Volkswagen plans closure of 3 plants in Germany, cutting tens of thousands of jobs

Ulrich Rippert

With Volkswagen management planning a radical cost-cutting program, Central Works Council Chairwoman Daniela Cavallo, of the IG Metall trade union, announced yesterday that at least three German plants are to be closed and tens of thousands of jobs cut.

VW plant in Wolfsburg

On Monday morning, the works council invited workers to information meetings at all German plants. Some 25,000 employees gathered at the main plant in Wolfsburg alone. A works council leaflet, which was distributed en masse on Monday, begins with the words: “It is a declaration of war of historic proportions on its own workforce and entire home regions at the heart of the Group.” It continued: 

In connection with job losses for tens of thousands of us, the Board of Management intends to enforce the following: close at least three VW factories in Germany, shrink virtually all plants still existing in Germany, also separate from previous core areas and, on top of that, enforce massive pay losses for the remaining employees.

All this is “not sabre rattling” as a tactic in the current round of collective bargaining, the VW works council explained, as the board really wants all this and considers that the cost-cutting plan has “no alternative and no room for concessions.” The Central Works Council was informed in advance, but the Board of Directors refused to come clean to its own employees. “That is why your works councils are now forced to inform you about this.”

The financial daily Handelsblatt quoted from an internal strategy paper, which is referred to as a “poison list” in management circles. According to the paper, further massive social attacks are planned. They include, among other things, major wage cuts, the outsourcing of individual administrative areas and pay freezes for the years 2025 and 2026. 

Chief Human Resources Officer Gunnar Kilian said in a media release that the Board of Management had decided not to disclose any further details about the planned measures in the cost-cutting programme: “We adhere to the principle agreed in codetermination to first conduct the discussion about the future of Volkswagen AG internally with our negotiating partners.”

On Wednesday, negotiations between management and IG Metall on a new company collective bargaining agreement will enter the second round. During the first round in September VW rejected IG Metall’s demands for a 7 percent wage increase and instead pushed for savings. According to Cavallo, VW is now demanding a 10 percent wage cut and pay freezes in the next two years. 

Many VW workers are shocked. The largest European carmaker already announced a “cost-cutting policy” in the summer and terminated the employment guarantee that had been in place for decades. But Monday’s announcements exceeded all fears. The VW Group has long been known in Germany for relatively high wages and social benefits with jobs considered crisis-proof, from apprenticeship to retirement.

The works council chief’s apparent indignation on Monday was, however, all for show. In truth, the works council is involved in all management discussions and is directly involved in the preparation of the plans to shut plants. The works council and IG Metall are responsible within management for designing the social attacks in such a way that resistance to them can be suppressed. The confidentiality up to now was also agreed upon and the announcement now made by the works council two days before the next round of negotiations was deliberately calculated. 

Cavallo and her IG Metall colleagues speak of an attack “on us” and try to present themselves as representatives of workers’ interests. The reality is the opposite. The fact that the works council speaks of “historic” attacks, but has so far not initiated any combat measures against them, shows this. In no other German company is the cooperation between the owners, management and trade unions as close and sophisticated as at Volkswagen.

Head of Human Resources Gunnar Kilian, who is responsible for the plan to shutter plants and for layoffs, was General Secretary of the works council before moving to the Board of Directors. He was considered the “closest confidant” of Cavallo’s predecessor Bernd Osterloh and his “mastermind.” 

The VW Group has in the past been described as the epitome of social partnership and as a “German codetermination model.” IG Metall and the works council, together with an army of full-time officials, ensure that the decisions of the Executive Board and Supervisory Board are implemented smoothly. 

The head of IG Metall traditionally serves as Deputy Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Group, assisted by the works council, which, due to statutory codetermination, together with IGM, occupies half of the Supervisory Board. The other half is accounted for by Porsche Holding, which is controlled by the Porsche and Piech families and owns 53 percent of the ordinary shares, the Emirate of Qatar (17 percent) and the Social Democratic Party-governed state of Lower Saxony (20 percent). 

The VW Group is thus practically dominated by a triumvirate of trade unions, works councils and the SPD. Ex-IGM head Jörg Hofmann, General Works Council Chairman Daniela Cavallo and Lower Saxony Minister President Stephan Weil (SPD) sit on the eight-member Supervisory Board, where all important decisions are discussed.

The cost-cutting at VW is part of a global offensive by the car companies, which—supported by national governments and trade union bureaucracies—are fighting a bitter battle for market share and higher returns, and are using the switch to electric mobility to lay off hundreds of thousands.

Ford is shutting down its plant in Saarlouis and is now attacking the workers in Cologne and Valencia. With Stellantis, “hardly a stone remains on top of another,” as the daily FAZ writes. The CEO Carlos Tavares, who is notorious as a “cost killer,” is destroying thousands of jobs in the US and Italy. The Opel plant in Eisenach is not spared either, and of the 15,000 jobs that once existed at the Opel main plant in Rüsselsheim, only 8,300 remain.

A veritable massacre is taking place in the supplier industry. ZF Friedrichshafen is destroying 14,000 jobs and Continental 7,000. Almost daily, smaller companies with several hundred employees close. The software group SAP is also cutting 10,000 jobs, ThyssenKrupp is cutting its steel division, the chemical group Bayer is destroying 5,000 jobs and BASF is closing two sites in Cologne and Frankfurt-Höchst.

The crisis of the capitalist system is intensifying and massive social attacks are being enforced in order to increase profits not only in Germany and Europe, but worldwide. In the US, striking Boeing workers are facing very similar attacks and have already twice rejected a miserable collective bargaining agreement backed by the union bureaucracy.

The unrestrained pursuit of profit by billionaires and speculators not only exacerbates exploitation, but also leads to war. The hunt for raw materials, markets and cheap labour develops into an economic war with trade restrictions, punitive tariffs and subsidies, and finally into a military conflict.

For example, the US is now imposing import tariffs of 100 percent on electric cars from China. At the same time, they are surrounding the economically rising country militarily and systematically preparing for war. The EU has imposed similar import duties—albeit at a lower level.

Germany has used EU enlargement to increase its economic dominance in Eastern Europe. It supports the NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine in order to force regime change in Moscow and bring the huge country with its raw materials and energy sources under the direct control of the German economy. The economic and energy crisis exacerbated by this is now being passed on to the workers using increasingly brutal methods.

Labor’s cuts set to destroy over 1,000 jobs at Australian universities

Jack Turner

More than 1,000 job cuts have been announced this month at public universities across Australia. This is a direct result of the Labor government’s caps on international student enrolments, on top of its systemic under-funding of the universities.

Striking NTEU members protest outside University of Newcastle.

Labor has decreed cuts to international student enrolments by more than 50,000 for next year, most heavily affecting 15 of the publicly-funded universities. This is a reactionary nationalist move, backed by the Liberal-National Coalition, to scapegoat international students for the worsening housing and cost-of-living crisis affecting working-class households.

The cuts are particularly hitting universities with large numbers of Chinese students, such as the University of Sydney and University of Melbourne. That is in line with efforts throughout the media and political establishment to whip up anti-Chinese sentiment amid escalating US-led preparations for war against China.

The cuts to international students are aimed at forcing universities to integrate themselves more fully with the demands of big business and the military, as set out in the Albanese government’s Universities Accord.

The cuts are depriving universities of one of their main sources of income, full fee-paying international students, who have become cash cows for the universities amid funding cuts by successive Labor and Liberal-National governments.

Among the job cuts unveiled or foreshadowed so far:

• The University of Wollongong announced a $35 million drop in revenue and cuts “in every part of the university.” National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) branch president Fiona Probyn-Rapsey predicted 200-300 job cuts, and said workers would only find out if they were among them on December 20, the last day of work before the summer shut down.

• The Australian National University (ANU) unveiled a projected budget deficit of $200 million this year, called for a $100 million cut from salaries. It has announced 108 redundancies so far, including 50 in the College of Health Medicine, with another 600 job cuts threatened.

• The University of Canberra (UC) said it would cut $50 million in wages by the end of next year, or at least 200 jobs. Outgoing Vice-Chancellor Stephen Parker said the cuts would affect “all levels of the institution.”

• James Cook University in Townsville said it would reduce its headcount by about 50 workers.

• The University of Southern Queensland will cut an estimated 60 jobs to fill a $32 million budget hole.

• The University of Newcastle released a “Business Improvement Program” that states the “need to review our approach to workforce planning.”

• University of Sydney Vice Chancellor Mark Scott said the university expected to lose $1 billion in revenue over five years and has implemented a hiring freeze affecting thousands of workers on fixed term or casual contracts who will not have their contracts renewed.

The Universities of Melbourne, Federation, Tasmania and La Trobe have implemented similar measures.

This is on top of the cuts already announced at Western Sydney University’s College of some 17 percent of the workforce, and the equivalent of 97 full-time positions from the Faculty of Arts at Macquarie University. At both universities, workers have formed rank-and-file committees, independent of the campus trade unions, to fight these cuts and develop a broader struggle of education workers.

Not accidentally, the main target at both Western Sydney and Macquarie is the arts and humanities courses. The ruling elite does not want critical and educated working-class students but fodder for industry or war. This points to the underlying agenda behind the cuts.

As the rank-and-file committees have warned, far from providing a vehicle to improve education, as the campus unions falsely claim, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government is spearheading pro-market restructuring, particularly in relation to the corporate elite and the military.

The government’s Universities Accord report, released in February, calls for courses to be designed “with the skill needs of industry in mind,” making special mention of the $368 billion “AUKUS nuclear submarine program,” which is bound up with the preparations for war against China.

While starving universities of funds, the Labor government is spending billions on supporting the US-led war against Russia in Ukraine, the US-Israeli genocide in Gaza, and preparations for war against China, including the construction of US military bases across the north and west coast.

The restructuring is coupled with a crackdown on dissent on campuses. Earlier this month, police arrested three Western Sydney University students for conducting a peaceful protest against the genocide in Gaza and bombing of Lebanon.

In July, the University of Sydney management imposed a “Campus Access Policy” that all but prohibits protests. While inflicted in response to anti-genocide student encampments, such measures setting anti-democratic precedents for use more broadly against youth and workers opposing the government’s pro-war agenda.

The NTEU and the other main campus trade union, the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), are fully complicit in Labor’s assault. In September the NTEU asked its members to sign a petition to the government calling for a “phase-in periods for any caps” on international students, not the reversal of them.

The NTEU falsely claims that the enrolment cuts could be implemented without any job losses and that vice chancellors’ warnings about thousands of job cuts were just “scare mongering.”

Likewise, responding to the latest cuts at ANU and UC, NTEU Australian Capital Territory division secretary Lachlan Clohesy said “really poor [university] governance is at the root of all these problems.” He called on Education Minister Jason Clare to “implement a transition plan to make up funding shortfalls due to federal government policy changes.”

This was as though it was not the Labor government itself that has authored the cuts.

This represents a deepening of the role of the union apparatuses in diverting political opposition away from the Labor Party. The unions campaigned for and supported the previous Rudd-Gillard Labor governments of 2007 to 2013, which cut university funding by $10 billion, and implemented policies that forced universities to compete for enrolments.

Japan’s LDP suffers electoral defeat for only the third time since 1955

Peter Symonds

Sunday’s parliamentary election in Japan for the lower house of the Diet has resulted in a stunning setback for the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). With its ally Komeito, it failed to win a majority of seats for only the third time since the LDP was formed in 1955.

Japan's prime minister and president of the Liberal Democratic Party Shigeru Ishiba, October 27, 2024 [AP Photo/Takashi Aoyama]

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who just assumed office on October 1, called the snap election in a bid to obtain a mandate for his right-wing, militarist agenda. That has now backfired. He has pledged to remain in office, however, ignoring commentary that he was likely to take responsibility for the defeat and resign.

Ishiba told reporters on Monday that, in the light of Japan’s economic and security conditions, he would not allow a “political vacuum” to occur. Noting the “severe criticism” of the government by voters, he declared: “We will fulfil our duties to protect the lives of the people and the country by responding to tough issues in a solemn and appropriate way.”

In his brief period in office, Ishiba, a former defence minister, has lined up fully behind the US-NATO war against Russia in Ukraine, the US-backed Israeli genocide in Gaza and Washington’s accelerating preparations for war against China. He has called for the formation of an “Asian NATO” to confront China and North Korea, suggesting that Japan should play a more prominent role in the region’s security structures.

Prior to the election, the LDP held a majority in its own right in the 465-seat lower house. Its 259 seats have now been reduced to just 191. Two cabinet ministers lost their seats. Komeito also lost seats, dropping from 32 to 24, leaving the ruling coalition with just 215, well short of the 233 seats necessary for a majority.

Ishiba has blamed the defeat on the corruption scandal surrounding the misuse of proceeds from the LDP’s political fundraisers. However, the alienation and hostility to the government, and indeed the entire political establishment, is rooted in far deeper issues—the worsening social crisis, widening social inequality and the turn to militarism and war.

Commentators have pointed to inflation and the “cost-of-living crunch” as a significant factor turning voters away from the LDP. While core consumer prices rose by just 2.4 percent year-on-year in September, according to government data, the index excluded volatile fresh food items and obscured far higher rises in the price of some basics. Real wages fell by 0.6 percent in August compared to a year earlier.

According to data released last Friday, Tokyo rice prices in October soared by a record 62.3 percent from a year ago, driven up by high costs for fertilizer and other inputs. Imported food stuffs have also risen sharply due to a weak yen—coffee beans and beef up 16.6 percent and 14.1 percent, respectively.

While Ishiba promised to end corruption in the LDP and take measures to ease cost-of-living burdens, voters in large numbers clearly did not believe him. The far broader alienation of voters from the political establishment is evidenced by the fact that nearly half of registered voters did not bother to cast a ballot.

Voter turnout in single seat constituencies on Sunday was just 53.9 percent, a drop of 2 percentage points on the previous election, and the third lowest level since World War II. While figures have not so far been released, the turnout among younger voters will have been far lower. In the 2021 lower house election, just 43.2 percent of teenagers and 36.5 percent of voters in their 20s cast a ballot. Japan only lowered the voting age from 20 to 18 in 2016.

The low turnout among youth reflects the fact that many have been condemned to a life of poorly-paid part-time or casual work with no future prospects. Successive governments have dismantled much of the post-war lifelong employment system that guaranteed jobs and other benefits. No doubt many young people, like their counterparts around the world, are also concerned about the rise of militarism and the dangers of war.

While the main opposition party, the Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP), made significant gains, boosting its seats from 98 to 148, it is hardly a vote of confidence in the party. The CDP emerged out of a split in the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) that had defeated the LDP in 2009 for the second time since 1955 but was unceremoniously thrown out of office in 2012 after breaking its promises to address pressing social issues facing working people.

Yoshihiko Noda, who was the last of the three prime ministers of the 2009‒2012 Democratic Party government, was installed as CDP leader this September and turned the party to the right.

Mass protests erupted in 2015 against the LDP government of Shinzo Abe and its legislation to formalise so-called collective self-defence—that is, Japan’s military involvement in US wars of aggression—which was ultimately rammed through the Diet. The DPJ and subsequently the CDP had sought to capitalise on this anti-war opposition by promising to overturn the legislation, a pledge that Noda signaled he will jettison.

That the issues of government support for US-led wars, remilitarisation and the doubling of the defence budget were not raised in the official election campaign reflects the fact that the entire political establishment, in one way or another, supports a more aggressive assertion by Japanese imperialism of its economic and strategic interests.

Two parties could decide the next prime minister—the Democratic Party for the People (DPP) and the Japan Innovation Party (Ishin). The DPP, a right-wing fragment that emerged from the break-up of the DPJ, now holds 28 seats, up from 7. Ishin, a far-right party that openly supports Japanese remilitarisation, holds 38 seats, down from 44. Either party could give Ishiba the numbers he needs to retain the prime ministership when parliament reconvenes on November 11.

Ishiba, however, told reporters yesterday that he was not considering forming a broader coalition “at this point.” This raises the possibility that he will attempt to operate as a minority government, relying on deals with other parties to push through legislation.

Buoyed by the election result for the CDP, Noda is signaling that he will make a bid to become prime minister. “Voters chose which party would be the best fit to push for political reforms,” he declared on Sunday, adding that the “LDP-Komeito administration cannot continue.” The CDP, however, is in a far weaker position to form government, given the political diversity of parties that it would have woo to form a government.

The Japanese Communist Party (JCP), which long ago dropped any opposition to the capitalist system and is thoroughly integrated into the political establishment, has previously backed and concluded electoral deals with the CDP. In Sunday’s election, in protest over Noda’s refusal to commit to rescinding the collective self-defence legislation, the JCP stood against the CDP in numbers of electorates. The JCP’s seat count fell from 10 to 8.

The decline of the LDP and fragmentation of the Japanese political establishment has been a protracted process over the past three decades, fueled by the break-up of the post-war order dominated by US imperialism, and the crisis of world capitalism. The LDP lost office briefly for the first time in 1993, after breakaway LDP factions formed an unstable coalition with the Socialist party. It is no accident that the LDP again lost power in 2009 during the global financial crisis and failed to gain a parliamentary majority on Sunday amid growing financial instability, geo-political tensions and war.

None of the establishment parties can address the needs and aspirations of workers and youth in Japan. Whatever the form it takes, the next government will be one of instability and crisis as it seeks to impose new burdens on the working class in order to boost the profits of big business and aggressively pursue the interests of Japanese imperialism.

Georgian president refuses to recognize election results, appeals for Western backing

Andrea Peters

Political turmoil has seized the south Caucasus country of Georgia, after President Salome Zourabichvili declared Sunday that she would not recognize the results of parliamentary elections held the day before. The vote delivered a victory to the ruling Georgian Dream party, which won 53.92 percent of the ballots cast, securing it 89 seats in the legislature and renewing its mandate to form a government. The leading opposition parties, which the president backs, collectively won 37.78 percent of the vote, giving them a total of 61 representatives.

Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili speaks to a crowd during an opposition protest against the results of the parliamentary election in Tbilisi, Georgia, Monday, Oct. 28, 2024. [AP Photo/Zurab Tsertsvadze]

Zourabichvili, who was born in France and worked in its diplomatic service for 30 years, including as the country’s ambassador to Georgia, described Saturday’s elections as a “Russian special operation” and a “constitutional coup.” The head of state, who, while occupying a ceremonial position is also commander-in-chief of the military, called for mass protests on Monday night and appealed for “the firm support of our European partners, of our American partners.”

Press reports indicate that tens of thousands took to the streets, with many draped in Georgian and EU flags, similar to mass pro-Western demonstrations that occurred in the early summer when the Georgian Dream government passed a “foreign agents” law. Zourabichvili, who told the crowd yesterday night “They stole your vote,” found time between addressing the demonstrations and working to overturn to the election results to give an interview to CNN. Speaking to Christiane Amanpour on Monday, she described the October 26 vote as a “complete falsification.”

The country’s president is laying the groundwork for overthrowing the re-elected ruling party. As Brian Whitmore, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, noted Monday in a comment on the organization’s website, “Georgia’s 2024 parliamentary election has entered its ‘Maidan’ phase.” Drawing a comparison between what is unfolding in Tbilisi now and the right-wing coup that brought to power the current regime in Kiev, he observed, “This weekend’s deeply flawed election was just the opening bell.”

The Georgian opposition, which is ferociously anti-Russian and has extremely close ties to Washington and Brussels, insists that vote buying, physical violence and other “irregularities” marred Saturday’s vote. Several opposition political parties have said they will refuse to take their seats.

Irakli Kobakhidze, the leader of GD and head of the country’s parliament, has denied that his party was involved in any efforts to manipulate the election. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitri Peskov also rejected accusations of Russian involvement, which he described as having become standard fare.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), whose 529 poll watchers observed the balloting, is playing a leading role in bolstering the opposition’s claims, as is the White House and the EU as a whole, all of which are demanding an investigation into the outcome.

The grounds for their demands are shaky. According to French Senator and Special Coordinator for the OSCE Pascal Alliard, the Georgian parliamentary election was flawed because of “imbalances in financial resources” and a “divisive campaign atmosphere”—in other words, the party that won had more money. It used its domination of the media to promote itself, and there are sharp political divisions in the population. He could not indicate, however, why any of these things—features of every modern election in every capitalist society—would make the outcome questionable.

Similarly, Antonio López-Istúriz White, the head of the European Parliament delegation that monitored the Georgian election, criticized the outcome because “during the electoral campaign, the ruling party used anti-Western and hostile rhetoric, targeting Georgia’s democratic partners, in particular the European Union, its politicians and diplomats, promoted Russian disinformation, manipulation and conspiracy theories.”

In essence, according to him, if the United States, the EU or NATO are criticized in any political process in any country, it makes that process—whether it be an election, media coverage or anything else—illegitimate.

Despite what is clearly a gathering campaign on the part of the Western-backed opposition to seize power in Tbilisi on the basis of accusations of election fraud, little evidence has been presented to substantiate the claims. There have been only statements of foreign election observers hostile to the ruling party and videos circulating on social media that show people forcefully shoving ballots into boxes in some unspecified location on an unidentified date in support of an unnamed candidate.

And even if these incidents and other alleged reports of people being pressured into voting one way or another, paid to cast a ballot, or otherwise intimidated turn out to be true, there is no reason to assume that vote rigging was solely, or even primarily, carried out on behalf of the ruling party. The opposition’s backers in Washington are masters at overturning democratic elections and have worked systematically over the years to create in Georgia an extensive network of pro-Western, non-governmental organizations, democratic-advocacy networks, press outlets and the like with the sole purpose of securing American and European interests in the south Caucasus.

Thus far the OSCE has held back from declaring that Georgia’s election results are completely invalid, a step that the White House has also yet to take. The latter, in particular, may be to some extent hemmed in at the moment by the obvious contradiction between the Biden administration’s support for the opposition in Tbilisi and the fact that Donald Trump—whom Harris and Biden, albeit meekly, have described as a would-be dictator—has also made clear that he will not recognize any vote that does not hand him victory.

However, neither this nor the veracity of the claims about election fraud in Georgia will stop the efforts of the NATO powers, with the aid of the local opposition, to secure what they want on the ground in the south Caucasus. Due to its geographic location, Georgia, as well as neighboring Armenia, is at the center of the United States and Europe’s war plans, both with regards to Russia and Iran.

Washington has been involved in the country for decades, pouring money into “civil society” organizations, working to establish closer military ties with the state, and helping to orchestrate the overthrow of administrations it identifies as too close to Russia, such as during the 2004 Rose Revolution.

Georgian Dream won the election because it presented itself as an anti-war party, the only means by which to prevent the nation from being ruled by the “global party of war” and transformed into NATO’s “second front. It won support among those sections of the population that fear what will happen to them if they become the next launching pad for NATO, are sympathetic to the plight of the Russian people on the basis of the countries’ shared cultural and political history, and are not terribly convinced, after decades of miseries being visited upon themselves and others around the world, of the West’s promises of prosperity and democracy.

GD, however, has no real ability to stop the tiny nation of less than 4 million from being dragged into World War Three. It represents that section of the Georgian ruling class that aims to balance between Russia and the West and is constantly seeking some sort of negotiated solution. Although the opposition presents GD as fanatical Putinists who hate Europe and all its values, it has long made clear its desire to bring Georgia into the EU.

Prime Minister Kobakhidze reiterated this just one day prior to the parliamentary elections. Speaking in an interview with Euronews on October 25, he described his government as “pro-European” and stated, “We will continue to do everything to promote Georgia’s EU accession in the future.”

Kobakhidze’s efforts to appease his critics, however, have failed. Georgia’s ruling party is targeted for removal, drawn into a maelstrom enveloping all the former Soviet countries ringing the Black Sea. In nearby Moldova, pro-EU forces, taking the opposite tactic to that of their counterparts in Georgia, just claimed victory in a highly questionable vote. According to their version of events, they managed to win the contest despite the evil of “Russian disinformation.” Which elections are “legitimate” and which are not has nothing to do with the integrity of the voting but the degree to which the outcome comports with what Washington and Brussels want. 

John S. Knight (JSK) Journalism Fellowships 2025/2026

Application Deadline:

The application deadline for the Fully Funded John S. Knight (JSK) Journalism Fellowships 2025/2026 at Stanford University, USA is  1 p.m. Pacific time, Dec. 4, 2024;

Tell Me About The Fully Funded John S. Knight (JSK) Journalism Fellowships:

 invites journalists ready to step back from professional duties to fully immerse in a 9-month journey of leadership development and personal growth. Ideal applicants are those committed to advancing in journalism, eager for deep self-examination, and enthusiastic about being part of a diverse cohort of peers. Applicants will benefit from coaching that enhances resilience and leadership, along with webinars featuring program directors and alumni who share insights on the experience and application process.

Which Fields are Eligible?

Journalism 

Type:

Fellowship

Who can Apply For The Fully Funded John S. Knight (JSK) Journalism Fellowships?

Additionally, the eligibility criteria include:

• Open to U.S. and international journalists, including those in news organizations, independent journalists, journalism entrepreneurs, and journalism innovators.
• Applicants must have at least five years of full-time professional journalism experience (student journalism or internships do not count toward this requirement).
• A college degree or experience in traditional newsrooms is not required.
• Ineligible applicants include individuals working in public information or public relations, for trade or house newsletters or magazines, in government agencies, or in academic positions.
• The fellowship does not fund or support book or reporting projects and is not a business accelerator.

Expectations

Being a JSK Fellow is a full-time commitment.  You be asked to forgo other professional work to focus on the fellowship experience.  You will receive a monthly stipend and the ability to enrol in health insurance through Stanford for you and your dependents.

You will be expected to:

• Be in residence at Stanford during the academic year, from September to May.
• Dedicate yourself full-time to the fellowship.
• Attend weekly meetings with your cohort and biweekly meetings with your adviser as well as other occasional JSK events.
• Publicly share your work and insights throughout the year.
• Work collaboratively with people who offer a range of ideas, experiences and perspectives.

Which Countries Are Eligible?

All countries

Where will the Award be Taken?

USA

How Many Awards?

Not specified

What is the Benefit of the Award?

Additionally, the benefits include:

• Individual coaching and customized workshops to help build the leadership resilience and mindsets needed to navigate and lead change.
• A purposefully designed cohort experience that fosters opportunities for meaningful and enduring personal and professional connections.
• The time and freedom to explore the intellectual offerings of a world-class university.
• Access to the worldwide JSK alumni network.
• A stipend of $125,000.
• Stanford tuition and Stanford health insurance for fellows and a health supplement if enrolling dependents in Stanford health insurance. We also provide advice on finding rental housing.

How Long Will the Award Last?

1 year

How to Apply:

To apply for this opportunity, click this link.

UK study shows that COVID-19 vaccine lowers the risk of cardiovascular complications

Ioan Petrescu

Almost as soon as the COVID-19 pandemic started, the ruling class campaigned vigorously against any measures that, while fighting against the virus, might interfere with their ability to accumulate profits.

The world’s governments soon decided on a vaccine-only strategy, discarding other public health measures. This has now been largely replaced by a total “let it rip” policy as even vaccines become harder to access, for those populations that ever had access to them in significant numbers on the first place.

In this Thursday, April 29, 2021, photo, Sherry Cross Child, a Canadian resident of Stand Off, Alberta, receives a COVID-19 vaccine at the Piegan-Carway border crossing near Babb, Mont. (AP Photo/Iris Samuels)

To justify this destructive course of action, information about the virus has been withheld or misrepresented and various pseudo-scientific claims made to play down the seriousness of the disease. This has created a fertile environment for backward anti-vaccine conceptions and conspiracy theories, openly supported by some of the most deranged sections of the ruling class.

One of the arguments cited most often by “anti-vaxers” is the existence of a few cases of people developing cardiovascular complications following vaccination—a tiny number of which resulted in the tragic deaths of the vaccinated individuals. They argue that the possibility of said complications justifies the rejection of the vaccine, minimising or denying the benefits of the vaccine in preventing COVID-19, a serious disease with a significant death rate and very well-documented long-term, life-altering consequences.

A study published in the journal Nature Communications debunks this claim by analysing the incidence of cardiovascular complications across a very large population of vaccinated individuals.

Research led by the Universities of Cambridge, Bristol and Edinburgh—and enabled by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) Data Science Centre at Health Data Research UK—analysed de-identified health records from 46 million adults in England between December 8, 2020 and January 23, 2022.

Data scientists compared the incidence of cardiovascular diseases after vaccination with the incidence before or without vaccination, during the first two years of the vaccination programme. They specifically evaluated the incidence of cardiovascular and thrombotic events following the first, second, and booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines from December 2020 to January 2022. The vaccines studied include the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer’s BNT-162b2 and Moderna’s mRNA-1273) and the adenovirus-based ChAdOx1 vaccine (AstraZeneca).

The study employed Cox regression models to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs), which compare the risk of cardiovascular events after vaccination to the risk before or in the absence of vaccination. Across all doses and vaccine types, the incidence of thrombotic events (e.g. blood clots) was lower following vaccination, for both arterial and venous events. The reduction was apparent already after the first dose, with a 10 percent lower risk for arterial thrombotic events after the administration of the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

An even more substantial reduction in cardiovascular events was observed after the second dose across all vaccine brands. For example, there was a 27 percent reduced risk for arterial thrombotic events after the second dose of AstraZeneca’s ChAdOx1. The aHRs for other conditions like pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis were also lowered.

Similar trends were observed for booster doses, which helped maintain lower rates of events compared to pre-vaccination levels. The study noted that the reduction in cardiovascular events was most pronounced in the weeks immediately following vaccination.

Both mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) and the adenovirus-based AstraZeneca vaccine showed reductions in arterial and venous events. However, the magnitude of risk reduction varied slightly by brand and dose, with mRNA vaccines showing slightly lower aHRs overall, particularly after booster doses.

Although the reductions were still evident up to 24 weeks post-vaccination, the degree of reduction decreased over time.

Previous research found that the incidence of rare cardiovascular complications is higher after some COVID-19 vaccines. This study supports these findings, but importantly it did not identify new adverse cardiovascular conditions associated with COVID-19 vaccination and offers further reassurance that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risk.

These uncommon complications fall into two categories: Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT) with AstraZeneca’s vaccine, and myocarditis and pericarditis with mRNA Vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna).

VITT is a rare condition characterized by blood clots accompanied by low platelet counts. It can lead to serious complications, such as intracranial venous thrombosis (ICVT), which affects blood vessels in the brain. The study found a higher-than-normal incidence of VITT following the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, with the highest risk appearing within the first two weeks post-vaccination.

There was no increased risk of VITT observed after the second dose of ChAdOx1 or following any dose of the mRNA vaccines, indicating that the risk is predominantly associated with the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle, while pericarditis is an inflammation of the lining surrounding the heart. Both conditions can cause chest pain, fatigue, and other cardiac symptoms but are often mild and self-limiting. The elevated risk for both myocarditis and pericarditis was highest in the first week post-vaccination for both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, with risk generally returning to baseline levels within four weeks after vaccination.

While rare complications were associated with COVID-19 vaccines, they were primarily linked to the first dose and generally occurred within the initial weeks following vaccination. The study emphasizes that these risks, while present, are outweighed by the broader protective benefits of vaccination against COVID-19 and its associated cardiovascular risks.

A big strength of the study is the significant number of people examined, which enabled the researchers to assess the effects of the vaccines across a wide variety of demographics and clinical subgroups, such as age, sex, ethnicity, and prior health conditions. The broad reduction in thrombotic events was observed across all subgroups, reinforcing the vaccines’ value in preventing COVID-19-related cardiovascular complications.

The effects of the vaccines were particularly effective for older adults (over 40 years old), for whom the risk of rare complications like myocarditis was notably lower, while the benefits in terms of reduced cardiovascular events were even more pronounced.

Co-lead author Dr. Samantha Ip, Research Associate at the Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, told Health Data Research UK: “This research further supports the large body of evidence on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccination programme, which has been shown to provide protection against severe COVID-19 and saved millions of lives worldwide.”

Professor William Whiteley, Associate Director at the BHF Data Science Centre and Professor of Neurology and Epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh, added that the study “demonstrates that the benefits of second and booster doses, with fewer common cardiovascular events include heart attacks and strokes after vaccination, outweigh the very rare cardiovascular complications”.

The results show the enormous potential of the creative and productive forces of society. However, while vaccines are an important tool in the fight against the pandemic, they are not enough on their own. Without a policy of complete elimination of the virus through a comprehensive regime of testing, tracing and quarantine, a vaccination programme amounts merely palliative care.

This can be seen currently with the UK’s autumn vaccine booster campaign. Firstly, the vast majority of the people are no longer eligible for a free vaccine through the National Health Service and must pay privately for one. While the NHS is offering free vaccines to old and clinically vulnerable people, those available were designed for the KP or even older variants of the virus.

The XEC variant currently leading a new surge in infections is expected to become dominant. It is unclear exactly how effective the current boosters are against it, but experience indicates that they will not be as effective as against the variant they were designed for. The ability of the virus to mutate to bypass protection conferred by vaccines or previous infections is helped immensely by the fact that COVID-19 has been allowed to roam unimpeded through society after the main mitigation measures were all lifted as long ago as March 2022.

A record high 9.3 million food banks users in UK

Simon Whelan

A total of 9.3 million people in the UK, including 3 million children, currently experience levels of poverty and hunger so extreme they rely on charitable food.

Research conducted on behalf of the Trussell charity, the UK’s largest food bank network, warns that without a drastic shift away from austerity policies—entrenched by successive governments since 2009—a further 425,000 people, including 170,000 children, will experience extreme hunger and hardship by 2027.

Footprints in the Community food bank in northern England receives donations [Photo: Twitter/Footprints UK]

Trussell, formerly the Trussel Trust, operates more than 1,400 food banks around the UK and distributed 3.1 million food parcels last year. The charity was founded in 1997 initially to feed children in Bulgaria, but opened their first food bank in Wiltshire, England a quarter century ago, such was the developing hunger crisis in the country.

Trussell’s interim report, “The Cost of Hunger and Hardship”, is based on analysis of government data and their final report on the need for emergency food in the UK s due to be published spring 2025.

The report predicts that the incoming Labour government will fail to deliver their election manifesto promise to end the “moral scar” of food banks unless they raise the household incomes of the poorest.

This is approximately one in seven of the UK population, struggling in a state of deep and extreme poverty Trussell terms “hunger and hardship”. The term was created by the charity to define the almost 9.5 million people whose low household income and extreme financial vulnerability makes them most likely to rely on using food banks or at risk of needing them.

Those typically suffering “hunger and hardship”, explain Trussell, are on low incomes, have zero or negligible savings and may also have crippling financial debts including money owed to the state. Typically, these households struggle and frequently fail to make ends meet. They cannot afford enough food, pay their energy bills nor afford basics like new clothes and shoes. A single unexpected financial crisis, like a job loss, a large bill or the replacement of a cooker or freezer, can tip limited budgets over into crisis and trigger reliance on food banks.

The new terminology, incorporating “absolute poverty” is designed by Trussell, in part, to hold the Labour government to account over their election manifesto pledge to “end mass dependence on emergency food parcels”.

However, those suffering from “hunger and hardship” are a growing section of a more numerous group of almost 14.5 million who are experiencing relative poverty. A family is said to be in relative poverty, i.e., relative to the prevailing standards of living in society, if their income is below the poverty line of 60 percent of median income. Those facing “hunger and hardship” are typically to be found more than 25 percent below the poverty line.

Mass poverty in the UK today is increasingly not relative but absolute, not about falling behind prevailing living standards but not having the essentials required to maintain human life. Hence their reliance upon food banks to maintain their caloric intake. Many of these same working class families live in substandard housing in the poorest neighbourhoods with the poorest public services.

One in five UK children fall into the “hunger and hardship” cohort, including fully one in four of those children in their first four years of life. More than half of the numbers suffering “hunger and hardship” (approximately 5 million) are from a household where one or more adults is disabled. A third of larger families, with three or more children, were also at high risk of dependency on food banks, particularly because of the two-child benefit cap first imposed by the Tories and maintained by Sir Keir Starmer’s government.

Trussell contends that cuts to welfare benefits by successive governments over decades have seriously damaged the “social safety net” meant to be provided by the welfare state. Recent decades, especially since the austerity cuts following the 2008 global economic crash, have witnessed a rapid rise in food bank use. The rise is being driven by poor wages that fail to maintain families above the poverty line and the decreasing value of already paltry benefit levels, including completely inadequate disabled and pensioner benefits. Trussell estimates that almost four in 10 people receiving the universal credit (UC)—the main benefit—face hunger and hardship.

In January, there were 6.4 million people on UC in England, Scotland and Wales, according to official government statistics. Revealing the prevalence of low pay in Britain, nearly 40 percent of claimants have jobs.

The Trussell study found there were 1 million more people suffering from “hunger and hardship” than five years ago, and nearly 3 million more than there were in the mid-2000s when then Trussell Trust began providing food packages.

To mark the publication of the Trussell findings chief executive Emma Revie, said, “It’s 2024 and we’re facing historically high levels of food bank demand. As a society, we cannot allow this to continue. We must not let food banks become the new norm.”

Whilst Revie’s sentiment is well meaning, reality has already outstripped such wishes—food banks are a well-established fixture of working class life because searing,  mass poverty have been normalised by governments over decades.

Trussell calls for the abolition of the two-child benefit cap to make inroads into reducing child poverty levels in larger families. Scrapping the two child benefit cap would reduce the number of people facing hunger and hardship by 9 percent, or 825,000 people.

But the charity notes that this move would do nothing to address the needs of most people at high risk of “hunger and hardship”, including many disabled people and their unpaid carers. “We know that removing the two-child limit would be a positive step for larger families… but, as indicated by this research, the majority of people who are facing hunger and hardship would not benefit from that one change alone,” stated Helen Barnard, Trussell’s director of policy.

The report states “Scrapping the household benefit cap and the two-child limit in combination would lift 620,000 children out of absolute poverty, compared with 540,000 from reversing the two-child limit alone.”

Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves has no plans to reverse the Tory enacted two child benefit cap. The Treasury claims the relatively insignificant figure of the £3 billion cost of abolishing the cap is unaffordable given other demands for investment. Meanwhile the government is pledged to handing 2.5 percent of GDP to military spending as soon as conditions allow, with Reeves making a high profile trip ahead of next week’s budget to visit Ukrainian troops being trained in Britain.

Other calls made by Trussell are for government to bolster the incomes of 2.2 million people whose universal credit income is reduced by monthly deductions for historic loans and debts.

This, Trussell claims, can be achieved by introducing a legal minimum income floor on the standard allowance for universal credit, limiting the amount claimed back by the state each month from claimants’ payments. Another recommendation is for the lifting of housing benefit rates in accordance with rent increases, and protection for disability benefits.

In response to the Trussell findings a government spokesperson could only piously respond “No child should be in poverty”—which is meaningless because children cannot be lifted out of poverty without their parents or guardians incomes being substantially raised first, which won’t happen under the “most pro-business government in history”.

Labour’s 2024 election manifesto promised to “end mass dependence on emergency food parcels”, adding they have no place in a “just and compassionate society”. But Starmer has restated his Thatcherite beliefs that “handouts from the state do not nurture the same sense of self-reliant dignity as a fair wage”—a policy which will see welfare benefits cut by up to £3 billion in the budget.

Work will set you free, according to the Labour mantra, but workers are not receiving a “fair wage”. The Trussell findings revealed that approaching two thirds of those facing hunger and hardship were members of a household where at least one adult is in paid employment.

Trussell figures show how over two thirds, 68 percent, of working households in receipt of universal credit have gone without essentials like basic toiletries and prescriptions, over the last six months—only a little lower than the level among people receiving universal credit who are not in paid employment of 79 percent.