As our thoughts turn to our war dead in our annual act of remembrance, the BBC has highlighted the plight of some of our war living:

Injured veterans are being refused benefits and are ending up living in poverty because of a loophole in benefit rules, the BBC has learned.

Some veterans who get a pension for their disabilities are being refused income support.

The Royal British Legion believes the issue may affect 60,000 men and women.

The article says it all.

One of my political heroines is probably the second most important female politician in the UK of the 20th century. If Barbara Castle had got In Place of Strife right, then there is a good chance she could've become the first female PM.

There was one policy of hers though that was anethema to me. It is supported by Campaign group MP's, and it bewilders me. Why do the Left support redistribution from the poor to the rich? Why do they support restoring the link between pensions and earnings?

It is one of those topics that makes anyone who is on the left look uncomfortable. I think we need to reform welfare, but how can we do it in a progressive way, that maintains the welfare state?

Currently, Wisconsin welfare reforms are being proposed by the Tories. But while it seems attractive, it seems to be only the Heritage foundation that maintains that poverty hasn't increased as a result of it.

Similarly, almost all welfare proposals seem to emphasise one word, and one word only: cuts.

We also have an increasingly ageing population. We have a pension system that could be bankrupted.

There are pragmatic decisions that have to be made, like increasing immigration, especially amongst skilled workers, and raising the retirement age, but we have to consider many proposals.

Look at flexicurity in Denmark. It has created the most lassez-faire labour market rules in Europe, but backed up by a strong AMLP, unemployment stands at just 1.8%. We should consider this proposal.

The problem is, that when parties offer draconian welfare proposals, it focuses on punishing those too lazy to find work. But over two-thirds of those on incapacity benefits want to work. So lets enact Carol Black's proposals for incapacity benefits.

We need an even stronger New Deal.  We need to specifically focus on how we regenerate the areas effected by Thatcher's onslaught on industry. Those pit villages can no longer be ghost towns. True, most are improving, but they still have higher than average unemployment. We also need to regenerate the inner cities, that like former industrial towns are rife with drugs and poverty. We need to help all long term workers who are made, or have been made redundant, in to new jobs as they do strongly in Sweden and Denmark, with skills training, and re-education of redundant blue-collar workers.

We should look at how we stop the shocking amount of state subsidies in pensions to the rich. The top 10% run off with around 55% of tax subsidies. We have managed to get 2 million pensioners out of poverty in a decade, and if we are going to sort out pensions, we can't put the rich ahead of the poor.

Probably the best proposal in the Turner report was the "Britsaver" scheme. And as for regenerating the New Deal, we also need to pour money into Pathways, and schemes such as Tomorrow's People. One way of countering the workfare model would be to ensure that those who are unemployed do community work such as visting the elderly.

We need to reform the National Insurance system in one, which does a European style redistribution of wealth, without the cuts. The Beverdige model is outdated. Many of the beneficaries of this model are now richer, and do not need welfare as much as others.

The IPPR made interesting proposals in 2005: rolling NI into the tax system, and abolishing second state pensions to increase basic pensions.

But we must also realise that one of the ultimate, if not the ultimate, goal of the left: full employment, is inextricably linked with the future of our pensions system.

We must therefore offer incentives to work. We should increase the minimum wage to £7.80 over 2 years. In the long term, when there are enough people in work, we should try and introduce co-determination. I know some will say that the market can't affor to up wages right now, but it is because of worries about wages, that we should increase the minimum wage. If you redistribute wealth to the poor, or increase their pay, then they will spend the money in the local economy, and the money gets recycled. If you give tax cuts to the rich, they spend money on specific markets. Intersetingly, comapny directors never seem to mention their inflation-busting wages having an effect upon the RPI.

The best way, to help both however, would be spme feminism in our policies. The best way to help save up our pensions system, by boosting our economy, and to get people off welfare, is to get women into work:

1) Up maternity leave to 480 days, perhaps equalising responsibility between the parents.

2) Introduce universal childcare.

3) Increase rights for flexible working hours, maybe even allowing mothers to stay home when children are sick.

4) Crack down on un-equal pay, by making sure that all companies have pay audits.

Ultimately though, I think we should increase public spending as a percentage of GDP. As shown in Scandanavia, we can maintain a health economy, insuring aspiration, but having a strong welfare state. If we want a strong pensions system, we need to reform the outdated parts, and we should especially help the poor as we have done. But Scandanavia seem to have less worries about the long term health of their welfare states, because they have incredible stong AMLP's, and incredibly stong funding of their pensions systems.

Ultimately, the case for a transition to a Scandanavian Social model seems to be stronger every day.

Or is it belated good riddance to bad rubbish? Tom P of Capital & Labour (and his Mrs) has finally had enough of active Conservative Party supporters,Fidelity Investment. Fidelity has donated £435, 500 (£115,000 in 2007 alone) to the Tories in recent years without disclosing the information to their investors.

...and so say all of us (quote about best crimbo present from TUC Brendan Barber).

A little late (as was the announcement by the government) but excellent news on Monday about the rescue plan for pensioners whose final salary pension schemes have collapsed. This £2.9 Billion package will help an estimated 140,000 people.

Excellent post from Labour & Capital about the investment fund managers Fidelity, who unlike all other major British managers are significant financial contributors to the Conservative Party. Over £320,000 in the last three years.

Tom P (the author) and his wife, have an ISA investment account with them. He has written this letter asking why they are donating money to the Tories, are they planning future contributions and do they disclose these donations when they bid for business in Conservative controlled Council pension fund authorities?

“Should I stay or should I go?” I doubt if Gordon Brown is listening tonight to the 80’s punk rock band “Clash”, while making up his mind about whether or not to go to the country. There again, I haven’t heard his “Desert Island Discs” selection, so who knows.

Yesterday, we had the unexpected pleasure of former Housing Minister and PPS to Tony Blair, Keith Hill MP, (Streatham CLP) giving a Parliamentary report to UNISON Labour Link London regional committee. UNISON has a new Constituency Development Plan with Streatham CLP.

Discussing population can be difficult and there is a real danger that the far right use such debates as a proxy for immigration. However, it is important to ask if Britain ought to have a policy to achieve and maintain a sustainable level of total population. There are many reasons why this might be sensible and I discuss some of them here.