Questions for Jeremy Corbyn, Seumas Milne and Alan Johnson on the Brexit victory

Cometh the hour, cometh the man. But it wasn't Jeremy Corbyn. Or even Labour's Remain front man, Alan Johnson.

So the morning after Great Britain was cut adrift in an ocean of uncertainty by the Brexit vote, the public were finally told the truth by the Leave campaign: there will be no £350mn saving per week going to the NHS; Turkey is not joining the EU; Britain wasn't party to the Schengen agreement anyway so the EU vote will have no effect on immigration except for a possible increase; the British Army was never going to join the fantasy Euro army of Ukip nightmares; expect TTIP on steroids.

However, we will have that recession that's been looming and we will lose Scotland and Northern Ireland. Little England has done more for a united Ireland than any IRA bombs.

And the 75 per cent of young voters who voted Remain feel their futures have been destroyed by older voters. Plus an explosion of far-right race hate is transforming the UK.

Boris Johnson and Michael Gove put the prick into Pyrrhic.

Parliament's raison d'etre (sorry to go all European on you) is surely that momentous events are presided over by our democratically elected representatives whose job it is to know what they are talking about. But like the cynical demagogue he is, Gove dismissed not only all the experts as Nazis and cast himself as their persecuted Jewish genius Albert Einstein, but he drew to an end the whole Enlightenment movement's emphasis on reason, provable evidence and facts, stoking up a Dark Ages dependence on blind faith.

The mainstream media will always be hostile to Corbyn. We know that. Which is one reason why our side had to be at its sharpest, most agile, ethical, lively, imaginative and honest. It is dismaying to see the one quality in play — JC's honesty — end up as a pearl cast before swine and trodden underfoot in a skint and lacklustre campaign. So much for "balance", especially from the BBC. (Jeez, even that other JC, Jeremy Clarkson, was to the left of The Management on the EU, stunning us with his Remain stance.)

Corbyn's 30 or so Labour In meetings for the Remain cause around parts of the country, while encouraging and a vital plank for the cause, were largely speaking to the converted and perceived by the wider national audience as too little, too late. A whole lot more was required: a bigger audience reached, a wider bandwidth of communication deployed.

And now vast swathes of Leave voters have woken up with a hangover.

Some questions:
Why did Jeremy Corbyn not share every Remain platform with Cameron, taking advantage of Remain's resources, and have the confidence that his better arguments would outshine the Tory wing of Remain? Some have argued that JC would have been damaged by this in the same way that Ed Miliband was damaged in the Scotland independence referendum. Yet this was such an unusual set of circumstances that, had a powerful narrative been harnessed, that's what would have lasted beyond the dreaded photo of Corbyn holding his nose and standing 10 feet away from a clearly desperate, weak Cameron. He didn't have to be chummy but at least he would have been in the game.

Secondly, they needed a potent Remain vision to inspire voters and fill the void. Leave had Take Control. What did we have instead? How did Corbyn's team aim to cut the legs out from the powerful emotional pillars of Leave's argument? Were they methodical? Did they think that simple facts would win the day when dealing with such deep illogical fears from a working class pummelled and pulverised by Tory austerity and twisted by media collusion for half a decade?

Thirdly, are Jeremy's close Lexit friends [STW] relying on the ensuing chaos, calamity and misery to drive the workers into their arms? Or have they effectively driven them into the predatory arms of the right?

JC did not cause the country to vote Brexit but as leader of the opposition hoping to win power in the next general election he could and should have done much more to weight it in Remain's favour. This was Corbyn's chance to shine, to show everyone what the progressive Remain but Reform side represented, and to have done it with clarity and good conscience for a better future in common with all the other workers of the world who are being stiffed by the bosses.

Yet he went on holiday in the middle of the campaign, 30th May to 8th June. This says much about his sense of urgency and perhaps a residual desire for Brexit based on 1970s circumstances.

Jeremy Corbyn is a great constituency MP with a left conscience. He was as surprised as anyone else when, having given John McDonnell a break to stand as leader of the Labour Party, he actually won. Like thousands of others I joined the LP because of Jeremy. But the victory for Leave, condemning a younger generation to an enfeebled economy for the rest of their lives, is due at least in part to Labour's slothful, uninspiring, ineffectual campaign. For too long Labour voters didn't even know which side the party was on.

Alan Johnson, chair of Labour Remain, was to grasp the campaign by the scruff of the neck and drag it into the public eye. I'd forgotten. That's how much of an impact he made.

Corbyn's strongest suit in the political sphere is that he is honest and straight if a bit dull. That honest, reliable quality should have been promoted to the max flanked by his bruisers — Tom Watson and Alan Johnson in the case of Brexit — doing the heavy lifting. The campaign was lacking in all counts.

There is history to this. The one far left analysis from the late 1990s, one that has stayed with me, was that the working class would grow more bitter with each of Tony Blair's inevitable betrayals and would turn to the right. That's why it was vital to build a left alternative to the Labour Party.

Instead, the far left leadership of bureaucrats (prominent in Lexit — left Brexit — and a key part of Corbyn's Labour leadership campaign) proceeded to stop and start, initiate and then sabotage, the various attempts to create a left pole of attraction. They took an axe to the fledgling Socialist Alliance  just as it began to make an impact. Their dishonourable opportunism around the Birmingham Mosque, PJP and Respect ended with the OFFU cheque debacle. Valuable organising time was frittered away, opportunities wasted, trust destroyed, careers made.

The important job was to make sure there was no vacuum which the right could fill. They failed to do even this. All their bickering and internecine warfare may have secured a top place for certain ambitious lefties but it has left the working class in disarray, clutching at the nearest nationalist straw.

Paul Mason is more forgiving of Corbyn, crediting him with keeping two thirds of Labour supporters on board to vote Remain. He writes:

Our strategic problem is to reconnect not only with the Labour core voters who backed Brexit but with those who have drifted to Ukip. I don’t know whether the present leadership can do that; I do know all the previous leaderships failed to do it so we need to work out a plan and try.

Who is the "we" who are going to work out a plan? The usual far left clique of charmers?

Phil Harris, chair of the Labour In campaign, says that Corbyn's office:

"... consistently attempted to weaken and sabotage the Labour remain campaign, in contravention of the party’s official position. For example, they resisted all polling and focus group evidence on message and tone, raised no campaign finance, failed to engage with the campaign delivery and deliberately weakened and damaged the argument Labour sought to make.

Corbyn made only a smattering of campaign appearances, and they were lacklustre in delivery and critical of the EU in tone resulting in Labour voters not knowing the party’s position or hearing our argument. Corbyn’s infrequent campaign appearances and narrow focus, in turned limited the party’s appeal. He kept saying that the economic shock of Brexit was not real. It is. And it is working people and Labour communities that will pay the price. A price that is being felt right now."

Sabotage is probably too strong a term for the incompetence on display but this certainly felt like going through the motions in every sense. While the reluctance to do the necessary work may not reflect Corbyn's past position of the 1970s, how much of this damage was down to his press supremo Seumas Milne who did share Lexit's desire for Out last time anyone looked?

One left commentator, Sukant Chandan, writes:

"The first thing Corbyn said on the early morning of the Brexit victory was to 1, Capitulate at the feet of the ‪Brexit Fascists‬ by demanding we fast track exiting the EU by invoking article 50! The other thing he said is that immigration is a real issue that needs to be addressed. Since then he has been increasingly positioning himself as someone who is going to 'fight for plucky england/UK against the EU for brexit', this is positioning him increasingly directly with the UK nationalist right who are similarly invested in 'fighting the EU for the UK' which is neatly centred in the UK right and far right project. Corbyn is fast becoming right now (has already become?) the figure head that the Brexit/Lexit camp are attaching themselves to to develop this UK nationalist fight with the EU."

However, faced with the prospect of a Blairite coup, I do not want Corbyn to go. Replacing him with Blairites seizing on this chance to ditch the hope he embodies is to score as big an own goal as working class Leave voters have just done. We do not need more capitulation to austerity, supporting wars without end, appeasing business and taking jobs with the worst offenders (such as former Home Secretary Dr John Reid and G4S, Alan Milburn and privatised health, Tony Blair and his evil empire).

Eleven Labour cabinet members have resigned to oust Corbyn. Yet how many resigned over austerity?

We are reaching an existential stage of the survival of the British working class and the struggle requires all hands on deck.

I've been arguing for improved media relations since I started doing presswork in the left: if we are so overlooked by the mainstream press with only the pro-Brexit Morning Star to plough the socialist furrow, would the TUC use some of its treasure to finance a cable TV station that combined news and arts to give the left a cultural base? It would take time to build but the longest journey begins with the first step. More Yellow Brick Road than Shining Path, we hope.

Sign the Second Referendum petition

Open letter from Women of Colour supporting Remain.

Leave campaign wipe all their pledges off their website.

George Soros predicts break-up of the EU, of the UK and the end of decades of peaceful European unification.

Lee Jasper on Bracist Britain: a Black British perspective.

LSE Blog: Brexit is not the will of the British people – it never has been

Anna Chen started and ran many press operations for the left including Globalise Resistance, Socialist Alliance, various UK Chinese campaigns such as the Foot and Mouth Disease smear 2001 and the Morecambe Bay cocklepickers disaster. She was the press officer who succesfully relaunched Stop The War (STW) with Jeremy Corbyn's first STW meeting in London, September 2001, breaking it into the mainstream media.

Michael Gove wanted me to "powder him down": Remain experts compared to Nazis

EU referendum plays havoc with Brexit logic as brains implode

Michael Gove appears to have been struck silly by the Hitler Tourettes syndrome afflicting the political class when under pressure. Brexit's Number Two says that the many pro-Remain economists who urge Britain to stay in the EU are like the German experts who told Albert Einstein he was wrong. Our former minister for education says experts, schmexperts. Facts? Schmacts. You can prove anything with facts. Phooey to Enlightenment values such as Truth.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Oh, sorry, that was a quote from Alice Through the Looking Glass, an easy mistake to make. Here's what Gove told LBC's Ian Dale:

"We have to be careful about historical comparisons, but Albert Einstein during the 1930s was denounced by the German authorities for being wrong and his theories were denounced, and one of the reasons of course he was denounced was because he was Jewish. They got 100 German scientists in the pay of the government to say that he was wrong and Einstein said: 'Look, if I was wrong, one would have been enough.'"

Hmm, comparing himself with a genius under persecution from the Nazis. A scientist. Who used facts. Which made him a bit of an expert. And Michael really doesn't like experts.

He unexpertly claimed footballer John Barnes for the Leave camp. Barnes has other ideas.

... So my reasons for supporting remain are probably different from those of many others: immigration. And I don’t believe this is an issue that the leave campaign should be based on.

Leave is preying on people’s fears, telling the same story we’ve heard over the years about black people from Africa and the Caribbean coming to steal our jobs. Now we hear the same thing about Poles. If leave wanted to say that companies are paying migrants less than British workers, and so allowing them to take our jobs, then it should be looking at raising the minimum wage – not stopping migrants entering the country. The problem has nothing to do with the Polish workers – it is an issue about our labour laws. Yet leave maintains its focus on immigration.

Mass migration and the refugee crisis is one of the biggest problems facing the world. In this country we assume that everyone just wants to come to the UK – but it’s an issue in Germany, Greece, Sweden, all across the EU. Why should we be the first to turn our backs on the problem? We have to think not only about what would happen to those unfortunate people, but to the rest of the planet too. What kind of example would we be setting? We should be the first to help disadvantaged people. What would happen if other countries decided to follow our example?

Britain has always told the world that being British is about the humanity, compassion and moral fortitude that we have. All great things that we are supposed to have spread across the world. A leave vote now says that we don’t really care about anyone else, we don’t care what happens to the European Union. Why should the Germans be able to show more compassion than we do? ...

You never hear Brexiteers challenging employers who pay such abominably low wages that only impoverished immigrants will do the job. Or the supermarkets who gouge their farmers for prices touching or, in the case of milk, below production prices in order to maintain huge profits. Yes, I would pay the proper cost if it meant the sort of economic reality that allowed wages that matched the cost of living in Britain.

But, no. The rich people with the most invested in Brexit would keep paying low wages; only it would be Brits pulling turnips for sixpence a shift, not Lithuanians.

All those claims that "we" would take back control of our borders — we already have control of our borders. A quick glance at any airport will tell you that. F'rinstance, Chinese tourists need only one visa for the whole of Europe except for Britain for which they require another visa in order to drop thousands at Bond Street and Harrods. Some of them don't bother and would rather spend it in Paris or Rome or wherever their money is actually wanted.

And the blind faith that "we" will take back control of our country ... Who is "WE"? I think you'll find we are subjects of a feudal monarchy with nobs on and not citizens with full democratic rights of a constitution to which we are all signed up.

As a mark of how much power "we" will gain, remember that former London mayor Boris Johnson spent £200,000 of public money on two water cannon from Germany — powerful enough to cause serious injury such as broken spines and pulverised eyeballs — to use against us Brits when we protest against the relentless predations of the super-rich and their government that gained power with only 26 per cent of the electorate's votes.

Time to dust off my encounter of the turd kind with Michael Gove in the noughties ...

Sad-sack Education Minister Michael Gove helped himself to make-up belonging to an exotic lovely and made strange demands minutes before appearing before blonde Kirsty Young, 27, at ITN's studios in posh intellectuals' haunt, Grays Inn Road.

"It was when I was publicising The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", said buxom press-officer Anna Chen, 22, flicking her long tresses out of her almond eyes. Sultry beauty Chen said, "There I was in the Green Room, helping my mate Greg Palast not reflect the light from his very high forehead when Michael Gove, who was there for an 'interview' with our Kirsty, suddenly reached in and grabbed. He'd been coveting the contents of my little make-up bag with his pre-lasered eyeballs for ages. This was back in the day before he got his new hairdo and makeover."

Sinister Gove then asked her to "powder me down".

"Powder me down" is a well-known perverts' term for unspeakable televisual and filmic practices.

"So there I was, trying to beautify the most evil Education Minister this country would ever see like some champion fluffer. All my skills and photoshopping couldn't prettify this ugly little monster."

Ms Chen is deeply regretful. "It's like when they ask you, if you could go back in time and top Hitler before he came to power, what would you do? I wish I'd tattooed the pursed-lipped creep with 'I am a threat to your children' across his fugly mug. To have missed a chance like that is enough to turn you to drink," said the busty Ms Chen, pouring herself another quart of Absinthe with a trembling hand.

Ms Chen is 19.

VOTE REMAIN

A Beautiful Disorder: Chinese sculptors exhibited in Britain for first time

This could be good.

Exhibition — A Beautiful Disorder

3 July—6 November, 2016
Grounds and Galleries
The Cass Sculpture Foundation
New Barn Hill
Goodwood
Chichester PO18 0QP
Free with general entry

Cass Sculpture Foundation is delighted to present A Beautiful Disorder, the first major exhibition of newly commissioned outdoor sculpture by contemporary Greater Chinese artists to be shown in the UK.

From July 2016, sixteen monumental outdoor sculptures will be on display throughout the grounds of CASS. These artists employ a variety of ambitious sculptural techniques across a range of materials including bronze, stone, steel and wood.

The historical relationship between English and Chinese landscape aesthetics is the starting point and inspiration for these contemporary Chinese and Greater Chinese artists. The title of the exhibition, A Beautiful Disorder, is a quote from an influential letter written by the Jesuit missionary and artist Jean-Denis Attiret in 1743 that had a tremendous effect on English garden culture. Attiret used the term to describe the ability of the Chinese garden to provoke violent and often opposing sensations in the viewer through a series of theatrical framing devices. The exhibition invites the viewer to reflect on China's past, present and future relationship with the world at large, and provides valuable insight into the state of Chinese culture, politics and society today from the perspective of some of its most dynamic and engaging artists.

Cass Sculpture Foundation’s Executive Director, Clare Hindle, says:

“To date, Cass Sculpture Foundation has commissioned over 400 works – A Beautiful Disorder is a landmark moment for the Foundation as it is the first time we are commissioning works for a major exhibition by international artists. The exhibition will showcase contemporary Chinese sculpture by some of the leading Chinese artists.”

Participating artists for A Beautiful Disorder include: Bi Rongrong, Cao Dan, Cao Fei Cheng Ran, Cui Jie, Jennifer Ma Wen, Li Jinghu, Lu Pingyuan, Xu Zhen (Produced by MadeIn Company), Rania Ho, Song Ta, Tu Wei-Cheng, Wang Sishun, Wang Wei, Wang Yuyang, Zhang Ruyi, Zheng Bo and Zhao Yao.

Summer cocktails with Madam Miaow: borage, Pimms and Bowie Moscow Mules

EDIT: Apologies but the flower in the picture has been identified as green alkanet or pentaglottis sempervirens, not borage (although it's close) which has star-shaped flowers. It is a relative of the forget-me-not and borage. Edible, used as a substitute for true borage in Pimms.

Try floating three flowers on top of your Pimms — the petals should come away from the bud in one circle. Especially eye-popping when next to something red like half a strawberry or a slice of nectarine. Don't forget, Morrisons has an offer of 1 litre Pimms for a tenner right now. If you miss that, Sainsbury's Pitchers is an excellent copy.

I discovered this next cocktail at the starry Bowie Is launch party at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London in 2013. Charles Shaar Murray tells me it is a variation of the vodka-based Moscow Mule. For the Bowie version pour one third vodka (we use Absolut, Russian Standard or Green Mark) to two thirds ginger ale over 2 or 3 ice-cubes. Add a measure of Monin Passion Fruit syrup. Scoop in half to a whole passion fruit. Add a sprig of mint and a couple of straws. Very moreish.

Pix coming soon.

Helena Bonett's Tate film of Barbara Hepworth's Trewyn Studio in St Ives screened

I'm delighted to learn that Helena Bonett's film of Barbara Hepworth's Trewyn Studio — now a Tate St Ives museum — includes a clip of my 2006 video (above) and is now out doing the rounds. Next screening 15th June at Porthmeor Studios in St Ives.

From the DVD cover:

Trewyn Studio in St Ives, Cornwall, is where the British modernist sculptor Barbara Hepworth lived and worked from 1949 until her death in May 1975. Transformed into a museum by her son-in-law Sir Alan Bowness, later director of the Tate Gallery, it opened to the public in April 1976 and has been managed by Tate since 1980. 

This film, produced as part of the Tate St Ives Artists Programme, presents Bowness's memories of Trewyn Studio and its establishment as the Barbara Hepworth Museum and Sculpture Garden, using still and moving images to explore queations of time, materiality and legacy. 

A film by Helena Bonett in collaboration with Jonathan Law, 2015, 52 minutes.
Made possible by the Tate St Ives Artists Programme

I have a copy of the DVD which I've watched and enjoyed but sadly it's only available for private viewing and public screenings through the filmmaker.

In the meantime, you'll have to make do with mine. If you like my 2006 video, here's one from 2013:

Keep up to date with Helena Bonett's Twitter

WASPI women's pensions were in surplus but RAIDED: restore our pensions

I love it when we women work together. A fellow WASPI has sent me the following illuminating submission to the Work and Pensions Committee from Rita Abrahams, which is crying out to be read far and wide.

Ms Abrahams has done a sterling bit of detective work and calculated that not only are we NOT a drain on the state, as the Tories insist, but that our state pension pot was showing a surplus year after year. She also tackles the NICs sleight-of-hand, which has been largely ignored or overlooked by the powers that be.

The government has cynically used the mask of "equality" to steal tens of thousands of pounds from some of the poorest in Britain: around £40,000 for some of us when you take into consideration the soaring cost of NICs to replace the Class 2 contributions abolished by George Osborne in his last budget. One serious step towards a meaningful equality would be to ensure women receive equal pay rather than the 80 per cent of men's income that we average.

And let's not forget that the super-rich have tripled their wealth since the 2008 crash.

I hope there will be a legal challenge, perhaps some sort of class action, if we don't receive our fair pension. I admit to a lack of confidence in the pensions minister, Baroness Ros Altmann, who, far from proactively fighting our corner, has belatedly had to be dragged into the spotlight, suggesting that the best we can hope for is a slightly earlier pension age at a reduced rate. The crumbs are getting smaller.

Written evidence from Rita Abrahams (ESP0178)

I would like to start with asking the following question of the committee, before the debates in February and March how many read the Government’s Actuary report on the National Insurance Fund which was issued on 25th January 2016?

I raised this question for the very simple reason that the financial position of our National Insurance Fund might not have been accurately referenced, in fact it might not have been referenced in any of the debates which is very worrying as that’s the account which pays out contributory benefits such as the State Pension.

Many who wrote, talked and voted against the motion questioned how could the Government fund the request of WASPI, here just two of those quotes: Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con): It would be unfair for us to continue to burden younger generations with extra taxes in order to make more concessions than we have already.

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): When I explain to women born in the 1950s that state pensions are paid out of normal expenditure, not some magical pot of gold from NI contributions, and that our (1950s generation) pensions will be paid for by our children and grandchildren’s taxes, they all get the point.

Such remarks would indicate that the Actuary report’s wasn’t considered before the vote, in fact other remarks would indicate little knowledge of how our National Insurance Fund actually works. I hadn’t realised but basically our National Insurance Fund was set up as a pay as you go system; its income comes from National Insurance Contributions and expenditure can only used to pay for contributory benefits such as State Pensions, a working balance of 1/6th of annual expenditure is required to be kept in the fund for emergencies.

The latest Actuary report published in January projected that by April 2021 our National Insurance Fund will have a balance of £58 billion; thus after setting aside the working balance requirement of £18.52 billion (1/6th of payments) a surplus would remain of £39.48 billion.

The surpluses over the working balance for each of the next 5-years roughly breaks down as follows.

2016-2017: - £ 9.78 billion
2017-2018: - £ 3.85 billion
2018-2019: - £ 5.65 billion
2019-2020: - £ 9.10 billion
2020-2021: - £11.10 billion

I question how many who voted against the motion knew of the projected £39.48 billion surplus and if they did then why did they not raise that most important fact as evidence during the debates, but if they hadn’t known about the latest Actuary’s report then doesn’t that make a farce of the vote.

Therefore, contrary to belief there would be no requirement to increase general taxes going forward or use funds that have been set aside for other projects since that £39 billion is a totally unexpected surplus as in January 2015 the Actuary projected a fund value at April 2020 of only £10.62 billion so not even enough to cover the working balance; the Actuary’s latest projections for April 2020 now stands at £46.299 billion.

Importantly to note is that by October 2020 both women and men would have reached the new SPA of 66 and at the end of that same financial year in April 2021 our National Insurance Fund surplus is still projected by the Actuary as increasing at a very high rate and in that year alone it will receive £11.7 billion more in receipts than it is paying out in
benefits. Thus, shouldn’t this have been used as evidence during the debates into the WASPI petition as this casts a totally new and opposite perception on affordability?

Consequently, as any surplus within our National Insurance Fund can only be used for contributory benefits then if we use it for the purpose it was designed and collected for then it’s a cost neutral win-win situation not only for those affected but also for the country.

When recycling our National Insurance Fund’s unexpected surplus to those disadvantage by the age equalisation act it will also help to stimulate the country’s economy, some will see it’s way into the Government’s purses though taxes, some will retire when they had planned so giving up a job to a younger person, some being carer’s to older and younger family members and the many other positive results that has been mention during the debates.

And to better understand why we should be first utilising the surplus in our National Insurance Fund before placing the cost onto those who had been disadvantaged by the mismanaged communications I would like the committee to consider and comment in their report on the following.

Prior to the 1995 Pension Act SPA remained constant for over 50-years so one can justly classify any increase in the SPA as being a significant change and as such wouldn’t one expect to be notified in a timely manner?

In the White Paper Equality in State Pension Age published in December 1993 CM2420 it states within chapter two the following:
2.1 In developing its proposals for implementing the change the Government has paid particular attention to the need to give people enough time to plan ahead and to phase in the change gradually.

2.2 The change will not begin to be implemented until 2010. This lead-in period of over 16- years allows plenty of time for people to adjust their plans.

Part I of the Pension Act 1995 which applies to all occupational pension schemes (not the State Pension) sets out in Section 67 a number of limits on what type of changes can be made to ones pension. The Pension Advisory Service describes that section in the following terms.

“Over the lifetime of your pension, it's possible that your employer or trustees may want to make changes to your pension scheme. If this happens, you should be consulted if the changes affect how you build it up. Unless you agree, any change should not alter the benefits you have already built up. In addition to various pieces of legislation, the rules of your scheme will outline what your provider can and can't do. It's important the rules are followed. If they are not, the changes may be invalid. In broad terms, unless you give your written consent any changes can't worsen benefits you’ve already earned”.

The equalisation of State Pension Age was covered within Part II section 126 of the same 1995 Pension Act, but no reference or rules were listed to how State Pension changes should be communicated to all those affected.

The Pension Act 1995 was also the result of many pension scandals such as the Maxwell affair which brought about various investigation’s such as the Goode report in 1993, a Social Security Committee report in 1992 and a White Paper in 1994.

The Goode Report commented on cases where “pension scheme members have suffered from unfair treatment, inadequate and misleading information and delays in the payment of contributions and benefits.”

While the Social Security Committee stated, “Members should have the right to information about their scheme which is 'succinct, easily understood and timely.”

I picked out the above examples from the many within those reports so to not only highlight how the Government wanted all occupational pension schemes to be administered but also that those creating the 1995 Act and also those voting on it might have taken for granted and therefore presumed that similar communication requirements were already set in place within the State Pension Scheme.

Evidently, the requirements to adequately notify SPA changes to all those affected were either not followed or there were no requirements/rules laid down at all; either way it highlights how the same 1995 Pension Act successfully laid down notification rules to members within Occupational Schemes but failed when it came to notifying members within the State Pension Scheme.

Consequently, when reading in the White Paper for the need to give people enough time to plan ahead so to adjust their plans I believe MP’s would have assumed that women would be notified soon after the act was passed; had it been known before the vote that the very first batch of individual letters would actually be delayed by 14-years then wouldn’t MP’s have requested additions to the State Pension rules so similar to those rules governing occupational pension schemes on notification of significant changes?

The proposals within the reports leading up to the 1995 Act of timely informing people were clearly not followed through and there is now more than enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the communication was mismanaged, this clearly disadvantaged women born after 1950 and that lead to a financial loss and hardship in so many ways; one of those being the opportunity to contribute into a pension scheme for over a 15-year period so to help fund an expected retirement at 60.

Admittedly not everyone could afford making additional pension contributions but at least everyone affected would have been given that choice and opportunity and when taken up tax relief averaging over 25% would have uplifted those 15-years of contributions for a basic-rate taxpayer plus increases from their investments.

When also considering the rule governing occupational pensions, which the Pension Advisory Service states in broad terms, unless you give your written consent any changes, can't worsen benefits you’ve already earned, then clearly the accrued benefit that I had built up in my SP and payable from the age of 60 was not only drastically reduced but it was without notification and also my consent; one rule for one and a different rule for others comes to mind, but in fact maybe no rule even existed for the State Pension.

Thus a cost neutral outcome would clearly not be seen as a fair conclusion and therefore before someone takes this to the courts wouldn’t it be advisable to classify this as it is, a real financial loss and thus similar to PPI and the financial and pension mis-selling which compensation has and is still being paid out?

I suggest the committee looks further into the National Insurance Fund projected accounts by the Actuary at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/494 930/53430_GA_UpRating_Report_2016_Accessible.pdf

And here are some facts to be going on with.
1) Our National Insurance Fund (NIF) holds the contributions of the National Insurance Scheme which is funded by compulsory contributions on earnings, paid from employees, employers and the self-employed, plus interest on its investments and is used exclusively to pay for social security benefits such as state retirement pensions.

2) A fixed proportion of our National Insurance Contributions (NICs) goes directly to the National Health Service (NHS); this allocation is paid directly by HMRC into the NHS account.

3) NIF is like a current account and is kept separate from all other revenue raised by national taxes and the Government has no powers to use NICs to fund anything else.

4) NIF is operated on a pay as you go basis so this years contributions pays for this years benefits.

5) In 2003 there was a 1% increase in NICs, but the full 1% increase went directly into the NHS account and wasn’t proportionally split as one would expect into both our NIF and NHS accounts.

When looking at the years prior to and after the 1% increase in 2003 one can see a dramatic boost that almost doubled the amount of our NICs that was directly transferred by HMRC into the NHS account.

NHS allocation funded from NICs between 2001-2015

2001-2002 - £7.8 billion
2002-2003 - £8.0 billion
2003-2004 - £14.9 billion
2004-2005 - £16.8 billion
2005-2006 - £18.4 billion
2006-2007 - £18.9 billion
2007-2008 - £21.0 billion
2008-2009 - £20.7 billion
2009-2010 - £20.3 billion
2010-2011 - £20.4 billion
2011-2012 - £20.6 billion
2012-2013 - £20.5 billion
2013-2014 - £20.8 billion
2014-2015 - £21.5 billion

If the 1% increase in our NICs had instead been shared out in the same proportions, as before, then between 2003 and 2015 our NIF account would now have a surplus of over £100 billion more than the working balance.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Government at the time decided that our NIF did not required extra funding; maybe it’s time to reverse that decision and share out our NICs in the same ratio as it was prior to the 2003 change. Admittedly that would mean less being transferred from our NICs to our NHS and therefore that shortfall would need to be made up from our general taxes but that would be more appropriate as all taxpayers would be contributing into this and not just working people under the state pension age who are the only ones liable to pay NICs.

It could appear to an outsider that the Government in 2003 did in a way act similar to Maxwell, using our benefit contributions to increase funding in a total separate business and in doing so might have helped in the perception that the state pension system is in the long term unaffordable and thus the SPA had to increase and for some at a quicker rate. Thus, has our Government been mismanaging our NIF, maybe they need to look into using our NICs in at least the same proportions as it was in 2002 so to delay future SPA increases.

During 2020-2021 (so after SPA equalises at 66) our NICs will raise approximately £153 billion, of that around £30 billion will be transferred into the NHS fund with the remaining £122.8 billion being transferred into our NIF, payments for benefits will be £111.126 billion as estimated by the Actuary leaving a surplus in that year alone of £11.674 billion.

I might be naive but maybe its about time to have two-totally separate forms of deductions with no cross-over so our NICs would only pay for our contributory benefits while the NHS would only be funded from our general taxes that all taxpayers contribute into? This has to be a much fairer system all round, understandable by all and if that scenario took place in 2021 there could be a surplus of over £41 billion in that year alone and clearly with that sort of annual surplus NICs could be reduced and/or further SPA’s increases could be shelved. Yes, there would be a resulting shortfall in the NHS accounts but then all taxpayers no matter what their age so including pensioners, whether working or not would correctly manage that NHS shortfall and therefore helping all age groups towards a fairer State Pension.

Call for written submissions addressing the following points.

What would be the short-term and long-term fiscal impact?
When using the surplus in our National Insurance Fund there would only be positive impacts, one example would be that some would find its way back into the Governments purse through personal tax.

What would be the other costs of the scheme?
If using our NIF surplus it’s basically only the cost to administer and due to the unequal and limited surplus each year there’s a need to find a simple no frills package which might include only one choice to defer, so if chosen deferral has to be until ones SPA as per the 2011 Pension Act and there would be no increases such as the 5.4% p.a. bonus for each year of deferral. Also NICs would still be payable for those still in employment up to the ages within the 2011 Pension Act.

Could additional costs be incorporated in the reduction factors used to achieve long-term fiscal neutrality?
No requirement if the NIF surplus is correctly used.

How should the scheme interact with pension credit and other benefits?
As currently with any State Pensions in payment.

How could uncertainty within the system be budgeted for and managed?
Currently around 20% of NICs is transferred into the NHS fund with 80% into our NIF, if in 2020 we revert to the 2002 percentages so with around 12% going into the NHS fund and 88% into our NIF then that would give our State Pension Scheme an extra uplift in just that one year alone of around £12 billion. And if the Government ran it more like a company pension scheme so all NI contributions went into our NIF and none to the NHS then that would result in an extra uplift that year of around £30 billion and when added to the expected balance at the end of that year of £58 billion, that’s a massive pot of £88 billion and some £70 billion over the working balance. Clearly this would be a much simpler, fairer, manageable and understandable pension/benefits system, which would result in not only lower NICs from employer and employee but also possibly placing on hold any further SPA increases. Obviously the NHS shortfall would need to be funded from general-taxes but that’s payable by all tax payers no matter what their age.

How are similar schemes managed in occupational pensions?
No answer required if our National Insurance Fund surplus is used, but worth noting that occupational schemes would not have got into this predicament due to the 1995 Act governing communications.

Who should be eligible and why?
All who’ve not received 10-years notice of a change to their SPA, so including both men and women, thus men 55 or older who’s not received notification should still be allowed to take their State Pension at 65 and women 50 or older who’s not received notification should still be allowed to take their State Pension at 60.

How popular would the scheme be among the people eligible?
When using the NIF surplus for what it was collected for then it would be immensely popular and also to their families as it would help in caring for both the younger and older members of those families.

What impact would it have on the lives of the people eligible?
Positively and in so many individual ways and to name just two, less stress and financial worries.

Link to the Governments Actuary’s report on the projected position of the National Insurance Fund over the next five financial years which was issued in January 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/494 930/53430_GA_UpRating_Report_2016_Accessible.pdf

The table below is taken from page 33 of that report which shows the improvement in the fund from the previous year’s report, note the difference with a fund balance at financial year end in 2019-2020, the previous report was £10.622 billion; the latest report issued in 2016 is £46.299 billion and by April 2021 there’s a projected balance of £58.002 billion.

This unexpected surplus which had not been referenced at all during the debates clearly resulted in a misguided conclusion, that compensation for the WASPI ask was unaffordable and consequently the only option put forward was an early retirement but of a lower Sate Pension so to be cost neutral to the fund.

Rita Abrahams — My Brief History.
Born August 1954
Started full time work August 1969 at the age of 15-years and 2-weeks.
Gave birth in 1982 and after a short break of 4-months returned to part-time work.
I gradually increased my working hours and by 1990 had returned to full-time work. Received at my request a State Pension Forecast dated 10th December 1993 with a SPA of 60.
Reason for submitting this evidence, I never received a follow up statement to indicate there had been a change to my December 1993 statement; this was a major error and failing by the DWP.
Found out about SPA increases from a newspaper report in 2011.
Unexpectedly made redundant in 2015.
Spent about 3-months on Job Seekers, felt belittled, uncomfortable and stressed, now doing voluntary work.
Trying to hold off drawing my company pension due to reduction factors so living off my savings.
Finally and to this day, I have never received any personal notifications with regards to any of the significant changes made within any of the Pension Acts, but at my request I recently received a State Pension forecast.
April 2016

Hansard on the Waspi debate in Parliament, 1st February 2016.

July 2018: The rape of the National Insurance Fund A draft prepared by Tony Lynes as a basis for a National Pensioners Convention factsheet on the National Insurance Fund