Queen to be given £370 million to refurbish Buckingham Palace

Richard Tyler 

Without even cursory public scrutiny, let alone debate, an unelected three-person committee has agreed to hand over nearly £370 million of additional public money to the queen.

The Royal Trustees—Prime Minister Theresa May, Chancellor of the Exchequer Phillip Hammond and The Keeper of the Privy Purse, Sir Alan Reid—decided the sum was necessary to renovate Buckingham Palace, and other royal properties.

Enough to build at least 2,500 average homes that could house 10,000 people, the £370 million will be spent on renewing wiring, plumbing and heating in her London residence.

To ensure that Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith (to list just a few of her more than two dozen official titles) does not freeze, the palace’s 33-year-old boilers, 100 miles of electric cabling and 20 miles of lead piping will be replaced, as well as extensive redecoration carried out.

The money is to be paid over in the form of an additional rebate from the profits derived from the Crown Estate, which flow to the Exchequer. Under the Sovereign Grant, which replaced the previous Civil List system, the queen is awarded a sum of money each year from public funds to cover her official expenditures, including upkeep of the various royal residences, staffing, travel and state visits, public engagements, and official entertainment, including a payment of 15 percent of the profits from the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is worth a staggering £11.5 billion. It includes a large number of properties in central London, and controls 1,960,000 acres of agricultural land and forest in the UK and more than half of the country’s foreshore.

In 2012-13, the Sovereign Grant amounted to some £31 million, rising to £40.1 million in 2015-16, an almost 30 percent increase. By means of a Statutory Instrument, a parliamentary order tabled by a minister that requires no debate, this is being further increased by 66 percent from 2017, to fund the remedial works over the following 10 years.

The Sovereign Grant is just a small fraction of the queen’s wealth and overall income. The queen also receives annual net profits from the Duchy of Lancaster’s Estate, which next April will be £17.8 million. In 2002, she inherited her mother's estate, thought to have been worth £70 million (£103 million today).

The total wealth of the monarch is not known but last year’s Sunday TimesRich List (which does not have access to wealth held in bank accounts) estimated the queen’s private wealth at £340 million, making her the UK’s 302nd richest person. Sandringham House, on 20,000 acres of land, and Balmoral Castle, on an estate of approximately 50,000 acres, are privately owned by the queen.

The decision to fund the renovation work is seen as a strategic issue for the British ruling class, under conditions where the UK is set to leave the European Union. Speaking on “Peston on Sunday,” Chancellor Philip Hammond defended the expenditure, saying the royal residence was “very important in supporting Britain’s soft power projection across the world.”

News of the proposed payment led to an online petition addressed to the chancellor, demanding that “the Crown and its estates should be made to fund its own renovations.” Launched the following day, November 19, it had recorded close to 140,000 signatures as of this writing. This would make the petition eligible for submission to a non-binding debate in parliament.

Under conditions in which most workers have faced years of austerity and falling or stagnant wages, the comments of those signing the petition expressed bitter anger and disgust:

“The richest woman in the country should not be given, or take handouts from the government whilst there’s kids living in poverty, pensioners freezing to death and the country is on its knees. Remember the Romanovs?”

“In a time of austerity and great struggle for many families, this is unacceptable.”

“We have 1 in 4 children living in absolute poverty and families relying on foodbanks and to spend this amount of taxpayers’ money to keep them in the lap of luxury is abhorrent and it should be the joe public who decide who pays for it!”

“This money should be spent on council housing and providing homes for the people sleeping on our streets.”

While in London, the queen can enjoy her 775 rooms, including 19 state rooms, 52 royal and guest bedrooms, 92 offices and 78 bathrooms, but thousands have no home at all to call their own.

In the period, July to September 2016, there were 2,638 people recorded sleeping rough on the streets of London. Of these, some 30 percent were in the London Borough of Westminster, in which Buckingham Palace lies. Westminster has topped the national list for rough sleepers for the last six years.

There has been a doubling of those sleeping rough in England since 2010, with the rise in London exceeding that in all other regions.

Britain faces a mounting housing crisis. According to the National Housing Federation, 974,000 homes were needed between 2011 and 2014, but data from 326 councils showed only 457,490 were built. This follows decades in which virtually no new state-funded housing has been built. Starting under Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, the “right to buy” scheme has seen the selling off of some two million local authority-owned houses without any similar replacements being funded from the proceeds.

The housing crisis is expressed most acutely in the capital. A research paper from the University of the West of England found that the number of houses managed by London’s councils had shrunk from 840,000 in 1984 to just over 500,000 by the end of the century.

According to a report commissioned by the Santander bank, the number of UK homes worth more than £1 million is “set to triple by 2030”. In London, one in four homes will cost in excess of £1 million by 2030. Private homes in London are already far beyond the reach of most workers, with prices currently 11.5 times average incomes. This will soar to 16.5 times by 2030. The cost of a house at the bottom of the price range will be 17 times the income of those in the lowest quartile of earners by 2030.

At the same time, private landlords and those running bed and breakfast establishments have pocketed £3.5 billion over the last five years in money spent by local councils on temporary accommodation, enough to build 23,600 houses.

The Labour Party shares responsibility with the Tories for the current housing crisis. Following the election of Tony Blair as prime minister in 1997, his government enthusiastically pushed forward the right to buy scheme.

Asked about the fate of the palace, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, declared that no government would allow the palace to fall into disrepair. “It’s a national monument ... national heritage. It’s going to be treated that way, in the same way as the House of Commons. When you have these old buildings they have to be looked after,” he told LBC radio.

When asked if the queen should pay for the work, McDonnell replied with due deference, “She may well consider that. I am a republican, but when it comes to decisions like that I think they are left to her.”

Thus speaks the voice of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Like his party leader Jeremy Corbyn, the “republican” McDonnell never misses an opportunity to affirm his loyalty to the capitalist state apparatus—including to the queen, the living embodiment of imperialist rule and hereditary privilege.

UK government Autumn Statement: Economic crisis accelerates after Brexit vote

Robert Stevens

The depth of Britain’s economic crisis, accelerated by the referendum vote to leave the European Union (EU), was revealed in the Conservative government’s Autumn Statement on the economy yesterday.

Philip Hammond, who replaced George Osborne as Chancellor of the Exchequer in Theresa May’s first cabinet after she became prime minister following June’s referendum, issued the statement pointing to the deepening financial catastrophe facing British capital.

Despite more than £100 billion in austerity cuts carried out in the last six years by successive Tory governments, Hammond said that the UK’s deficit would not be in surplus by 2020, as per previous projections. Instead, the new target would be "as early as possible" afterwards. Borrowing to meet the deficit is set to rise sharply. Hammond said Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasts showed borrowing would be £68.2 billion this year and £59 billion next, compared with the March forecast of £55.5 billion and £38.8 billion.

Any potential growth during the current parliament would be 2.4 percentage points lower than forecast in March. Overall government borrowing is forecast to be £122 billion by 2020/21—much higher than the than the already dire projection of £100 billion made in March. The national debt is expected to reach 90 percent of GDP next year.

There would be no let-up in austerity from a government that, as revealed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), has carried out an additional £12 billion in welfare cuts in the 18 months since the last general election. No cuts in place will be reversed, with Hammond saying the budget “re-states our commitment to living within our means.”

The Resolution Foundation think tank noted, “Despite increasing borrowing elsewhere, the chancellor has left the big welfare cuts intact and chosen not to provide significant support for the just managing families that Theresa May has rightly [!] said she is focused on. The double whammy of lower earnings and benefit cuts mean that the poorest third of households are now set to face a parliament of falling living standards.”

Workers whose living standards have already been devastated face more years of brutal austerity. Research published this week by the Policy in Practice consultancy reveals that working families face a further £2,500 a year cut in income by 2020. The survey, based on a study of 187,000 households, found that welfare cuts, including a four-year benefit rate freeze, coupled with rising rents and higher inflation, would see low-income working families lose an additional £48.90 a week.

Aside from a ban, on a date to be decided, on tenants fees paid to private landlords—which landlords are expected to offset by increasing rents--not a single one of the usual sops utilised by chancellors to placate public anger was on offer. An increase in the derisory National Living Wage was announced, taking it from £7.20 to £7.50 an hour from April 2017. Even this is below the £7.60 figure that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates is necessary to match previous Tory pledges to raise it to £9 an hour by 2020. It is now set to reach just £8.80 by 2020.

Hammond also pledged to press ahead with plans to expand selective education, with £60 million made available for grammar school expansion.

Money will continue to be shovelled at the super-rich and corporations. Hammond bragged: “Since 2010 the government has put a business-led recovery at the heart of our plan, we’ve cut corporation tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, sending the message that Britain is open for business... Corporation tax will fall to 17 percent, by far the lowest overall rate of corporate tax in the G20.”

May’s aim is to slash corporation tax to the 15 percent suggested by incoming US President Donald Trump.

A further £2 billion in tax breaks will be offered to corporations to fund research and development.

For all the subventions to the richest in society, Britain’s economy is profoundly weak--even prior to the economic woes that will accompany the UK leaving the European Union trading bloc. After Hammond spoke, the OBR confirmed that the national debt looks set to hit almost £2 trillion, more than double the £800 billion when Labour left office in 2010. Additional borrowing directly related to Brexit would be £58.7 billion over the next six years (£188 million a week).

The OBR warned that the economic situation was perilous, stating that “any likely Brexit outcome would lead to lower trade flows, lower investment and lower net inward migration than we would otherwise have seen, and hence lower potential output.”

This was a best case scenario, with the OBR clarifying, “In the near term, as the negotiations get under way, we assume that GDP growth will continue to slow into next year as uncertainty leads firms to delay investment and as consumers are squeezed by higher import prices, thanks to the fall in the pound. But we do not assume that firms shed jobs more aggressively or that consumers increase precautionary saving, both of which are downside risks if the path to Brexit is bumpy.”

Brexit has proved to be an accelerant towards economic disaster for Britain, but it is only a particular manifestation of the raging contradictions of global capitalism--between the outmoded nation state system and the world economy--which is leading to trade war and military conflict.

Britain is entering unchartered waters, as it begins an exit from the EU trade bloc under conditions in which Trump, just a day before Hammond spoke, announced that he would withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact with Asia to better pursue an “America First” policy and “bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back.” The result of these policies will be trade war against everyone, including China, the EU--and an isolated UK.

As the Tories gear up for an ever-deeper assault on the conditions of millions of working people, the Labour Party offers no alternative. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, a self-styled “socialist” and the closest ally of party leader Jeremy Corbyn, responded to Hammond’s statement with rhetoric denouncing the “abject failure of the last six wasted years” that “offers no hope for the future.” But what he offered as an alternative was in reality exclusively directed to serving the needs of big business.

Calling for “full, tariff-free access to the single market,” McDonnell stated, “[I]n the national interest I urge him [Hammond] to stand up to the prime minister and the extreme Brexit fanatics [who favour an exit from the Single Market] in her cabinet.”

McDonnell’s utterances are noteworthy as much for what he does not say as what he does. Not once does he make the vaguest criticism of capitalism, let alone advocate a socialist alternative. All he can manage is to appeal for a few minor policy alterations that will supposedly “do the right thing for British workers and businesses”--such as the reintroduction of the 50p top rate of tax that was in place under the 2007-2010 Labour government of Gordon Brown.

Had McDonnell been speaking for a Labour government, rather than from the relative comfort of the opposition benches, he would have delivered much the same message as Hammond. Indeed, ahead of the Autumn Statement, he promised that Labour would display “an absolute and unbreakable commitment to fiscal discipline,” in government, adding, “There is no proverbial magic money tree.”

Death toll mounts, as India-Pakistan tensions seethe

Sampath Perera & Keith Jones

Indian artillery- and gun-fire across the Line of Control (LoC) that separates Indian- and Pakistan-administered Kashmir killed 10 Pakistani civilians and 3 soldiers yesterday and left a further 18 persons wounded.

Nine of the civilians died when the bus on which they were travelling in Lawat, in the Neelum Valley, was hit by what a local official described as “small and big arms.” Islamabad has accused the Indian military of having deliberately targeted the bus and an ambulance that rushed to the scene.

New Delhi has rejected the charge it is targeting civilians. But yesterday, the Indian Army did carry out intense firing along the LoC, making good on its threat to exact “heavy retribution” for the deaths of three Indian soldiers the day before. The three, one of whose bodies India charges was “mutilated,” were killed by anti-Indian Islamist insurgents whom New Delhi claims are armed and supported by Pakistan.

Describing Wednesday’s cross-border barrage, an Indian defence spokesman told the Hindu, “We have carried out fire assaults” on Pakistani military positions. “Most parts of the LoC witnessed exchange of fire all day.”

South Asia’s rival nuclear-armed states have been locked in an escalating confrontation for the past two months—ever since India’s Hindu-supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government declared Pakistan responsible for the September 18 attack that Islamist, Kashmiri separatists mounted on the Indian army base at Uri, just across the LoC.

It is now widely conceded in both the Indian and Pakistani press that the 2003 cease-fire between India and Pakistan in disputed Kashmir has collapsed and that the “new normal” is diplomatic sparring, cross-border barrages, mounting fatalities, and bellicose threats. This is, to say the least, a highly combustible dynamic, one that whether by accident or design could trigger an escalation to all-out war.

According to an Indian Express report from last week, there have been more than 200 separate incidents of cross-border artillery and gunfire exchanges since late September. While India and Pakistan have issued conflicting fatality claims, the death toll from these exchanges is now estimated to be nearing a hundred.

“Both armies are known,” continued the Express report, “to have mounted harsh retaliatory actions against the killings of soldiers, in some cases even carrying out retaliatory beheadings.” India, it added, has massed up to 225,000 troops along the LoC, while Pakistan is said to have mobilised 125,000.

To boost its war preparedness, India has placed emergency orders for munitions and weaponry. According to IHS Janes, New Delhi has fast-tracked the procurement of $750 million worth of ammunition and Special Forces equipment from Israel and Russia for delivery by the end of 2016.

The many belligerent statements issued by Pakistani military and government leaders notwithstanding, Islamabad has clearly been rattled by India’s renunciation of its reputed policy of “strategic restraint” vis-à-vis Pakistan and the failure of the US and the world’s other major powers to criticise India’s late-September cross-border raids inside Pakistan. By trumpeting these raids as proof of India’s military prowess and new-found readiness to impose its will, the BJP government jettisoned a four-decades-old Indian policy of refraining from publicising its military operations inside Pakistan, so as to avoid precipitating a dynamic of escalating strikes and counter-strikes that could rapidly lead to all-out war.

In an attempt to defuse tensions, Pakistan continues to publicly claim India’s “surgical strikes” never happened. This claim is belied by its own bitter complaints over world leaders’ failure to condemn them. Similarly, through weeks of intense cross-border firing stretching from late September until last week, the Pakistan Army denied that any of its soldiers had been killed.

This changed abruptly November 14, when the Pakistani military announced that seven of its soldiers had been killed by Indian firing in a single night.

In an attempt to initiate some sort of dialogue with India, Islamabad has announced that Sartaj Aziz, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s top foreign policy advisor, will travel to New Delhi at the beginning of next week to attend the annual “Heart of Asia” regional conference on Afghanistan. However, India has indicated no enthusiasm for Aziz’s visit.

Yesterday, Sharif denounced India for “continuing naked aggression…resulting in the death of innocent civilians” and, in a thinly veiled warning that New Delhi is pushing the region ever closer to the precipice of all-out war, said that India “has failed to comprehend the gravity of the situation.”

Sharif also repeated Pakistan’s oft-repeated charge that New Delhi is ratcheting up war tensions with Islamabad to divert international attention from “the grave human rights violations and atrocities being committed by the Indian security forces in Kashmir.”

The reality is that the ruling elites of both Indian and Pakistani have manipulated and abused the people of Kashmir as part of their seven-decade-old military-strategic rivalry. Rooted in the communal Partition of the subcontinent into an expressly Muslim Pakistan and a predominantly Hindu India, this rivalry, which today threatens to plunge the masses of South Asia into nuclear war, epitomises the reactionary character of the native bourgeoisies of India and Pakistan and the utter failure of independence under their rule.

Staggered by the world economic crisis and fearful that India was falling still further behind China in the race for power in Asia, the Indian bourgeoisie brought Narenda Modi to power two-and-half years ago to pursue a more aggressive policy against the working class and more boldly assert their interests on the world stage.

Modi quickly moved to signal that India is intent on changing the “rule of the game” with Pakistan. Within weeks of taking the reins of power, he authorised a more aggressive military posture along the LoC. Even more significantly, with a view to leveraging US support for India’s ambitions to be the dominant regional power in South Asia and the Indian Ocean, Modi has integrated India into Washington’s anti-China “Pivot to Asia.”

The BJP government further escalated tensions with Islamabad this past summer, in response to the outbreak of mass unrest in Jammu and Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state, and the rapid expansion of the Sino-Pakistani alliance, as exemplified by the $50 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Under the leadership of the self-styled strongman and virulent Hindu communalist Modi, the Indian bourgeoisie is seeking to use the current crisis with Pakistan to compel Islamabad to forgo any material support to the anti-Indian insurgency in Kashmir and accept Indian regional dominance.

It has been hugely encouraged in pursuing this confrontational and high-risk course—one that Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has conceded could result in all-out war—by Washington. Not only has the US showered strategic favours on India, spiking profound fear in Islamabad of an ever-widening military-strategic gap with its arch-rival, the US publicly endorsed India’s illegal and provocative late-September “surgical strikes” inside Pakistan.

India’s war crisis with Pakistan has been accompanied by an escalation of tensions with China, underscoring that the Indo-Pakistani strategic rivalry has becoming enmeshed with the confrontation between US imperialism and China and that a major South Asian war could rapidly draw in the world’s first- and fourth-largest powers with incalculable consequences for all humanity.

The Indian government, military, and especially the corporate media have all bitterly attacked China for indicating, even as it counsels Islamabad to show “restraint,” that it opposes Indian efforts to isolate Islamabad and label Pakistan a “terrorist state.” With open encouragement from the BJP government, the Hindu right and other ultra-nationalist groups have launched a boycott of Chinese-made goods.

Earlier this month, Modi travelled to Japan to strengthen India’s military-strategic cooperation with the US’s most important Asian ally and Beijing’s most powerful strategic rival in Asia. The summit meeting between Modi and Japanese Prime Minster Abe concluded with their issuing a communiqué that parroted the US’s provocative anti-China stance on the South China Sea dispute.

Meanwhile, in a development aimed at unsettling both Beijing and Islamabad, Indian Defence Minister Parrikar announced that he favours jettisoning Indian’s “No First Use” nuclear weapons policy. Ambiguity as to India’s intentions, claimed Parrikar, will give New Delhi greater leverage in dealing with its adversaries.

Greek fascists attack refugee camp

John Vassilopoulos

Dozens of refugees were forced to flee the Souda refugee camp on the island of Chios last Thursday after a brutal attack by Golden Dawn members.

According to reports, the attack began at around 9:30 pm and lasted until the early hours of the morning. The fascists threw petrol bombs, large boulders and fireworks into the camp from surrounding elevated areas. A 42-year-old Syrian man was assaulted and a Nigerian boy was injured by one of the rocks. Three tents were burnt down and three more were damaged.

Afraid to return to the camp, the refugees that fled slept at the fishing market that night when temperatures dropped to 8 degrees Celsius. Many were still there three days later, according to reports.

On learning of the attacks, a group of aid workers rushed to help the refugees. One of these, Alexandros Panagiotakis, told CNN Greece that the group “came upon around 150 migrants at the fish market where they had sought safety from the far-right attackers. [Another aid worker and I] went to get our cars so that we could transport the migrants to a safer place.”

On their way to get their cars Panagiotakis and his colleague were set upon by a mob of 30 Golden Dawn members, who attacked them verbally and physically. “They threw us down and started to kick and swear at us,” said Panagiotakis. “They stopped only when a riot police squad arrived. They hit me on my sides and legs and the girl [the other aid worker] was semi-conscious. We were taken immediately to hospital.”

Similar attacks had taken place the previous evening, when Golden Dawn members armed with makeshift clubs and crowbars attacked refugees outside the Souda refugee camp while large stones were also thrown into the camp. According to reports a 25 year-old Algerian man is still in intensive care after being hit in the head.

In covering the events, the media lay the blame on the refugees by claiming that the troubles on Wednesday evening began after a group of migrants broke into a fireworks shop and then reportedly proceeded to set them off towards police and local residents. Refugees who spoke to Greek daily I Efimerida Ton Syntakton (Ef.Syn.) paint a different picture and claim that the trouble started two hours before when a group of locals attacked a group of Algerians sitting at the Chios public park. “The group had firecrackers and started to throw them [at the refugees] for no reason,” said a Syrian refugee.

The wave of violence was in fact stoked by the visit of Golden Dawn MPs Ilias Kasidiaris and Yiannis Lagos to Chios on Tuesday, where they spoke at a public meeting that evening calling for mass deportations of all refugees and migrants. This was part of a wider tour with a similar event taking place on the neighbouring island of Lesbos. Kasidiaris and Lagos were accompanied by a delegation of parliamentarians from Belgium, members of the Flemish far-right Vlaams Belang party.

There are currently more than 16,000 refugees and migrants being detained in refugee camps on Greek islands in the Aegean, while existing infrastructure is only adequate for around 7,500 people. The overwhelming majority have fled from the imperialist-driven conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. In Chios alone there are 4,000 refugees and migrants--nearly four times more than the current capacity.

Overcrowding is directly linked to the March agreement between the European Union and Turkey, which stipulates that Turkey take back all refugees who come across the Aegean to Greece. As a result, refugee camps in Greece have become internment camps of people--most of whom are destined to be deported back to Turkey after their cases have been assessed. The process is extremely slow, and meanwhile arrivals continue to flow in, which places even more pressure on existing infrastructure. According to figures from the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), nearly 3,000 people crossed into Greece from Turkey in the last four weeks alone.

The Golden Dawn meetings sought to exploit tensions among sections of the local population, partly due to the increase in petty theft as a result of the economic desperation of the migrant and refugee population and partly due to the effects the refugee crisis has had on the tourist industry, the backbone of the local economy. Their timing was also designed to cause maximum provocation, given that they coincided with the commemoration of the student uprising against the military junta on November 17, 1973.

A counter-protest was held that same evening in Chios, with around 200 people holding a march through the island’s main town towards the Grecian Castle Hotel where the Golden Dawn meeting was taking place. The demonstrators’ path was blocked by riot police.

According to various accounts from eyewitnesses, the attacks on Wednesday and Thursday were carried out under the nose of the police, despite their having been officially placed on high alert since the Golden Dawn meeting on Tuesday. Riot police only intervened to stop Thursday’s attacks on the camp in the early hours of the morning, after they had gone on for five hours. There was a notable delay in police intervening in the attack on the two aid workers, which took place a few metres away from two patrol cars.

Tolerance of far-right attacks by the Greek police, delaying intervention or letting perpetrators get away, is a common occurrence. Golden Dawn enjoys substantial support among officers, especially in riot police units. Three years ago rapper Pavlos Fyssas was murdered in Keratsini by a Golden Dawn member while police stood near-by and did nothing.

The police have arrested none of the perpetrators. The only people arrested so far were 37 refugees and three foreign aid workers during the altercations on Wednesday evening.

In a speech to his parliamentary group, Golden Dawn leader Nikos Michaloliakos openly defended the attacks while railing against the “progressive journalists of this country who lay the blame at the door of far-right elements.” He added, “You know what? Yes! For them every Greek that resists is a Golden Dawn member. For us that’s a badge of honour. Golden Dawn is the national defence of Greece.”

Like their far-right counterparts throughout Europe, Golden Dawn has been emboldened by the victory of the fascistic Donald Trump in the United States—which Michaloliakos referred to in his speech as “a true victory against globalisation.” But if Golden Dawn is able to posture as an anti-establishment party and to exploit social anger by channeling it into the scapegoating of migrants, this is the responsibility of the Syriza-led government. Since betraying his anti-austerity mandate last year, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras signed a third austerity package with the EU while at the same time enforcing the EU’s reactionary refugee policy.

The 19,000 Dow: Markets soar on prospects for profiteering under Trump

Nick Beams

US stock indexes reached record highs again on Wednesday on expectations that the policies of the incoming Trump administration, based on “America first” economic nationalism, the removal of all regulations restricting corporate profit-making, and huge business tax cuts, will provide a major boost to the bottom lines of banks and corporations.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average continued its rise after closing above 19,000 for the first time ever on Tuesday. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index and the Russell 2000 were also in record territory. Only the tech-based Nasdaq index was slightly down after hitting a record high on Tuesday.

All four major indexes reached record highs on Tuesday, something that had not occurred since New Year’s Eve in 1999, at the height of the dot.com bubble.

The market rise is being led by two groups of stocks, banks and those involved in construction and infrastructure.

Bank stocks are being propelled by the prospect of interest rate increases, which will boost their profits, and indications that the Trump administration will wind back regulations, including some of the limited restrictions imposed under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. The rise in bank stocks is the main reason for the jump in the S&P 500.

The other major boost to the market was provided by construction firms. Shares in John Deere jumped by more than 10 percent, resulting in a boost to the S&P 500 index. Shares in other industrial stocks, including Caterpillar, were responsible for a major part of the rise in the Dow.

Stocks in these companies have been boosted by Trump’s commitment to initiate an economic stimulus package program of tax cuts and infrastructure spending. The tax measures include a reduction in corporate taxes from 35 to 15 percent, as well as a reduction in the top tax levels for the ultra-wealthy. Companies repatriating profits from overseas may have to pay as little as 10 percent.

But it is the infrastructure program, which has been put at $1 trillion, that has sent the markets soaring on the ever-stronger smell of money. It is not a plan for the government to borrow money and use it to finance much-needed improvements on roads, bridges and other basic facilities.

Rather, it is based on a privatisation scheme, in which firms will receive massive tax cuts for undertaking such projects. By means of tax breaks, they will receive back as much as 82 percent of the money they invest. As the owners of the projects they initiate, they will then be able to collect tolls or user fees in perpetuity. In many cases, the projects will involve profitable ventures to which companies would have been attracted anyway.

The same modus operandi applies to deregulation of the energy and pharmaceutical industries. In his brief video announcement on Monday, Trump said that for every new regulation that is introduced, two existing regulations will have to be eliminated. This is a program aimed not at increasing jobs and wages or improving social conditions for the masses of working people, but at providing a profit windfall for corporate America.

Trump’s economic plan for the US economy bears a striking resemblance to the business model of his real estate and casino empire: a mixture of tax evasion, scams and outright swindling, coupled with the exploitation of low-wage workers.

It has been estimated that the tax cuts and infrastructure spending increases will lead to an increase in US budget deficits from 3 percent of gross domestic product to 6 percent. Trump is also planning an immense increase in military spending. Who is to bear the burden of this debt explosion? The working class.

Trump is planning to cut non-defense discretionary spending by 1 percent a year, which will mean further reductions in food stamps, home heating assistance, unemployment benefits, health programs and the enforcement of job safety and environmental standards.

He is targeting federal workers for immediate attack, calling for mass layoffs, the gutting of job protection provisions, the elimination of automatic raises and the imposition of 401(k) plans instead of pensions for new-hires.

During the election campaign, Trump sought to attract voters suffering cuts in their wages and living standards with the promise that Medicare, Social Security and other entitlements would not be touched by his administration. But the budget process is in the hands of the Republican-controlled Congress, where House Speaker Paul Ryan has reiterated his plan to privatize Medicare. Since the election, Trump has said he is “open” to such a plan.

The Trump agenda has major implications for financial markets and international economic relations. The rise in the stock market has been accompanied by a significant rise in bond yields—up from around 1.7 percent before the election to around 2.3 percent today on the benchmark 10-year US Treasury note. This means a sharp fall in bond prices, which move in the opposite direction of yields.

Coupled with the near certainty that the Federal Reserve will lift its base rate at its meeting next month, the rise in interest rates could have a major impact on a financial system in which the bond market has been described as a bubble. Increased interest rates could bring about significant losses on financial deals made on the basis of rates remaining at their previous record-low levels.

The prospect of rising rates has already seen a rise in the value of the dollar, which has reached its highest point in 13 years as measured against a basket of international currencies. This means that US corporations that rely on international markets will face increased competition.

The Trump agenda of “America first” economic nationalism represents a major shift in US economic policy. It is being adopted under conditions in which the previous policy of near-zero interest rates and central bank money-printing is widely recognized to have exhausted its usefulness and failed to resolve the crisis that erupted with the Wall Street crash of 2008.

While the American ruling class has always pursued its own interests, US economic policy in the post-war period was based on the assumption that the interests of American capitalism were bound up with the expansion of global markets and trade. Now the free trade mantra has been thrown aside, threatening to set off a wave of retaliatory trade and economic warfare that sooner rather than later will rebound on the American economy.

Thanksgiving 2016 and the social crisis in America

Andre Damon

On October 3, 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln signed a proclamation authored by Secretary of State William H. Seward declaring the last Thursday of November “a day of thanksgiving.”

Despite a Civil War of “unequalled magnitude and severity,” the declaration stated, the conflict had not “arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship,” while “the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore.” The proclamation concluded, “The country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.”

The ravages of the Civil War would last another year and a half. Nevertheless, it was true that society was being transformed by railroads, steamboats and the telegraph, an expansion in productive capacity that would accelerate with the rapid industrialization fostered by the Second American Revolution. The Civil War would clear the way for capitalist progress—and the explosive growth of the class struggle—by abolishing slavery.

As families throughout the United States gather to share a meal this Thanksgiving, relatively few will agree with Seward’s assessment that the country can expect “years with large increase of freedom.” Rather, for many, Thanksgiving will serve only to underline the economic hardship and oppression they face.

More than one in eight households will have had difficulty putting food on the table the year before, and millions will have a Thanksgiving meal only by standing in line at a food pantry or soup kitchen.

Over a million-and-a-half people were homeless last year, including some 300,000 children and 450,000 disabled people. Millions more live in substandard housing, doubled up with other families, or in motels. Such conditions may affect only a minority of American families directly. But the great majority of the population is economically insecure.

Forty-six percent of adults are so financially strapped that “they either could not cover an emergency expense costing $400, or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money,” according to a survey released by the Federal Reserve this year.

Under these circumstances, the announcement that the average premium under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), supposedly designed to insure lower-income people, will increase 25 percent next year means that millions will either lose their health coverage or face hundreds, or even thousands of dollars in additional expenses.

The terrific stress caused by living in households one accident or illness away from financial ruin, in which young people are burdened by debt and face narrowing prospects, while the elderly confront rising medical costs and decreasing retirement benefits, produces many signs of social distress.

The brutality of this society, compounded by militarism and police violence, falls hardest on the young. One study has found that the prevalence of serious depression among teenagers increased by 37 percent between 2005 and 2014. Another reported that children from 10 through 14 are for the first time more likely to die from suicide than from a car accident.

Perhaps the most devastating manifestation of the social malaise is America’s drug epidemic. This year, a shocking 28,000 people will die from opioid overdose, almost as many as the number killed in car accidents. For tens of thousands of families, Thanksgiving will be a time of mourning for those who have lost their lives to heroin, fentanyl or prescription painkillers.

Many of the states most affected by the drug epidemic are those worst hit by joblessness and deindustrialization. Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the “rust belt” states that backed Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 but swung behind Donald Trump in the 2016 election, all saw their rates of opiate overdose increase by more than 10 percent between 2013 and 2014.

The social crisis in the United States is fueling an immense growth of oppositional sentiment, including significant signs of renewed class struggle and political radicalization that found only initial expression in the elections. This came first in the widespread support during the Democratic primaries for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who called himself a socialist and denounced the “billionaire class” and social inequality.

Sanders’ “political revolution” concluded ignominiously with an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, who ran on the claim that, in the words of President Obama, America is doing “pretty darn great.” The implication of this delusional narrative was that those who disagreed and were swayed by Republican candidate Donald Trump’s demagogic appeals to social discontent were part of the “white racist working class,” seeking to defend their “privileged” status against blacks and other minorities. Basing her campaign on various forms of identity politics, Clinton pitched her appeal to the affluent and complacent. The result was a sharp decline in votes for the Democratic candidate within all sections of the working class.

Trump, who is being installed in the White House with the blessings of the outgoing president and both parties, will not “make America great again.” Neither he nor any section of the ruling class has a solution to the social crisis gripping America. His “America first” economic nationalism will exacerbate the global capitalist crisis and mean sharper attacks on workers within the United States. His program of tax cuts for the wealthy, the elimination of regulations on corporations, cuts in social programs and an immense increase in military spending will fuel social discontent and anger.

Trump’s election marks a turning point in the looming showdown between the financial parasites he personifies and the great mass of the population, the working class.

Restraint to Retribution: Modi’s New Normal and Nawaz Sharif’s Challenge

Arvinder Singh Lamba

India’s response by a surgical counter-strike by Special Forces on launch pads against terrorists near the Line of Control (LoC) to infiltrate inside Indian Territory was the beginning of a natural but formidable exhibition of the changing political will and military precision assaults. The resonance of near global synergy and opinion against both - terror and a terror sponsor state - that uses its military machine to endanger peace and stability, should have warned Pakistan of possible responses.

 

India’s strong responses with complete ownership at the highest level signal the first ever reflection of rare strategic convergence between political leadership, the home ministry, the National Security Advisor, and the military.

 

For Pakistan, the message was one of India’s zero tolerance towards terror emanating from home grown groups in Pakistan, as well as terror groups or elements sponsored by Pakistan and operating within India.

 

In keeping with its strategy of denial and disowning terrorist actions from Mumbai to Uri, Pakistan’s military has dismissed the strike as a usual cease fire violation. The chorus of denial this time came from the highest diplomatic levels as office of the high commissioner of Pakistan in India to the political and the military hierarchy in Pakistan.

 

Pakistan's response is unmistakeable despite this denial. Visits of journalists to forward locations to negate the truth of Indian surgical strike have been followed up by intensified firing on border villages inflicting heavier casualties in the rice belt of RS Pura, sensitive Macchal and Gurez sectors, terror strikes in Afghanistan and Balochistan, and mutilations of Indian soldiers. Recent media reports of four posts in Keran sector routed by India’s fire assaults and increased casualties of Pakistan’s soldiers reflect the hardening responses.

 

First, it is imperative to identify the reasons impelling Pakistan’s denial. Foremost, the strike challenged the Pakistan Army’s rhetoric of being the saviours and guardians of the country, especially when viewed in India’s historically reactive and overcautious perspective; caused a paralysis, disabling Pakistan Army’s response to this strike, and more grievously, preventing Pakistan’s response to any further strikes by Indian military.

 

Second, the military’s inability to explain significant casualties to their trained and nurtured terrorists who expect due protection from the military during operations and suicide missions, added a sense of betrayal to their sacrifices.

 

Finally, for an event that has drawn enormous international support for India in its war on terror, what will the Pakistani military have to explain to the nation, and its political leadership, and where does the government go from here? The civilian government, forced to toe the military line, risks its own credibility.

 

The bigger spin off is one of paralysis in the political leadership and the chasm in civil-military relations intensifying with an environment of resentment against Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s money laundering in the Panama Papers leaks and other businesses; clampdown on media; and the military’s pressures for escalating the situation that may compel the government to box this big lie.

 

While Pakistan's military may be working to redress the ramifications, three major outcomes are likely:

 

One, obfuscation of the event will deny the government any grounds for justifying appropriate response or reaction, and such continued inaction will substantiate the perceived paralysis of the leadership and the policy makers.

 

Two, for Pakistan, their doctrine of bleeding India by a thousand cuts has been deeply frustrated, adding to uncertainty regarding the frontline role and space in future operations of jihadis and other terrorists.

 

Finally, the change of Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff (COAS) will draw greater focus in light of accentuated and irrational responses. Whether or not incumbent COAS Gen Raheel Sharif gets an extension, the level of escalation across the LoC and the International Border (IB) may well threaten the civilian government’s aspirations for stability. In fact, the escalation, with a major risk of throwing the spiral out of control, may have already begun.

 

For India, the increased latitude and freedom by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Border Security Force, and the military to its tactical commanders for dealing with similar situations is a significant departure from the past that will encourage harder responses by India each time.

 

By irrational actions such as ceasefire violations, killings, mutilations on the border, and terror strikes in Balochistan and Afghanistan, Pakistan has more than crossed the threshold of India’s restraint.

 

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent warning of retribution is a unique mark up, threatening to escalate responses to the next level with graver consequences for Pakistan’s military, as much as for Nawaz Sharif - whose political leadership is already under test. The subsequent phone call by Director General of Military Operations to his Indian counterpart raising the white flag to stop increasing casualties is in acknowledgement that responses are beginning to hurt.

 

In the larger perspective, the tectonic shift from strategic restraint to credible military options by Prime Minister Modi not only indicates India’s new political direction, but also emphatically debunks the traditional myth of zero operational space between unabated terror by Pakistan and a nuclear war.

For the international community, India’s dynamic political leadership and professional military have underscored their capacity and resolve to protect national interests, as well as to play a credible role in ensuring stability and security in the region.

University of Brighton International Students’ Scholarships 2017/2018

Application Deadline: There are four application deadlines throughout the year: 31st January, 31st March, 31st May, and 31st July 2017.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International countries

To be taken at (country): United Kingdom

Type: Postgraduate taught

Eligibility: To be eligible, candidate must:

• be new, full-time, international fee-status student who holds an offer of admission.
• have applied for the course of your choice at the University of Brighton, and have been offered a place on that course for 2016 entry.
• Students studying graduate diplomas, pre-masters programmes, or equivalent, at University of Brighton partner colleges or those on PG Cert and PG Dip courses (excluding OSPAP, Law CPE PGDip and Accounting PGDip) are not eligible for these scholarships.
• These scholarships are not open to students who are fully sponsored.
• Existing international students are also not eligible unless starting a new postgraduate programme.

Selection Criteria: The criteria for awarding University of Brighton international scholarships are primarily merit-based. Merit does not necessarily have to mean academic merit but could also be interpreted to include outstanding performance in a variety of spheres.

The strongest candidates will be those demonstrating a mixture of academic merit (including English language ability) and other merit or outstanding achievement in a particular field of activity.

Candidate will also need to show that they have sufficient funds to pay the remainder of the fees.

Number of Awardees: Thirty (30)

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship is worth £5,000 off the cost of students’ tuition fees for each year of your course.

Duration of Scholarship:  One (1) year

How to Apply: Visit the scholarship webpage to apply

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Brighton

University of Warwick Commonwealth Shared Scholarship for Masters Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 16th March 2017.

Eligible Countries: Commonwealth countries

To be taken at (country): UK

Eligible Fields of Study: The Taught Masters courses offered for the academic year 2017/18 by the University of Warwick in partnership with the Commonwealth Scholarships Commission are the following 10 courses only :

MSc in Healthcare Operational Management – Warwick Manufacturing Group
MSc in Economics and International Financial Economics – Economics
MA in Global and Comparative History – History
LLM in International Development Law and Human Rights – School of Law
MSc in Biotechnology, Bioprocessing and Business Management – School of Life Sciences
MSc in Food Security – School of Life Sciences
MSc in Sustainable Crop Development; Agronomy for the 21st Century – School of Life Sciences
MA in Gender and International Development – Sociology
MA in International Development – Politics and International Studies
MA in International Political Economy – Politics and International Studies

Type: Masters

Eligibility: To apply for these scholarships, candidate must:

• Be a Commonwealth citizen, refugee, or British protected person
• Be permanently resident in a developing Commonwealth country (for a full list of eligible countries, see the terms and conditions in link below)
• Be available to start your academic studies in the UK by the start of the UK academic year in September/October 2017
• By August 2017, hold a first degree of either first or upper second class (2:1) classification, or lower second class (2:2) classification plus a relevant postgraduate qualification (usually a Master’s degree)
• Not have studied or worked for one (academic) year or more in a developed country
• Be unable, either yourself or through your family, to pay to study in the UK

Selection Criteria: Selection criteria include:

• Academic merit of the candidate
• Potential impact of the work on the development of the candidate’s home country.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The Scholarships cover full tuition fees, offer a generous stipend, provide airfare to the UK and return home and an allowance for warm clothing.

Duration of Scholarship: 1 year

How to Apply: In addition to the University’s own online study application, applicants mustsubmit a funding application via the Commission’s electronic application system by 16th March 2017. No late applications will be considered.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Warwick

New Zealand’s capital caught unprepared for earthquake and flooding

Chris Ross

On 15 November, the day after a powerful 7.8 magnitude earthquake shook the South Island of New Zealand, the capital city Wellington, on the lower North Island, was cut off by heavy rain and strong winds. Widespread flooding, land slips and aftershocks closed both main state highways, caused the suspension of rail and bus services and prompted the evacuation of some residents.

On the South Island, the town of Kaikoura remains devastated and isolated by the earthquake, with State Highway 1 severed in both directions. The government sent military convoys and navy vessels, including the guided missile destroyer USS Samson, to evacuate the township. Billed as a “humanitarian” mission, it is another example of how natural disasters are used to conduct joint military exercises.

In Wellington, the quake and severe weather highlighted the lack of preparedness for a major disaster. Late and inadequate tsunami warnings created confusion. GeoNet advised residents living in low-lying areas to seek high ground without waiting for official warnings. Following widespread criticism, Prime Minister John Key belatedly promised a national disaster warning system capable of sending alerts to every cell phone. He claimed it would cost “tens of millions” of dollars.

In a rush to get business back to “normal,” Wellington’s recently-elected Labour Party mayor Justin Lester declared the central business district (CBD) to be safe, just a day after workers were told to stay home so building inspections could be conducted. Workers and residents were met by cordoned-off areas outside buildings shut down over structural concerns, which were still being discovered days after the event. Lester refused to declare red zones near affected buildings, saying an evacuation of the CBD would be a “logistical nightmare.”

Relatively new buildings, such as the CentrePort-owned Bank of NZ Centre and the government’s Statistics NZ Office, that are built on reclaimed land, were badly damaged. On November 17, a carpark complex in the centre of the city was closed, with 100 residents evacuated from nearby apartments. The building has now been declared at “risk of collapse” and is to be demolished. Other buildings, such as Archives NZ, NZ Post House and Wellington Girls’ College, were also evacuated. The Queensgate mall and Wainuiomata mall in working-class suburbs outside the city remain closed. Some buildings could be shut for months.

Wellington Company director Ian Cassels said most workers returned to work the day after the quake “because their employers want them there.”

Acting Civil Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee initially said he was “a little surprised” at the decision to reopen the city so quickly but later backed off the criticism, complaining only of landlords not sharing building safety information with city authorities.

Mayor Lester told the media it was not his task “to create chaos or fear or hysteria.” Wellington, however, sits astride a major geographical fault and is at high risk of ongoing damage from aftershocks. The council has a list of over 660 buildings that are classified as earthquake risks. They are not among those damaged last week.

GeoNet, which monitors earthquake activity, has forecast aftershocks and smaller earthquakes in the immediate future. Yesterday another quake with a preliminary magnitude of 6.1–6.3 hit the North Island, north of Wellington. It was centred off the coast, almost 140km from Palmerston North, to a depth of 37 metres.

If a major earthquake, of 7.8 or above magnitude, strikes Wellington or the surrounding region, the capital could easily be thrown into chaos, resulting in death, destruction and severing the city from the rest of the country.

The day after the November 15 quake, Wellington was hit by a severe weather system with 140 kmph (87mph) gale force winds and heavy rain. Lester initially dismissed the weather warnings, telling the Herald that the wind was “nothing more than a gentle breeze.”

However, State Highways 1 and 2 out of the city were closed for more than a day by flooding and lands slips. State Highway 58 between Porirua and the Hutt Valley, Paekakariki Hill Road and others were also closed, severing the capital’s land access. Bus services were brought to a standstill. Thousands of motorists waited hours for State Highway 2 to reopen.

Train services were cancelled because of multiple slips, and could not be replaced by buses due to road closures. All train services were suspended after two quake aftershocks of 5.8 and 5.2 magnitude but were subsequently resumed, without thorough track inspections. The longest double-track rail tunnel in the country, near Wellington, had some surface flooding but services continued regardless.

Some residents were trapped in their homes by rising floodwaters. Many river banks in Porirua and the Hutt Valley flooded, threatening nearby houses and prompting evacuation calls. Schools, kindergartens and libraries were closed.

This is not the first time the capital city has been cut off. In May 2015, heavy rain caused floods and slips, resulting in the closure of both state highways and all passenger rail lines. Severe weather has repeatedly exposed the capital’s run-down, outdated infrastructure. Much of it is over 100 years old. Without rational planning and billions being spent on infrastructure, the region’s topography and geographic isolation makes a disaster inevitable.

Immediate responsibility for this state of affairs rests with the Wellington City Council and the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC). Both institutions have been dominated over many years by Labour Party and Greens representatives. Rather than attempting to meet the needs of working people, their overriding concern is to facilitate business operations. The GWRC has recently opened up the rail network to a private operator.

Events such as those of last week expose the complacency and indifference of the entire political establishment to the needs of ordinary citizens. This was starkly revealed in its response to the earthquake that devastated the city of Christchurch in 2011, with the loss of 185 lives.

Five years on, entire suburbs have been abandoned and areas of the central city remain rubble-strewn. Mayor Lianne Dalziel, a former Labour government minister, has worked closely with the National government to protect big business and impose the cost of the rebuild on the working class. The city council has cut staff, increased rates and begun to sell off assets to help fund its “share” of the rebuild.

The Christchurch debacle—in which the government and rapacious insurance companies have wrecked thousands of lives—stands as an indictment of the profit system and all its political representatives.