The Decline and Fall of Britain

Brian Cloughley

It is sad to have to have to acknowledge that the country of one’s birth is in decline, but there are signs that Great Britain has fallen on the slippery slope of moral deterioration.  The recent surge in nationalistic jingoism and xenophobia in Britain is lamentable and obnoxious.

In October the British Home Office reported that the number of racist hate crimes in the country had increased by 41 per cent in the month after the June referendum about UK’s membership of the European Union, the so-called ‘Brexit’ vote.  The Equality and Human Rights Commission noted that “the figures make it very clear that some people used the referendum result to justify their deplorable views and promote intolerance and hatred” and there were other expressions of regret and revulsion — but not from many of the mainstream media outlets, because several newspapers rejoiced in the rush of intolerance that they had done so much to encourage.

The reasons for lack of regret, alas, are that many Britons are inherently racist and most of the print media play on that appalling aspect of the British character in order to attract readers and make money.  In the facile and attractive guise of patriotism the papers seize on instances of supposed non-Britishness to encourage their readers to engage in hatred and contempt of foreigners.  It is unlikely that any writers of such fascist hokum are familiar with the works of one of the greatest English essayists, poets and moralists, Dr Samuel Johnson, who wrote so perceptively that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

Britain has had a race problem for many years but of late it has become severe because of a spiteful nationalistic campaign to leave the European Union, an organization that is bureaucratically absurd but seeks to benefit Europe’s citizens by promoting free trade and freedom of movement,  protecting human rights,  encouraging harmonization of legal processes, increasing effectiveness of counter-terrorism cooperation, and promoting economic and social progress.

These objectives are considered abhorrent by a surprising number of Britons who believe that alliance with the other 27 nations of the European Union helps movement of undesirable people to their country and that European legal covenants, agreed by their own governments during the past forty years, are inimical to the British way of life.  They claim that leaving the European Union will save vast sums of money, especially in health care, while preventing abuse of ‘British Law’ by continuing to abide by European human rights standards.

It is the contention of those who wish to leave the European Union that future trading arrangements to be negotiated at an unknown date with potential but unnamed countries will be of more financial benefit than continuance of existing European Union agreements with current trading partners.  (The hastily-arranged November trade-promotion visit to India by Prime Minister Theresa May — a civilised person — was sadly barren. As reported by India’s Financial Express, she returned ‘Empty-Handed.’)

The seeming rise in anti-European fervour was taken into political account by former Prime Minister David Cameron who announced in February 2016 that a referendum would be held in June to ask the simple question: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”  It was made clear that the referendum result would not in any way oblige the country to leave the European Union, because the Parliament did not specify legal consequences of a vote either way.  It was an “advisory referendum”, and the British Parliament was and is in no way bound by any law or precedent to accept the result as mandatory for the country to ‘Brexit.’

It was intended that the referendum result would be an expression of the non-binding feelings of the British people and that the elected members of Parliament would take due notice of this when debating the complex matter in due course.

There are 46,501,241 people of voting age in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  Of these, 17,410,742 voted to leave the European Union.  Another 16,141,241 voted to remain within the European Union.  Let me repeat that in a plebiscite of 46 million people, 17 million — 37 per cent — voted to leave the EU and that their choice was in no manner or by any interpretation of law an instruction to the government to do so.

The laws of Great Britain are determined by its members of Parliament. Many of both may be stupid, but no matter : Parliament is sovereign and its decisions are binding.    Some of those who objected to the stance that the country should immediately leave the Union without Parliament discussing the matter took the matter to the High Court where three distinguished judges ruled that Parliament must vote on whether the country can begin the process.

Then Britain’s media sprang into action. The Daily Mail, whose editor, a foul-mouthed vulgarian called Paul Dacre, received “£88,000 in subsidies from the European Union for his country houses in Sussex and the Scottish Highlands in 2014” ordered his minions to produce one of the most disgusting front pages in the long history of British journalism.  It depicted the three judges with the banner caption ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE.

Even more despicably, the newspaper emphasised that one of the people who brought the High Court action was a coloured citizen of Britain (who was sent threats of rape and murder for her actions), and one of the judges was “openly gay.” It declared that two of the judges had sat on the European court of human rights, one being ‘fluent in several languages’ and the other ‘steeped in EU laws and tradition.’  One of them — shock, horror! — had ‘worked for a Hamburg law firm shortly after leaving Oxford.’

These spiteful, malevolent and thus most effective tirades were straight out of 1930s Germany, and there was not a shred of criticism of the newspapers by the government.

Other garbage newspapers, such as the formerly admirable Daily Telegraph, carried headlines such as ‘The Judges Versus The People.’   The Mail removed one abusive headline from its vulgar website, but the damage had been done and the bigots of Britain had been given yet more backing to express their hatred of foreigners, which extends to the media’s relentless anti-Russia campaign, intended to portray President Putin and the Russian people in the worst possible light.

One declaration of President Barack Obama that will be remembered is his wise warning that in the United States “we are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism, or ethnic identity or tribalism that is built around an US and a THEM.”

In Trump America it is possible that this crude nationalism might become dominant.  But in Britain it seems it already rules, as those judged (no irony intended) to be ‘different’ in any way to native Anglo-Saxons are considered to be undesirable. This has been so for very many years, unfortunately, and, as recollected by one young person so affected in the 1960s, it was insulting, when looking for lodgings, to “find notices galore that said ‘No Irish, no coloureds’.”

Although repulsive racist prejudice and casual bigotry are far from new in the United Kingdom, it had been thought that in the New Millennium there might have been some advance towards tolerance and acceptance of minorities.  The Race Relations Act was supposed to eradicate racism, and had some mild success, but its aims have been set back or even destroyed by the bigots of Brexit who won their dubious victory largely because they appealed to all that is most base in mankind : the idea that superiority depends on race and especially color.

The country is declining.  At this rate, the fall won’t be long in coming.

Home Truths About the Climate Emergency

Adam Parsons

As 2016 draws to a close, we appear to be living in a world that is increasingly defined by its illusions, where the truth is a matter of subjective interpretation or argumentative debate. Indeed, following the United States election and Brexit referendum there is much talk of a new era of post-truth politics, in which appeals to emotion count more than verifiable facts. But there are some facts that cannot be ignored for much longer, however hard we may try. And the greatest of all these facts is the escalating climate emergency that neither mainstream politicians, nor the public at large, are anywhere near to confronting on the urgent scale needed.

This was brought home once again at the latest Conference of the Parties held in Morocco last month, following the so-called ‘historic’ Paris Agreement of November 2015. Dubbed the ‘implementation’ or ‘action COP’, the main purpose of the summit was to agree the rules for implementing the new agreement, as few countries have set out concrete plans for how they will achieve future emissions reductions post-2020. Far from justifying its nickname, however, the almost 200 nations participating in COP22 decided that the overarching goals and framework for international climate action will not be completed until 2018, with a mere review of progress in 2017.

Before the talks even commenced, the latest ‘emissions gap’ report from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) highlighted the continued divergence between political and environmental/scientific reality. According to UNEP’s analysis, the non-binding pledges made by governments in Paris could see temperatures rise by 3.4°C above pre-industrial levels this century, far beyond the 2°C considered a minimally safe upper limit. To hit the more realistic 1.5°C target—which in itself will only mitigate, rather than eliminate severe climate impacts—the world must dramatically step up its ambition within the next few years before we use up the remaining carbon budget.

Yet this reality was not even a key focus of the COP22 discussions, where most delegates from developed countries spoke mainly of their post-2020 commitments, as if the deadline for an emergency mobilisation of effort can be postponed by another few years. Ironically, several developed countries have not even ratified the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which comprises the pre-2020 period. So after 24 years of negotiations, we are still heading towards a future that is “incompatible with an organised global community”, with no sign that the mismatch between rhetoric and action is near to closing.

As always, it was left to civil society groups to uphold the real hope and vision for how nations can begin traversing a path towards 1.5°C. In an updated report for COP22, a coalition of campaigning organisations outlined the last chance we have of halting our race to environmental disaster, which will require massive emissions reductions before 2020 and major shifts in the real economy. All of these transformations are technically viable and economically practicable, despite their apparent political infeasibility—such as a fossil energy investment and development moratorium; a necessary shift to agro-ecological farming practices; and a planned global transition to 100% renewable energy.

What remains central to achieving an effective programme of action, however, is a degree of international cooperation and economic sharing that is unprecedented in human history. Such is the implicit message of both the 2016 and 2015 civil society equity reviews, which give a compelling justification for integrating the principle of ‘fair shares’ into a global effort-sharing framework. Using an equity modelling approach based on domestic mitigation pledges and indicators for capacity and historical responsibility, the reports show how developed countries are offering a share of effort that is markedly less ambitious than developing countries.

Moreover, both reports demonstrate how developed countries have fair share obligations that are too large to be fulfilled solely within their own borders, even with extremely ambitious domestic actions. So there is a moral, political and economic case for the wealthiest nations to vastly scale up their help to poorer countries in terms of international finance, technology sharing, and capacity-building support.

Put simply, campaigning organisations have used the most up-to-date scientific data to back up the argument that there cannot be hope for limiting global warming unless the principles of sharing, justice and equity are operationalised in a multilateral climate regime. But it is also an argument based on common sense and fundamental notions of fairness, given the urgency of drastically cutting global emissions within the context of interdependent nations at starkly disparate levels of economic and material development. As the civil society review for COP22 concludes, reiterating a basic truth of the climate justice movement: “Many of the changes needed to address the climate crisis are also needed to create a fairer world and better lives for us all. …Climate change affirms the urgency and necessity to shift to an equitable and just pathway of development.”

Of course, there is no sign that those countries with a higher capacity to act than others are facing up to their obligations to redistribute massive technological and financial resources to developing countries, thus enabling them to leapfrog onto rapid, low-carbon development paths. Activists at COP22 used the slogan “WTF?” to ask “Where’s The Finance?”, as only between $18 billion and $34 billion has been granted of the $100 billion per year that developed countries committed to find by 2020. A supposed “$100 Billion Roadmap” from the OECD was roundly debunked by both developing countries and civil society for using misleading numbers and various accounting tricks. All the while, new analysis shows that the true needs of the world’s poorest countries is in the realm of trillions of dollars, if they are to plausibly meet their Paris pledges by 2030 and help avoid catastrophic warming. But no increases in public financial contributions were forthcoming in Morocco, pushing any substantive decisions on the issue back for another two years.

So once again, we are left to wonder at the mismatch between illusive policymaking and the stark reality of global warming. 2016 broke all previous records for being the hottest year, while military leaders warned that climate change is already the greatest security threat of the 21st century, potentially leading to refugee problems on an unimaginable scale. Yet developed countries continue to evade and postpone their responsibilities for mobilising an appropriate response, while often making decisions on national infrastructure and energy that directly contradict their putative climate change commitments. Whether or not the United States withdraws from the Paris accords or the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) altogether, the prospect of global carbon emissions beginning to decline before 2020 currently remains dim, to say the least.

Still none of this changes the core reality, which has remained the same ever since the UNFCCC negotiations began in the early 1990s. For there can be no hope of real and meaningful progress on tackling climate change, without a major commitment to North-South cooperation based upon a fairer sharing of global resources. The simple truth is unavoidable, but time is running out before the world finally embraces its momentous implications.

Syria and the Bodyguard of Lies

John Wight

The killing and wounding of Russian medical personnel in a rocket attack on a military field hospital in Aleppo raises again the question of who is actively lending support to terrorism in Syria, people depicted in the West as ‘moderates’ in a monstrous inversion of the truth.

Such has been the Goebbelsian nature of western media coverage of the conflict in Aleppo, Nusra Front (now Jabhat Fateh al-Sham) have morphed from a terrorist organization, which in its methodology and objectives is near indistinguishable from ISIS, into a latter day version of the French resistance or Partisans of Second World War repute. In the process the only real moderates engaged in the conflict in Syria – the Syrian Arab Army, Russia, Iran, and other allies – have been demonized, accused of targeting and terrorizing civilians, including children, when they have in fact been liberating them.

History will not be kind to those who have propagated the lie that something approximating to a democratic revolution has been underway in Syria. On the contrary, the country and its people have suffered the depredations of an Islamic Khmer Rouge, intent on ‘purifying’ a multicultural and multi-religious society of minority communities that are able to trace their existence in this part of the world back over a millennia and more.

The overwhelming majority of Syrians, without whose support the government would have collapsed long before now, utterly reject the ideology of these extremists, thousands of them non-Syrians who’ve descended on the country from across the Muslim world and beyond like a plague of locusts, taking advantage of the destabilization of the region wrought by Washington and its allies in recent years.

The sinister aspect to the conflict in Syria, which the attack on the Russian military field hospital raises, is the extent to which these so-called rebels have enjoyed the support of western and regional powers. How else are we to explain the way they have been able to survive for so long? Who has been supplying them with the weaponry, money, material, intelligence, and logistics support that has allowed them to do so?

Russia in particular has been vilified in the West over its role in the conflict. Indeed a neo-McCarthyite anti-Russian propaganda offensive has been waged across Europe in response to Russia’s military mission in the country. It is a propaganda offensive that has intensified in recent in parallel with the operation to liberate Aleppo. We have seen Russian media outlets, such as RT and Sputnik International, being targeted, its representatives hauled before parliamentary select committees in the UK to ‘explain themselves’, accused of peddling pro-Russian propaganda rather than news. We have also seen US State Department spokesman, John Kirkby, refuse to take a legitimate question from an RT correspondent, attacking her credentials.

There is an insidious element to this unprecedented level of Russia-bashing in the West, wherein it is not Russia’s government that is being demonized but Russia itself – with the clear inference that the Russian character is inherently dishonest, underhand, wicked, etc.

Enough is enough.

It is no longer credible, much less ethical, to describe people engaged in acts of mass murder and slaughter in Paris, London, Brussels, or in the US, as terrorists, while at the same time describing those responsible for the same murder and slaughter in Syria as ‘rebels’. In fact it is obscene beyond measure.

Like Afghanistan, like Iraq, and like Libya, in Syria a grotesque experiment in human despair has been taking place, wherein murder and extremism has been presented as resistance and revolution, with those struggling to protect civilians from terrorism depicted as the terrorists. George Orwell himself could not have done better than produce what passes for western media coverage in this regard.

You can either stand with those who are fighting religious extremism and sectarianism or you can stand with the extremists and sectarians. What you cannot do is both – i.e. rhetorically maintain a position of being against extermism while acting against those who are risking their lives fighting it on the ground. It is why the enemy of people in Britain, France, and the US is the hypocrisy of their own governments and media acolytes.

Syria, thanks to the tenacity of its armed forces, will not go the same way as the countries already mentioned – Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya – and see its society disfigured, its development destroyed, and its culture despoiled in service to a hegemonic agenda that has been responsible for human suffering on a grand scale. While it may take years to be rebuilt, given the scale and brutal nature of the conflict that has engulfed it, rebuilt it will be.

What will never be rebuilt are the reputations and integrity of those who have written a new page in the annals of mendacity and duplicity, both of which have underpinned the West’s words and actions when it comes to Aleppo and the wider conflict in Syria.

To paraphrase none other than Winston Churchill, in the West the truth when it comes to Syria is being protected by a bodyguard of lies.

One Astronomical Step For Activists And Humankind

Rachel Olivia O’Connor & Richard Martin Oxman

“Cleopatra’s nose, had it been shorter, the whole face of the world would have been changed.” — Pascal

One year before meeting with Tycho Brahe in 1600, Johannes Kepler had determined to make use of the Danish nobleman’s highly valuable astronomical instruments. He revealed his game plan in a letter to his mentor:

“Any single instrument of his cost more than my and my whole family’s fortune put together…. My opinion of Tycho is this: he is superlatively rich, but he knows not how to make proper use of it as is the case with most rich people. Therefore, one must try to wrest his riches from him.”

The “riches” young Kepler was writing about bitterly referred to the instruments Tycho Brahe used for his heavenly observations. And had Kepler not succeeded in getting hold of Tycho’s treasure, he could never have discovered his historic planetary laws. Furthermore, Isaac Newton was born only twelve years after Kepler’s death, and without the planetary laws he could not have arrived at his monumentally important synthesis. No doubt somebody else would have done so (if Newton hadn’t), but it is at least possible that the scientific revolution would have carried different metaphysical undertones if it had been fathered  not by an English empiricist, but, say, a Frenchman with Thomist inclinations, or a German mystic.

The point of such speculation is, in part, to insert a question mark against the supposed logical inevitability and cast-iron determinism of the evolution of scientific thought… or any other kind of thought. The shape of Cleopatra’s nose influences not only wars, but ideologies. The mathematics of the Newton universe would have been the same whoever worked them out, but its metaphysical climate might have been quite different.

The point for activists today is that — at present — there is an invaluable instrument which we must secure for fighting the good fight. And that “instrument” is in the form of significant reins of decision-making power. Those at the helm in the most crucial corners do not deserve to have an exclusive hold on those reins. We must take possession of that power since “democracy” today does not permit us access to the decision-making process vis-a-vis our collective crises, except minimally (at best). It is important that well-meaning souls, such as the readers of this site be the ones who call at least some of the shots in our troubled universe.

We must put to rest the notion that such reins cannot be secured. It is true that on the federal level the doors are pretty much closed to us at present, and — in fact — have been for quite some time. But that doesn’t mean that the gubernatorial level is lost to us. Ditto for other realms. And if well-meaning, informed individuals who are not career politicians secure significant decision-making capacity, we’ll all at least have a chance at dealing with our horrid societal/environmental momentum in a new way.

Let us work for the day when we can begin to turn things around. When, like Kepler, Newton and others, we will be able to take in what’s encircling us with new eyes.

Imagine.

We don’t need money to carve out historic inroads in the electoral arena. We’re going to have to drop that notion, just like astronomers in the 16th and 17th centuries had to dispense with the lie that our planet lay in the center of our solar system.

All we need is to honor our love for doing the right thing.

Fossil Fuel Corruption: The Problem With Adani

Binoy Kampmark

“Every day that we stop Adani digging that coal is a day this planet is free from its pollution.”

Paul Sinclair, Times of India, Dec 5, 2016

The relationship between the mining sector and the Australian government has been traditionally that of complicity and acceptance. Touch this sector at your peril. Changes in prime ministers, rumbles in cabinet, and the overall show have suggested the influence had by the fossil fuel lobby in the market place.

Even by these standards, Adani Mining has done well for itself.  The placation and encouragement of this famed abuser of the environment has been stunning.  Australian politicians at the state and commonwealth level have marched to its tune for some years now, seeing it as a blessed provider in the development stakes. Whatever ends up on the desk in Canberra on this subject, rest assured that this mining monster will receive an endorsement.

The previous Newman government in Queensland waxed lyrical about the tentacle-like entity and its efforts to establish what would be the largest coal mine in the southern hemisphere, located in the state’s Galilee Basin. The first hurdle was the Queensland government and the need to secure the status of being a “suitable operator” under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld).  It was obtained without a single hiccup.

The cost of the Carmichael mine was intially projected to be $16.5 billion, featuring six open cut mines and five underground mines.  Over sixty years, the mine is expected to export in the order of 60 million tonnes of thermal coal per annum. A broader strategic vision with Indian energy is also envisaged, in so far as the mine system will supply coal to generate energy for up to a hundred million people.

Adani’s arguments have ranged across the environmental, logistical and bank book. There were doubts from the start that this ongoing concern would be a costly, and unsustainable venture for both banker and environmentalist.  The retort from the company personnel was that all was in order, with the company owning all the links in the chain “from pit to port”.

Then come the promises of employment glory and job creation, suggesting that the company was actually owed a break; consider the forecast of 10,000 direct and indirect jobs, with the creation of 2,500 to 3,000 full time jobs.  Ever at the ready, environmental groups have been onto that figure, arguing that a more humble 1,500 was a better approximation.

Turning a blind eye has since become a matter of state policy.  “The Queensland and Federal governments,” claimed Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Council spokesperson Adrian Burragubba, “knowingly overlooked that we stand in the way of this mine and when we say ‘no’ we mean no.  Through our legal actions we are intent on stopping this massive and destructive project from moving forward.” This is an entity proposing to dredge 1.1 million cubic metres of spoil in proximity of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

A review of the Adani group’s environmental history by Environmental Justice Australia makes startling reading, though hardly surprising given the less than illustrious history of the entity. “This group has committed serious legal violations and caused extensive environmental harm in India.  It is therefore not a suitable operator, and its registration should be cancelled.”

Mindful that the hair splitters would be out in force to suggest that an Indian operation conducted by a branch of the company would not necessarily tarnish an operation in Australia, the authors also noted that Adani Mining Pty Ltd was “a wholly owned subsidiary in the Adani group, and is inextricably linked to the group’s integrated operations.”  Operations conducted by different members within the same group were not distinguished.

The head of the entire group remains Chairman Gautam Adani, who sees Australia as the true fossil fuel frontier rich with goods.  He has sought to be pampered by government, yet another example of how poor business will still be backed even by governments believing in the free market.  He has sought, and been promised $1 billion, to build the rail line from the Galilee Basin to the Queensland coast.

Adani, in a sense, has several politicians in his pocket, a point made a touch more obscene by his travels through the country with his private jet.  Australia is there for the plutocratic taking.  The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has kept him company.  As has the Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk.  State Development Minister Anthony Lynham can only see the dollar signs.  “North Queensland is about to see a new horizon, because these big projects will be a huge economic stimulus for the north.”

Federal minister Matt Canavan verged on the imbecilic, suggesting that Adani’s arrival in Townsville was the “biggest news for North Queensland since the Beatles came to Australia”. Proportion and awareness have been pure casualties in this fossil fuel scrap.

The Adani group, in short, is a sullied one. Its pedigree as an environmental vandal is unquestioned. Its operating practices have retained an air of supposed and actual impropriety.  What it hopes here is that the Australian base of operations will have a sanitising sense to it, while feeding that long held sense in the country that plunderers are to be cherished.  The fossil fuel industry, in short, remains dirty in more ways than one.

Economic contraction intensifies pressure on Australian government

Mike Head 

Australian capitalism’s poorest economic performance since the 2008-09 global financial breakdown has underscored the economy’s fragility and heightened the corporate pressure on the unstable Liberal-National Coalition government.

Seasonally adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.5 percent in the September quarter, driven by a continuing collapse in business investment—down 9.7 percent over the past year. This was accompanied by a reversal in housing construction, cuts in government expenditure and decelerating consumer spending.

This is only the fourth time the economy has shrunk since the last official recession in Australia 25 years ago, before the start of the mining boom. The three previous quarterly falls could be explained by short-term drops in 2000 after the introduction of the goods and services tax, the 2008 crash and devastating floods in Queensland during 2011.

Far from a one-off blip, however, this downturn is part of a longer-term decline in Australia’s commodity export-dependent economy. Since June, the annual growth rate has dropped from 3.1 percent to 1.8 percent, despite the Reserve Bank keeping official interest rates at a record low 1.5 percent.

This is the result of ongoing global stagnation, a worldwide investment slump and what CommSec chief economist Craig James described as a “perfect storm” of political uncertainty. He cited June’s Brexit vote, the Coalition government’s near-defeat in July elections and the US presidential election. Since September, the uncertainty has only been exacerbated by Donald Trump’s victory and his threats of trade war, which would have devastating consequences for the Australian and world economy.

The September quarter contraction was considerably greater than market analysts predicted and much worse than the forecasts issued in last May’s budget of nominal growth of 4.25 percent this year and 5 percent in 2017-18.

This throws into deeper doubt the capacity of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s government to meet the demands of the financial elite and the global credit ratings agencies to eliminate the annual budget deficit, currently running at about $40 billion, by 2021.

Economists and media pundits rushed to assure the public there was no danger of a recession, which is usually measured by two consecutive quarters of contraction. But the September result has merely brought to the surface the underlying slump, which was hidden by anomalies in previous quarters.

There is no sign of an about-turn ahead. Corporate investment is still plummeting, signalling further serious job losses and cuts to working hours. Slumping private investment in new dwellings also contributed 0.3 percentage points to the GDP decline—an indicator of the end of a housing bubble that has partially offset the mining investment collapse since 2011.

September’s result would have been even worse, except for the agricultural sector, which grew by 7.5 percent because of unusually good harvests. Rising global coal and iron ore prices in recent months also increased real net disposable income by 0.8 percent in the quarter, but the prices could quickly fall again.

Analysts warned that the risk of recession increased significantly after further data showed the trade deficit blew out in October by 21 percent, from $1.27 billion to $1.54 billion, primarily because of sharp falls in coal exports.

Treasurer Scott Morrison provided some idea of the perplexity gripping the Turnbull government. “Driving investment is the challenge, getting capital out of its cave,” he declared at a media conference. He refused to rule out a recession, saying it would be “unhelpfully speculative” to discuss the prospect.

Morrison flatly repeated the government’s discredited mantra—maintained throughout the July election campaign—of delivering “jobs and growth” and a “transition” from the mining boom.

The treasurer insisted that the contraction was a “wake-up call” for the need for austerity measures and a proposed cut in the company tax rate from 30 to 25 percent over the next decade. He repeated the government’s claims that this would revive investment, which would “drive jobs.”

Exactly the opposite is true. The tax bonanza would boost corporate profits at the expense of severe cuts to essential social spending—including health, education and welfare—to cover the $50 billion cost of the tax cuts over 10 years.

Corporate economists said the biggest concern was household consumption, which has slowed sharply since March. Successive governments have relied upon debt-fuelled household expenditure to drive growth. In the eight years before the 2008 crash, consumption grew on average annually by 3.95 percent; since then it has been just 2.5 percent.

This tightening is no mystery. Working class people have already borne the brunt of the post-2008 slump via the destruction of thousands of full-time jobs, imposition of insecure casual or part-time work, reductions to pay levels and cuts in welfare and other social services. By 2014-15, nearly seven million people, or nearly 30 percent of the population, were living in areas experiencing recession.

September’s results indicate that the recession is spreading across the country. By far the biggest decline was in the mining state of Western Australia—3.8 percent in the September quarter and a record 9.5 percent over the past year. Business investment in the state has more than halved from its peak in 2012.

But other states and territories also recorded contractions in the three months to September. Victoria, an industrial state hit by heavy job losses, contracted by 0.4 percent, Tasmania, suffering industrial and mining decline, by 0.3 percent and the Australian Capital Territory, which depends heavily on government spending, by 1.3 percent.

“So much for jobs and growth,” the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s business editor Ian Verrender commented. “While few economists are forecasting a December quarter disaster to make it two in a row, it’s pretty clear that 2017 looms as a difficult year for the Lucky Country.”

Some of the impact on the budget may be revealed on December 19, when the government belatedly produces its Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO), which is expected to show another blowout in the deficit.

The corporate media is demanding that the government and the parliamentary establishment take far more ruthless measures to slash social spending, reduce business taxes and drive down workers’ wages and conditions.

Wracked by divisions between the Liberals and the rural-based Nationals, and between Turnbull’s supporters and his ousted predecessor Tony Abbott, the government only managed to get a few bills through parliament in the final weeks of the year with the help of the right-wing populists in the Senate or the Greens. Earlier, the Labor Party opposition joined hands with the government to pass spending cuts totalling $21 billion over the next four years.

This is nowhere near enough to satisfy the financial elite. Yesterday’s Australian editorial declared: “The parliament has contorted itself just to deliver $21 billion worth of savings since the election, a mere fraction of the task to return the budget to balance, let alone start to pay down debt. The obstructionist approach is debilitating not only for how it impedes budget repair but also for the way it saps business confidence.”

There are signs of a bipartisan front, directed against the working class, in response to the economic and political crisis.

Treasurer Morrison pleaded for the Labor opposition to emulate the Hawke and Keating Labor governments of the 1980s and 1990s by supporting the proposed company tax cuts. Those Labor governments cut the corporate tax rate from 49 to 36 percent as part of their pro-market restructuring of the economy, working in close partnership with the trade unions.

Heeding the call, Labor Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen made it clear that Labor was anxious to work with the government, saying only that its company tax plan would not have any measurable effect on the economy for two decades.

Germany to begin mass deportations to Afghanistan

Martin Kreickenbaum

Later this month the German government will begin the mass deportations of asylum seekers back to Afghanistan. Charter planes are to be used for the first time, with the German Interior Ministry announcing it would deport 50 Afghan refugees in the coming days.

Formerly asylum seekers from Afghanistan whose applications to stay in Germany had been denied were deported individually on regular flights—a procedure which led to a series of protests by pilots and passengers.

Until now the deportation of Afghan asylum seekers, the second largest refugee group in Germany after Syrians, has been limited due to the disastrous security situation in large parts of Afghanistan. On its web site, the German Foreign Office describes the situation in the country as follows: “There is a high risk of being kidnapped or the victim of criminal violence.” The recent attacks carried out in Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif, where the German Consul General was targeted, confirm the prevailing insecurity.

In a striking disregard for this assessment, the German Interior Minister, Thomas de Maizière (CDU), is pressing for mass, forced deportations. The basis for the project of the Interior Ministry is the shabby deal struck by Germany and the European Union with the government in Kabul. They have signed an agreement which obliges Afghanistan to accept rejected asylum seekers in exchange for financial compensation. The EU wants to buy its way out of its obligation to provide shelter and support for refugees.

On the fringe of the EU’s interior ministry meeting in early November, de Maiziere denounced the growing number of Afghan refugees. “Our concern,” he said, “is the large number of refugees from Afghanistan at the moment. We want the signal to arrive in Afghanistan: ‘Stay there! We will send you back directly to Afghanistan from Europe!’”

Last week, German diplomats traveled to Kabul to clarify the final details. It is planned, among other things, to set up a separate terminal for the mass deportations at the airport in Kabul. The existing infrastructure of the Bundeswehr in northern Afghanistan is also to be used to repatriate refugees.

According to the current situation, approximately 12,500 refugees from Afghanistan now in Germany have been earmarked for deportation. About 80,000 out of a total of 213,000 Afghan refugees across the EU have also had their applications for refugee status denied. De Maizière made it clear that, in his view, nothing stood in the way of deporting tens of thousands back to the country, despite the fact that it has been ruined by decades of war incited by the Western imperialist powers—including Germany. Cynically he remarked, “We cannot send German soldiers and policemen into the country to provide more security, and then allow Afghan asylum seekers to stay in Germany.”

In other words, when the Bundeswehr is involved in NATO’s deployment in the country, the victims of their military operations have no right to seek security for themselves and their families.

Other leading Union politicians such as CDU General Secretary Peter Tauber echoed the Interior Minister and glossed over the precarious security situation in Afghanistan. The deputy CDU chairman Thomas Strobl, who is also a minister in the Green Party-CDU coalition in the state of Baden-Württemberg, issued a statement in which he advocated the relentless deportation of Afghan refugees. “The first planes with returnees to the Hindu Kush have to take off quickly. We must not be dependent on Kabul,” Strobl declared. In an interview with Die Welt Strobl continued, “If there is no other way, then the repatriation must be carried out by force.”

The situation in Afghanistan has worsened considerably over the past twelve months. According to the United Nations, more than 2,500 civilians died in the current civil war during the first nine months of this year. In the period from 2009 to 2015, more than 21,300 civilians have been killed and some 37,400 have been injured in the course of fighting by Afghan security forces and Western occupation forces with the the Islamic Taliban movement and other rebel groups.

Despite this, the German government considers the security situation to be “sufficiently controllable” in the majority of the 34 provincial capitals in Afghanistan. In response to the public television news program Fakt, a government spokesman explained that the situation was less dangerous for civilians than for representatives of Western organizations or troops. The Taliban leadership has repeatedly “stated credibly and clearly, it would avoid civilian casualties and spare civilian infrastructure.”

The guidelines for countries of origin (HKL), which assess the situation of refugees for the German Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), paint a much gloomier picture. “There is internal armed conflict in all parts of Afghanistan in the form of civil war and guerrilla fighting between Afghan security forces and the Taliban, as well as other opposition forces.”

Human rights violations are also widespread and are largely ignored. The food supply chain is insufficient and half of all children in Afghanistan have been “harmed by long-term malnutrition”.

“Since the second half of 2012, the number of civilian casualties has increased,” and an end to this increase is not in sight, the HKL concludes.

In order to reject the asylum applications of Afghan refugees and classify them as “required to leave the country”, a supplementary sentence has been inserted at the beginning of the HKL guidelines calling for consideration to be given to: “The basic rules on internal protection for young, single and working men”. According to a report in Die Zeit Kabul, Balkh, Herat, Bamiyan, Takhar, Samangan and Panjshir are all regarded as “consistently sufficiently safe” areas. According to BAMF male returnees could work in these areas without undue risk.

In doing so, the BAMF is using a fraudulent system to refuse asylum applications from Afghans. It calculates a “theoretical risk density”, a kind of probability calculation for possible death due to violent conflicts. On this basis 20,000 people killed in 2015 from a total population of 27 million for Afghanistan results in a mortality probability of 0.074 percent. BAMK concludes this is far from a “considerable probability” and thus poses no real danger.

This argument has been strongly criticized by former judge Paul Tiedemann. He wrote in the German magazine for immigration rights and foreign policy (Zeitschrift für Ausländerrecht and Ausländerpolitik) that the “risk density” in the bombardments of Coventry or Frankfurt in the Second World War was under one percent. Throughout the Second World War, with its tens of millions of victims, the official “risk density” for civilians was just 0.3 percent, according to Die Zeit.

The cynical calculations aimed at reducing the number of refugees from Afghanistan are also being used to put pressure on the BAMF staff to reject more asylum seekers. The recognition rate for Afghan refugees has already fallen sharply. In 2015, 78 percent received a positive decision from the BAMF; this year it is down to 52 percent.

One BAMF employee told Die Zeit: “You get to know how management presents the current decision-making practice. Whoever makes untypical recommendations or takes decisions must report to his team leader.” Another explained: “Actually, the basic law and the right to asylum specify who can stay and who can not. The fact that so many Afghans are being rejected now is entirely political.”

Tensions mount after EU freezes talks on Turkey’s membership

Halil Celik

After the European Parliament’s vote on November 24 to freeze talks on Turkey’s accession to the European Union (EU), tensions between the EU and the Turkish government are escalating to unprecedented dimensions.

This conflict is a continuation of the tensions between Ankara and its NATO allies that led the major imperialist powers to tacitly back the failed July 15 coup against Erdogan. The motion freezing the talks—adopted by 479 for, 37 against, and 107 abstentions—criticized the state of emergency President Recep Tayyip Erdogan imposed after the coup.

The Turkish government responded by lashing out with criticisms of the EU. On November 26, Erdogan said, “The [Turkish] government and parliament can extend the length of the state of emergency. What’s it to you? Does the European Parliament rule this country or the government [of Turkey]? Know your limits! Those days are over.”

Apparently referring to EU support for exiled Turkish preacher Fethullah Gülen, whose supporters Erdogan accuses of launching the coup, and for Kurdish nationalists, whom he claims are terrorists, the Turkish president denounced the European Parliament for “inviting terrorist groups.” He added that Turkey would continue to “go its own way no matter what they say.”

Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim echoed Erdogan’s accusations of EU complicity in terrorism, saying: “First of all, the EU should decide on whether it will ally with Turkey or terrorist organizations that are freely wandering around Europe.”

Even before the EU Parliament vote, Erdogan had threatened that Turkey could respond to EU pressure by opening its western border and letting Syrian refugees go to Europe en masse. “You cried out and began to say ‘What will we do when Turkey opens the border gates?’, when 50,000 refugees turned up at the Kapikule [Turkey’s border with Bulgaria]. Look here, if you go further, those border gates will be opened. You should know that,” he said.

Erdogan also threatened the EU in 2015 that Turkey could open its borders with Greece and Bulgaria and send Syrian refugees to Europe, if a Turkey-EU deal was not reached. A few months later, in March 2016, the Turkish government reached an understanding with the EU. In this dirty deal, Ankara agreed to take back refugees from Greece in exchange for EU financial aid and a pledge of visa-free travel for Turks to Europe. The visa-free deal has not come about, however.

Erdogan had also threatened on November 20 that he might ally with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)—a China-led security alliance including Russia and several Central Asian states originally called the “Shanghai Five”—and break with the EU and NATO. “Turkey should first of all feel relaxed about the EU and not be fixated” on joining it, Erdogan said. “Some may criticize me but I express my opinion. For example, I have said, ‘why shouldn’t Turkey be in the Shanghai Five?’”

The Turkish state of emergency is deeply reactionary. Erdogan has used it to arrest tens of thousands of people—not only coup supporters inside the state machine, but journalists and opposition politicians. However, the EU’s criticisms of the Erdogan regime’s policies are not motivated by democratic or humanitarian concerns, but the geopolitical interests of the major European imperialist powers.

One of the first responses to Ankara’s threats came from Germany’s Foreign Ministry, whose spokeswoman Sawsan Chebli declared in a November 25 news conference that the EU should not freeze Turkey’s negotiations. “It is important that we do not freeze the accession negotiations because that would only further damage the relationship between Turkey and Europe, and that would not be in the interest of Turkey or of Europe,” she said.

German Prime Minister Angela Merkel’s spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer has also voiced growing concern, saying: “We see the EU-Turkey agreement ... as a success for both sides. And the continuation of this agreement is in the interest of all parties.”

Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, said that Europe should refrain from giving lessons to Turkey on the issue of migration, while urging Erdogan to carry out “necessary reforms.” Speaking to Euronews on November 26, Juncker described Turkey as “a crucial ally” and added that this was “not only because of the refugee crisis.”

The EU has tried to lay the main burden of the Syrian war on Turkey, while Ankara is pursuing its own reactionary and expansionist agenda by using Syrian refugees for political leverage.

The escalating dispute between Ankara and its Western allies, however, is not limited to Turkey’s EU membership, or to one or another tactical consideration in the Syrian war. It is a result of a fundamental international process: the breakdown of world capitalism and the imperialist drive to war, which has its own objective economic and social laws, independent of the will of this or that leader.

Deep relations between the Turkish bourgeoisie and its NATO imperialist allies were forged during the Cold War. Turkey has been a member of the Council of Europe since 1949 and of NATO, the US-led anti-Communist and anti-Soviet military alliance, since 1952. It was a founding member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1961, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in 1973. Ankara first applied for membership to the European Economic Community, the predecessor of the EU, in April 1987.

Twenty-five years after the collapse of the USSR, however, amid an ever-deepening global capitalist crisis and after a quarter century of US-led wars from the Balkans to Africa and the Middle East, these relations are in deep crisis.

Ankara’s involvement in the US-led war in Syria and Iraq has not resolved but only escalated the difficulties it faces at home, with deepening mass unemployment, rising prices, growing indebtedness and poverty. Moreover, the regime-change operation led by the United States in Syria, where it is allied with Syrian Kurdish militias, has brought Ankara’s main concern, the century-long Kurdish question, to the fore.

On the brink of an economic collapse that it feared would trigger an explosion of anger that has been accumulating in the working class for years, Ankara also felt threatened by Western-backed Kurdish secessionism. It was in this context of deepening international and social tensions, and after Turkey nearly provoked a war with Russia by shooting down a Russian jet over Syria last year, that the attempted military coup took place on July 15.

The attempted coup against Erdogan, backed, or at least acquiesced to, by the main imperialist powers, notably Washington and Berlin, was a major blow to Turkish-Western relations. Parallel to the imperialist drive to re-divide the Middle East through ongoing wars in Iraq and Syria, it played a great role in Ankara’s recent decision to embark on a quest for new partners in the SCO, and the collapse of Turkey’s attempts to join the EU.

European Central Bank cuts asset purchases but insists “quantitative easing” continues

Nick Beams

The European Central Bank will reduce its purchases of financial assets from €80 billion a month to €60 billion from next April and continue the program to the end of 2017 and beyond if necessary, strenuously denying that the reduction is in any way a “tapering” of its program of “quantitative easing.”

Speaking at a press conference following a meeting of the ECB’s governing council yesterday, the central bank’s president Mario Draghi said “tapering” had not even been discussed. Responding to a question about whether there was “pressure” to discuss a possible exit from quantitative easing (QE), Draghi said the purpose of the decision was to “transmit a sense that the presence of the ECB on the markets will be there for a long time.”

While no names were named, the pressure to which the questioner referred is coming from Germany, which has opposed the QE program. Draghi claimed the measures he announced enjoyed a “very, very broad consensus” on the governing council. But even though the monthly asset purchases were reduced, German Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann cast a “no” vote.

Political considerations were apparent in the way the final decision was reached. The ECB had been weighing two options: to announce a six-month extension of the €80 billion per month asset-purchasing program or a nine-month extension at €60 billion. One of the reasons it decided on the latter course was to avoid announcing a decision on future policy in the midst of the German elections, which are expected to be held in September.

Draghi did not refer to these considerations and set out the decision in economic terms, saying that when the purchases had been upscaled to €80 billion a month last March the outlook for a sustained return to inflation was “very much darker” and deflation risks were “not immaterial.” But now the “risk of deflation has largely disappeared.”

“However,” he continued, “uncertainty prevails. Uncertainty prevails everywhere, and we’ll certainly see and assess the progress of the overall situation at the end of 2017.”

At the centre of those uncertainties is the long-term impact of the decision by Britain to quit the European Union (Brexit) and the impact of the Trump administration on the global economy.

Draghi said it was “very, very difficult” to immediately assess the effect of these big changes, including the “radically new administration” in the United States and the way it looks at the world. He cited the impact of Brexit and the outcome of the Italian referendum last weekend, which led to the resignation of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi following the overwhelming rejection of Renzi’s proposed constitutional changes.

Financial markets had proved to be more resilient in the face of these changes than had been expected, Draghi said, but “all these events—especially Brexit and the new administration in the United States—have effects that are, by their very nature, going to develop their full dimensions in the medium to long-term”.

Several questions were directed to the immediate situation confronting the Italian banking system and Italy’s reported request for the ECB for a delay on its program for a €5 billion rescue operation of the Monte dei Paschi di Siena bank, which has been called into question as a result of the referendum defeat.

Draghi said he could not comment on the issue of a delay, as that was the province of the ECB’s Supervisory Board.

The Monte dei Paschi (MPS) rescue operation is a complex debt for equity swap that centres on the injection of up to €2 billion from Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund. This has been thrown into doubt. In the words of a recent report in the Financial Times, with a decisive referendum “no” vote and the departure of Renzi, who had pledged reforms to the financial system, “Qatar or any other investor big beast is expected to lose interest in being MPS’s new anchor.”

If the rescue plan falls through, MPS could be wound up or restructured under ECB rules, hitting small bond holders and investors with losses.

On the issue of the vulnerabilities of the Italian banking system more broadly, Draghi said these had been there for a long time and he was “confident that the government knows what to do and they will be dealt with.”

But as another questioner noted, it was still unclear what would happen in Italy and what government would emerge.

Throughout his press conference, Draghi sought to reassure financial markets that the “underlying narrative” of the ECB decisions was to “maintain that extraordinary degree of monetary accommodation that we have in place.”

The official rationale for the policy, which provides ultra-cheap money to the banks and the financial system more broadly, is that it is aimed at lifting inflation to “below but close to 2 percent.” Asked whether the ECB’s projection of 1.7 percent inflation in 2019 met that definition, Draghi replied “not really” and the ECB would have to “persist.”

This is in line with the demands of the financial markets, as expressed in a Financial Times editorial yesterday. Noting that the ECB president was under pressure from critics of “ultra-loose monetary policy” both from within the governing council and from Berlin, the newspaper said inflation was still short of the target, the euro zone recovery remained weak and “investors are increasingly sensitive to the risk of political upheaval in the coming year.”

While it was true, as Draghi had claimed, that the risk of outright deflation had receded since last March, when the EBC had set purchases at €80 billion a month, this “does not make it the right time for the central bank to scale back its support for the euro zone economy.”

At his press conference, Draghi sought to convey the impression that the ECB was determined to maintain a “steady hand” and continue with monetary accommodation to achieve its objective. But the situation it confronts has become more complex.

Besides the longer-term impact of the policies of the Trump administration, there is the immediate effect of the policies of the Federal Reserve, which is almost certain to lift US interest rates when it meets next week. This creates the risk of financial turbulence because two key central banks could end up trying to move in opposite directions.

Greek workers stage 24-hour strike against Syriza government austerity

John Vassilopoulos

Greek workers struck Thursday in a one-day strike against plans by the Syriza-led coalition government to impose yet deeper attacks on living standards and increase taxes on the working class.

The strike was called by the Adedy public sector trade union and the General Confederation of Greek Workers (GSEE), which covers the private sector. The stoppage affected public transport, with no metro or suburban services in the capital, Athens. National rail services were cancelled as rail operator Trainose was forced to halt its service.

State-run schools and universities were closed. Public health workers also supported the strike, with hospitals kept open with emergency staff only. Bank workers took part.

On Wednesday, journalists had held a 24-hour strike, pulling all television and radio news broadcasts off the air. This meant that no newspapers were published Thursday and news websites were not updated until Thursday morning. The journalists were protesting social security cuts that will affect pension funds. Due to Greece’s economic crisis, and a general fall in newspaper sales globally, many journalists have been unpaid for months, despite continuing to work.

Seamen have also been striking throughout this week in protest against proposed tax hikes on their income, bringing passenger and cargo lines to a standstill.

Around 7,000 people protested in several demonstrations in Athens, with the main one beginning at Pedion tou Areos Square and ending at Syntagma Square, in front of the parliament building. Some of the banners on the march read, “We won’t compromise!” and “We want jobs.” One of the factory workers at the demonstration, Nikos Spanopoulos, told the media, “This leftist government was elected to make things better, but from what I see…they are going to take everything including our underwear.”

Speaking to Euronews, another participant said, “There is depression in almost every family,” adding, “There are huge difficulties not only economically but in the social sphere as well.” A pensioner said, “Our pensions have been cut by at least 40 percent. People have no money to pay more taxes. They have worked hard and paid a lot in social security contributions. It was all taken from them in advance.”

PAME, the trade union federation of the Stalinist Communist Party of Greece (KKE), held a separate demonstration in Athens.

Protests were held nationwide, including around 5,000 who demonstrated in Greece’s second city, Thessaloniki. No public transport ran in the city.

Since mass austerity began in Greece in 2009, the population has lost almost a third of their income. Unemployment remains above 23 percent (1.1 million people) with youth unemployment at more than 46 percent.

In calling the 24-hour general strike, the aim of the union federations was to allow Greek workers to let off steam while the barrage of austerity measures continues unabated. There is a sense, however, that this well-worn tactic, which has been employed countless times since the first bailout package was signed in 2010, has run its course. In an effort to maintain its stranglehold over the working class and to cover its own complicity in facilitating the imposition of austerity during the last six years, the bureaucracy adopted a more combative tone in the run-up to this strike. In its statement, Adedy declared the need for “a unified all-worker escalation of strikes, demonstrations and occupations in a common struggle with young people and the suffering sections of the middle class.”

The on-going implementation of austerity measures by the government has also sparked a crisis within Syriza, with nine out of ten voters now expressing dissatisfaction with the pseudo-left party. In an attempt to offset this hostility, the strike was supported by Syriza’s “Labour Policy Department,” which issued a statement railing against “neoliberal policies, which are dismantling labour rights” and calling “on workers, the unemployed and young people to dynamically participate in the strike” directed against their own party!

The strike took place just days after a meeting of European Union (EU) finance ministers, at which Greece had sought reductions in the 3.5 percent primary surplus target that it is expected to run after 2018, and some debt relief. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaüble responded by threatening Athens that if it wished to remain in the euro, it would have to deepen its austerity agenda. Debt forgiveness would “not help Greece,” he said. “Athens must finally carry out the necessary reforms. If Greece wants to stay in the euro, there is no way past that—completely independently of the debt level.”

For its part, the International Monetary Fund considers the 3.5 percent target as unrealistic and is in favour of some debt relief—but only in return for an extra €4.2 billion in austerity savings and further labour reforms, including abolishing collective bargaining and making it easier to sack workers.

The Greek parliament is expected to vote on the budget Saturday. Briefing parliament on the Eurogroup meeting yesterday, Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos stated, “there is no way that we will legislate the measures [demanded by the IMF].” He expressed his hope that a compromise could be reached on the primary surplus target, with one percent from the total target being set aside for stimulating the economy.

Given Syriza’s record of signing a third bailout agreement eight months after coming to power in January 2015 with a massive mandate to end austerity, even such mealy-mouthed appeals are worthless. Their aim is simply to give the government enough room for manoeuvre while they prepare the ground for implementing the attacks demanded by the country’s creditors.

According to sources cited by online publication TheToc.gr, “the IMF insists on imposing wage cuts and even sackings in the public sector in parallel with the abolishing of various public sector bodies.” According to the TheToc.grarticle, the IMF proposes that such measures be imposed automatically if payroll costs exceed a predefined percentage of GDP.

A few days ago a poll commissioned by pro-Syriza daily I Efimerida Ton Syntakton (Ef.Syn.) , which asked a loaded question, found that 6 in 10 Greeks are in favour of public sector workers who have had a negative performance assessment being sacked. The new performance assessment regime is due to start next year with an aim to provide an objective and scientific veneer to the predetermined agenda of gutting Greece’s public sector.

The propaganda-dictated Ef.Syn’s poll is aimed at softening up the public prior to mass sackings in the public sector, which is part of the wider agenda of driving down wages and conditions for the entire working class.