seemed to me the fine established a cost for transgressing, but not necessarily the seizing of the profit. It seemed to me (not least from the years over which this went on), and from the observations of critics of the system, that the ‘cost of doing business’, although from a public relations perspective looked like large fines to the person in the street, could be considered from the perspective of the institutions handling the colossal financial flows involved, to be – in context to them – a ‘small beer’ on-cost of doing business, with little significant material impact on the corporations and businesses. I may be wrong, but that at least is my recollection.
Indeed and meanwhile mention of the only effective deterrent, jail, is conspicuous by its absense. Stealing the commons from the goose remains good business then. What would those 17th century poets make of today’s commoners, I wonder, given we’ve had hundreds of years to think of something to stop this yet here we are still wringing our hands and lamenting while we continue to endure it?
And while I remember… don’t those fines end up going to the financial sector anyway?
Not those ones….but some do
‘…lack of care… should be consigned to history – yes indeed but will it be?
I have been experimenting with measures that try to encapsulate ‘absolute’ poverty – attempting to measure those not able to afford basic necessities of life, to add to the present measures which are mostly ‘relative’ rich/poor ratios and also to try to measure the growing disconnect between income/earnings and ‘wealth’. It’s a funny kind of wealth that has to be tied up for a lifetime if you want to own your home – which could be said to be part of ‘basic’ needs.
Being able to afford a colour tv (showing my age here) used to be considered a luxury. I suppose we could still say the same now but as you say so many things are relative. Additionally many of the things some might say are not essential, such as mobile phone contracts, satellite tv, broadband, streaming services, service contracts and so on, are to many and form (right or wrong) a big part of the economy (or they do in my mind). Massive and widespread cancellations would likely cause widely felt shocks. Therefore simply tightening one’s belt might not be a good economic solution, and how far back should the poor have to regress? The black and white tv license may have to make a comeback.
I’m alert to claims for new human rights, such as recent claims to a right not to be offended.
So I struggling with the concept of “a basic human right to be warm”. Where does this right come from? Is it your contention that someone (central government? local authorities? the rest of society?) has a duty to provide the basic necessities of life to every individual? Does this apply just in the UK, or the whole world? Food, water, shelter, clothing, clothing, education, health, transport, communications, comfort? Must they be provided free of charge to all, or is it sufficient to make the means to acquire them available?
Obviously these are good things, in and of themselves, but “human right” suggests something that is enforceable, and a corresponding duty on someone else to provide. Is this a moral position rather than a legal one? Or just an aspiration?
Perhaps I have missed it, but I can find nothing about this in the ECHR, unless perhaps you treat this as an aspect of the “right to life” or maybe the prohibition of discrimination. The closest I can get is Article 25 of the UDHR. “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” A laudable aspiration to abolish poverty at the stroke of a pen but without any clear means to achieve it, despite Article 28 wishing for “a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized”.
Look at the Sustainable Development Goals
Look also at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. At the very base are physiological needs, which include:
Air
Heat
Clothes
Hygiene
Light
Water
Urination
Food
Excretion
Shelter
Sleep
Mr Loan,
“So I struggling with the concept of “a basic human right to be warm”. Where does this right come from? Is it your contention that someone (central government? local authorities? the rest of society?) has a duty So I struggling with the concept of “a basic human right to be warm”. Where does this right come from? Is it your contention that someone (central government? local authorities? the rest of society?) has a duty to provide the basic necessities of life to every individual?
We live in an advanced and very wealthy country that has usually had a Debt/GDP ratio of 100% and more since the 18th century. So, frankly Yes: I consider the sovereign Parliament of Britain has a basic obligation to provide the basic necessities of life to every individual? This i believe is not only a basic moral duty of government to its people, but in the interests of all. Deprivation creates only crime, addiction and waste of money and human resources than the basic investment would ever cost.
The penalty of failure is what we have now; neglect, indifference and incomprehension on the side of the prosperous; and alientation, resentment, hopelessness and indifference to ‘society’ and its values by the excluded. The costs of this failure are far, far greater (on any measure) I suggest, than the extent of losses through those who criminally exploit the system.
Our failure to regulate the corrupt businesses and individuals who evade tax or scam the tax system on an industrial scale; or even our indulgence of large scale tax avoidance that could be addressed is a far worse loss to our society, and is never pursued. Business confidentiality has been allowed to reach levels that effectively prevent Government scrutinising the incompetence of its regulatory or sanction measures. We have, for example the oldest and most dilapidated housing stock virtually in the whole of Europe. We are facing not just twelve years of austerity from 2010; but at least eight more on current policies to come. That isn’t “austerity”, twenty years of austerity becomes a new norm of creative deprivation in the midst of plenty.
Do not bombard us with useless rhetorical questions Mr Loan, I suggest you are looking in the wrong place for scapegoats. Look in the mirror. Hard.
I think that a bit harsh
On the other hand I think this is the essence of the social contract we are talking about
Probably it is a bit “harsh”; but I am very, very tired of listening to people (typically loaded with mortgages, tax-breaks and the extensive use of credit, committed principally to self-advancement and simultaneously critical of public debt); preaching the mid-19th century nostrums of “the undeserving poor”. So, my apologies to Mr Loan if the side-swipe was unfair; but – really is this all you think we can do?
We can definitely do better
I believe warmth is part of the social safety net
Andrew Loan; You pretty much said it with the UDHR. And regaring the how, MMT provides a formula for that.
No one should have to be cold, not in 21st centuary. My first reaction to always comes back to the same thing. Whatever subsides or help is given one key problem remains and that is how the cost of a unit of electricity is calculated. Changing this would help but I note that no one talks about it. If the energy market was a true market we would all be able to choose the companies that produce energy in a way that suits us. Admittedly this is far more complex that simply choosing ASDA over Waitrose, in which case we have to admit to the system being a oligopoly and bring it into state control.
If electricity was plentiful and cheap (Scotland produces 2x what it needs and yet it is still not cheap) all households could be moved over to electric boilers cutting the need for heating oil, gas and bottled gas.
All I see in this government is the attitude of prejudice – prejudice against anyone who is not like themselves.
For all the identity politics that is doing the rounds, the most damaging is that based on wealth identity. The presupposition is simple: If you are not wealthy or able to provide for yourself, you must be lazy and feckless. It’s all your fault.
That is it in a nutshell. Members of this government – grown fat by being nursed on the breast of their parents hard work and the opportunities it provides them – have even written books telling us how they think.
It is simply not acceptable or desirable to have people who think like that in government.
Government needs to reconnect to real life – beer and sandwiches at No.10 again please with the real employed and unemployed I say.
Broken record starts:
UK imports 50% of its gas needs – other 50% could be capped @ circa £20/MWh – which the energy companies were very happy with in 2018/2019. This would massively depress gas prices.
Electricity market reform could be accomplished in one month (moving to generation at cost – at least for nukes, hydro and renewables). This combined with the gas action above would move wholesale prices back down to circa £60 – 80/MWh. Market reform would take the form of changes to the database used by Elexon’s market platform. The changes would be trivial (focused on day-ahead markets) and would feed through to, for example forward markets. This will not happen, because both the market traders and Elexon make money from price volatility – the proposed changes would reduce volatilty and thus profits.
I’d hazard a guess that Ofgem could mandate the reforms, but won’t because they are technical in nature – changes to databases often are & I can see the arguments put forward by the turkeys/Elexon/the traders that it was all too difficult.
The above shows that what matters (in the EU and UK) is the interests of companies and orgs like Elexon – the interests of Uk serfs etc are, largely, irrelevant. Please keep this in mind when you get your energy bill – think of it as the energy companies plus the regulatory apparatus grinding their boots into your face – forever.
Re having a government that apparently doesn’t care that “Cold Kills”, and also apparently has no concept or understanding of “duty of care”, this little snippet of information shook me rigid.
https://inews.co.uk/news/inside-courtroom-minutes-force-hundreds-people-prepayment-meters-2008927?ito=email_share_article-top
The headline of the piece is “Inside the courtroom where it takes minutes to force hundreds of people onto prepayment meters”
Legalised housebreaking to impose further disadvantage on the already disadvantaged!! With NO clear social benefit – quite the opposite, unlike to warrants for entry to utilities companies for the purpose of safety or access to meters for the purpose of reading them.
No, all to enable utilities to extract yet MORE money from the indebted, for smart meters enable the utilities to increase charges in a Tommy Cooper style “robbery, just like that”!
Never has Marx’s contemptous dismissal of 19th century democracy and elections as merely “changing the Executive of the ruling class” seemed more accurate, especially in view of the secretive nature of this exercise in unaccountable and burdensome executive power, where even the Court management appears to be in the dark about the exercise, even existence, of this power!
Thanks Andrew
I imagine there are people with oil central heating who are freezing at the moment. We’ve managed to find the eye-watering £610 to fill our tank. The government has promised £100 to help towards the cost, but apart from saying it will be paid via our electricity supplier to everyone not on the mains gas grid, no information about when we will receive it has been forthcoming. So how many people have had to switch off the heating because they can’t afford the oil delivery? Quite a few I should think.
A massive problem in rural areas and Northern Ireland, especially
All forgotten about
Warmth is needed to survive. Without sufficient warmth a person can die in hours. Ergo, warmth is a human right alongside food and water.
Unable to defeat Ukraine in the field, the new Russian hard-man, General Sergey Surovikin appears to have decided that Russian victory is only possible by smashing the civilian energy system in a Ukrainian winter. Freeze the civilian population into submission. This is a war crime under the Genevan convention.
The principle at the core of this issue is almost too obvious to state, not at all difficult to observe or understand, and follows Hume’s scepticism of reason in moral theory; quite simply, energy and heat in cold weather is fundamental to civilised human life.
I do not understand how anyone can allow themselves to be fall into the arid and empty, over-rationalised metaphysical gymnastics of ‘natural rights’ theory, sufficient to seduce themselves into setting aside a demonstrable and irresistable fact of civilised life. Remember also in that abstracted context, that the great early theorists of ‘Natural Rights’, such as Grotius or Pufendorf, managed to make their own elaborate reconciliation – with slavery.
I’m not going into long text, I totally agree with everything you have said. We are are living in sad times, and we have to change direction.
Totally agree we have to change direction. But, under FPTP voting. ‘we’ have exactly zero chance of making that happen. Conversly, ‘we’ would have every chance under PR.
And the biggest obstacle by far to reforming the UK’s utterly broken democracy so that the voice of the people is genuinly heard? The pathetic, cowardly cretins who lead the Labour Party. From Corbyn, to Starmer, to Brown, the most precious thing for these clowns is THE PARTY, which, in their twisted logic, means supporting FPTP so that THE PARTY gets ‘its turn’ in power. I know that sounds harsh, but we can all see the ghastly results with our own eyes: people literally dying of cold because they can’t afford to keep themselves warm; a broken NHS with lives lost ever day waiting for an ambulance; a broken regulatory system (e.g. Grenfell); rank corruption in government (e.g. Michelle Mone); lack representation / disenchantment with politics leading to Brexit & even the breakup of the UK; weakening of climate action etc. etc. etc. I could go on and on.
Though they are the immediate cause, the Tories are ONLY A SYMPTOM and are NOT to blame for keeping FPTP, because, by doing so, they are simply doing what it says on the tin.
Its Labour who are the true culprits of why ‘we are are living in sad times’ – Only Labour. Hell mend them.
Born in 1940 i listened to my Mum and Dad recalling their experience of the 1930. They were teenagers for most of the decade. Millions lived a life of semi starvation. In fact 150 people diesd every day in that decade from the effects of malnutrition. ( Piers Brendon – The Dark Valley) Unempolyment never fell below 10 %. By the time I was ready for school I knew all about the Household Means Test. My Mum had an aged aunt who was widowed. She was told by the National Assistance she could have no benefit unless she sold her piano. There were lots of stories like that. When the Attlee Labour Government to power the country hoped for change. They got it. I well remember my Mum listening to the BBC Home service in 1948 when news reported the opening of the NHS. She wept for joy. Throughout my teenage years my parents would remind me how much better life was compared to how they lived. I thank my lucky stars I was born when I was. It never entered my head there would be millions unable to afford lifes’ basics unless they can find a charity to assist them. As I come to the end of my life I pinch myself at the reality of life for many. How has a country which is supposed to be wealthy regressed to days immediately before I was born. It s incomprehensible until you remember the self same people are in power. The Tories will never change.
Thanks