General practitioners abandoning Britain’s National Health Service

Ben Trent

The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) says that one in three GPs will likely quit their practice within five years.

This confirms previous findings that a haemorrhaging of family doctors from the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) is underway, as tens of thousands of people seeking treatment and medical advice already struggle to get appointments nationwide. Many are forced to go to hospital Accident and Emergency departments that are at breaking point.

The RCGP surveyed over 1,000 GPs, with 31 percent of respondents stating they were likely to leave the general practice workforce within five years. Stress was one of the main reasons cited. Out of those surveyed, 37 percent said that there were vacancies needing filling in their current practice. Even more concerning were the 5 percent who stated their belief that their practice would close within the next year.

Another survey released by the General Medical Council (GMC) regulating body concluded there was a high risk of doctors leaving the profession “in unprecedented numbers.” Its poll of 2,600 doctors found that more than half (56 percent) were looking into other career options, with a quarter having already cut their hours or gone part-time. Of concern, noted the GMC, was that the poll revealed that 21 percent of 45- to 54-year-olds and two-thirds of 55- to 64-year-olds planned to take early retirement by 2021. These figures could escalate, with the GMC warning that its findings come amid a backdrop of uncertainty over Brexit, which could affect the 9 percent of UK licensed doctors who are European Economic Area (EEA) qualified.

This corroborates earlier findings, from the national GP work-life survey conducted at the end of 2017, which included 2,195 GPs in England. It found that 39 percent of respondents expected to leave “direct patient care” by 2022. This was comparable to 19.4 percent who expected to leave in 2005 and 35.3 percent in 2015.

The work-life survey found that the principal reasons for stress included: increasing workloads, having too little time to do justice to the job, paperwork, changes to meet requirements of external bodies, and increasing demands from patients.

In September, it was revealed that over 1,200 GPs were receiving support from a specially created mental health service that had been set up to assist primary care doctors. The main reasons were stress, fatigue and addiction-related issues.

The Independent reported that the data suggested that as many as 357 surgeries were at risk of closing due to the direct risks of departing GPs. Given the average number of patients on the books of each surgery, this could result in a staggering 3 million people losing their doctors.

A Freedom of Information investigation conducted by the Pulse GP news website revealed that 1.3 million patients have seen their surgery closed as a result of practice closures or mergers over the last five years. Nearly 450 GP surgeries were closed during that period.

The past two years have seen an unprecedented acceleration of this process. Last year alone, there were 134 GP surgery closures displacing more than 450,000 patients.

Doctor Helen Stokes-Lampard, chief of the RCGP, warned, “We are talking about highly-trained, highly-skilled doctors, that the NHS is at risk of losing—some will retire, which is to be expected, but many are planning to leave earlier than they otherwise would have done because of stress and the intense pressures they face on a day-to-day basis, whilst simply trying to do their best for their patients.”

The crisis of departing health sector workers comes despite the pledge by the Conservative government, made as far back as 2015, to increase the number of GPs by 5,000. Official figures released this May instead show that the number of GPs in England has dropped by a 1,000 since 2015. Vacancies across the NHS, at the end of June, stood at a staggering 107,743 health sector workers .

While data suggests that up to 320 GPs were retained through the GP retention scheme—designed to support GPs who would otherwise have left general practice—the figures are very small and inconsequential comparative to the numbers of GPs leaving. Statistics made available by NHS Digital for 2016/17 show that 5,159 GPs left the profession, equating to 430 departures a month.

Pointing to the historic implications, Dr. Richard Vautrey, chair of the British Medical Association’s (BMA) General Practitioners Committee of England, said, “For the last 70 years general practice has been the foundation on which the NHS is built, but without proper support, investment and a plan to tackle the current retention crisis, it is in serious risks of crumbling.”

In March, a BMA survey found that 54 percent of respondents reported that retention rates had worsened or significantly worsened, with only 7.5 percent reporting any improvement in retention rates.

Last year, Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) reported that more nurses and midwives left the register than joined, reversing the year-on-year increase of registrants from 2013 to 2016. The number of registered nurses and midwives dropped by more than 5,000 last year alone, with England having more than 40,000 nursing vacancies.

As with GPs, terrible conditions, as the result of cost-cutting, and the decimation of frontline services have forced nurses and midwives to leave the register. The NMC conducted a survey between June 2016 and May 2017. Of the 4,544 responses received by the NMC from nurses and midwives regarding the reasons for them leaving the register, less than half cited retirement.

In contrast:

* 44 percent cited poor working conditions, for example, low staffing levels and workload.

* 28 percent cited a change in personal circumstances, such as ill-health and childcare responsibilities.

* 27 percent cited disillusionment with the quality of care provided to patients, along with poor pay and benefits .

GP surgery closures and problems in recruitment and retention of family doctors, nurses and midwives are a direct outcome of the starving of funds and policies aimed at accelerating the privatization of the NHS carried out by successive Labour and Conservative governments.

Private GP surgeries have sprung up across the country, in some cases within the same premises of NHS-run surgeries. Those who have money can pay £80 and £140 respectively for 20- and 40-minute consultations and to jump the queues. They can even have full health checkups by paying £450. In contrast, tens of thousands of working-class people continue to wait up to four weeks to get an appointment to see their family doctor in a flying consultation.

Troops to be deployed in case of no-deal Brexit

Robert Stevens & Chris Marsden

Theresa May’s Conservative government announced yesterday that 3,500 soldiers were on standby to deal with economic disruption and to confront social unrest in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The UK faces crashing out of the European Union (EU) if no agreement can be reached by Parliament before a January 21, 2019 deadline. May refused to put the agreement reached with the EU to a vote in Parliament on December 11, knowing that it would have been voted down. The UK is scheduled to exit the EU on March 29, 2019.

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson told Parliament that his department “will have 3,500 service personnel held at readiness, including regulars and reserves, in order to support any government department on any contingencies they may need.”

The announcement that ministers were to “ramp up” preparations for a no deal came after the Cabinet met Tuesday morning. The Guardian reported, “Downing Street said delivering the prime minister’s deal ‘remains the top priority,’ but when presented with three options on whether to increase, maintain or wind down preparations, there was unanimity in cabinet to implement all no-deal contingency planning across departments.”

The decision was made after Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn once again refused to move a motion of no confidence in the government, after a day in which Corbyn’s political prevarication descended into farce.

At just after 3:00 p.m. yesterday, Labour’s central office let it be known that Corbyn would move a motion of no confidence on the prime minister, not the government, just ahead of May addressing Parliament at 3:30 p.m., if she did not announce a parliamentary date for a debate on her proposed deal with the EU.

The circulated text read: “That this house has no confidence in the prime minister due to her failure to allow the House of Commons to have a meaningful vote straight away on the withdrawal agreement and framework for the future relationship between the UK and the EU.”

The media immediately declared that Corbyn had “bottled out.” His was a non-binding motion committing neither Labour nor Parliament to anything.

He specifically avoided putting through a Vote of Confidence in the government as a whole, which under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act of 2011 would have to be acted on and debated once the leader of the opposition demands it. Had Corbyn tabled a motion with the specific wording, “That this house has no confidence in her majesty’s government,” a motion of confidence would have to be passed in the government within 14 days, or a general election would be called.

The Democratic Unionist Party, on which May depends for a majority, and the hard-Brexit Tory European Research Group both immediately made clear that they would not support Corbyn’s toothless resolution anyway.

When May spoke, she announced that she intended to seek concessions from the EU and would then present them to MPs to vote on during the week of January 14, i.e., on the eve of the voting deadline. Her intention was clearly to present MPs with an ultimatum—vote for her deal or face a hard Brexit—in order to minimise any rebellion by Tories and the DUP and hopefully to also secure the reluctant backing of pro-Remain Blairite Labour MPs.

To make matters worse, Corbyn followed May without putting his motion! It was only after three hours of debate—and after Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell had said Labour had got what it wanted when May set a date and would not proceed with the motion—that Corbyn then put his motion, stating that a January vote was unacceptable.

So pathetic was Corbyn’s move that May walked out of the parliamentary chamber immediately, with Downing Street describing his motion as a “stunt” that will not be granted any parliamentary time for debate.

Once again Corbyn has been instrumental in allowing two unaccountable cliques, the Tory Brexiters on one side and Remain in the EU-supporting Blairites on the other, to dominate political events—including planning the use of troops against the working class.

Corbyn’s politics are an example of parliamentary cretinism on steroids. He justifies not acting on principle, of demanding an end to a Tory government that has imposed savage austerity on millions and which is up to its neck in deadly military adventures in the Middle East and internationally, with calculations that waiting a little longer—and allowing May’s plan to be rejected—will open up the possibility of cross-party support for a general election so that Labour can renegotiate a soft Brexit, or, failing that, the second referendum urged by the Blairites.

As is now the norm, this left his right-wing opponents free to denounce him for not calling for the government to be brought down: Not because they want this to happen, but because this would finally get the issue of a general election off the agenda and clear the path for a second referendum with the option of remaining in the EU.

Former Labour minister Chris Leslie commented, “This feels like a pantomime on the [EU/UK Brexit deal] vote: in then out, on then off. It seems the [Labour] leadership will do anything including pulling its punches against the Government to avoid a People’s Vote.”

Labour MP Chuka Umunna added, “We need to settle the issue of whether there can be a general election to resolve the chaos so this confidence motion is overdue. If it fails we can then move straight on to holding a People’s Vote on Brexit and let the electorate decide—the only way of breaking the deadlock in Westminster.”

The differences between Corbyn and his critics are largely of a tactical rather than a principled character. Corbyn is opposed to the mad gambol of the Blairites and their allies in the pro-Remain Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrats towards a second referendum on the basis that this could further destabilise a country that is already deeply divided politically over Brexit and, more importantly still, socially polarised after a decade of unrelenting austerity and a collapse in the living standards of the working class.

He wants to make an attempt to negotiate a soft Brexit, focused on maintaining access to the Single European Market with some form of customs union, while still allowing UK business to strike the independent trade deals with the US and other non-EU countries that is the central concern of the Brexiteers. He also wants to appease anti-immigrant sentiment by ending free movement of EU labour in favour of “managed migration.” However, he has made clear that if this pro-capitalist wish list fails, then he will back a referendum on Remain.

No one needs to wait to see what a Corbyn government would look like in office. Its political essence is revealed in the Brexit crisis. Nothing he says or does is based on an appeal to the working class to act against the government and the employers, to oppose austerity and militarism and avert the growing danger of military and police repression. Otherwise he could never have moved a resolution calling for May to be replaced while leaving the Tories in government!

His speech made clear his class loyalties by being peppered with references to the demands of big business. In finally tabling his non-vote of no-confidence, Corbyn again took the opportunity to present himself and Labour to the ruling elite as the only political force that can avoid further instability. In response to May’s announcement, he said, “We face an unprecedented situation, the Prime Minister has led us into a national crisis.”

“The country, workers and businesses are increasingly anxious,” he added. Outlining the concerns of big business, he declared, “The [Confederation of British Industry] said yesterday: ‘Uncertainty is throttling firms and threatening jobs not in the future but right now. … The British Chamber of Commerce has said: ‘There is no time to waste.’”

Fascist cell uncovered in German police force

Marianne Arens

On August 2, 2018, the Frankfurt-based lawyer, Seda Basay-Yildiz, received a letter evidently from far-right radicals. Using the vile language of the Nazis, the letter denounced Basay-Yildiz as a “lousy Turkish pig” and even threatened to “slaughter” her two-year-old daughter. The lawyer’s private address, which had never been published, was also included in the anonymous fax, which was signed “NSU 2.0.”

Ms. Basay is a prominent lawyer in Germany. She represented the Simsek family in the trial of the NSU fascist terror gang which murdered 10 people, most of whom were migrant workers. Basay is also the lawyer for Sami A, who has been declared a “threat” to the German state. When the state administration in North Rhine Westphalia illegally deported Sami A to Tunisia, Ms. Basay filed an appeal against the deportation, resulting in a fine of €10,000 for the responsible authority.

The anonymous hate letter, dated 2 August 2018, referred to this latter case. “In retaliation for the 10,000 euro penalty we will slaughter your daughter,” it read. One day later, on 3 August, Basay lodged a complaint with the police. However, it was only at the start of December, four months later, that Ms Basay learned more—and then via the press, not from the police.

The complaint made by the lawyer was apparently a crucial clue in exposing a far-right network within the Frankfurt police. Attempts to ascertain how Ms Basay’s home address became public led directly to the service computer of the First Police Station in Frankfurt. According to official records, a policewoman had requested this information, without giving any reason, shortly before the threatening letter was sent.

Following a search of the mobile phone and other hard drives of the policewoman, it emerged that she had conducted a xenophobic and right-wing exchange with four other police officers over a considerable period. Through WhatsApp, the five officers had exchanged neo-Nazi messages, pictures of Hitler and swastikas, as well as messages denouncing immigrants and disabled people.

These findings were apparently kept secret by the authorities for months. Based on information from the Hessian State criminal office, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported on the existence of a right-wing police network in Frankfurt only in early December, although an internal inquiry against the suspects had already commenced.

The lawyer was not informed of any of these developments and only read about them in the FAZ, which reported her saying: “I would have preferred it if the police had informed me beforehand.” The lawyer, concerned for the safety of her daughter, had repeatedly asked the police for information, without ever receiving a proper answer.

Officially, it is now being said that the police and prosecutors are extremely cautious, fearing that the case may assume “even larger dimensions”, i.e., far more suspects than the five policemen could be involved.

Leading politicians are now making every effort to play down the case. CDU member of parliament Armin Schuster stated: “We must be very careful to ensure that there is no social unrest!” Schuster is chairman of the interior committee in the German Bundestag and a leading advocate of a pan-European police network.

The comment by a member of the Bundestag for the Greens in Hesse, Omid Nouripour, is also significant. Asked by the Neue Presse in Frankfurt whether he believes “that the police are more predestined for extremism than other social groups,” Nouripour emphasized: “No way.” He then demanded an “early warning system” for the police, claiming that this could prevent similar cases in future.

Using such arguments, politicians are seeking to distract attention from their own role. The Greens share power in the state of Hesse with the CDU, and both parties are responsible for the systematic rearming of the security forces. They have deported refugees more systematically and brutally than many other states, thereby creating conditions in which the far right could thrive.

It is not just a few “rotten apples” in an otherwise “healthy” system. This case again shows that the fascist threat stems not from the working population, but rather from the state apparatus. The far right cell within the Frankfurt police is actually the tip of a massive iceberg.

Right-wing extremist structures exist in all parts of the state apparatus. Recently, the head of the German domestic intelligence service (BfV), Hans-Georg Maaßen, was relieved of his post after denying that neo-Nazis had run riot in the city of Chemnitz.

In its most recent report, the BfV does not mention the Alternative for Germany (AfD), although this party regularly incites against immigrants, stirs up racism and downplays the crimes of the Wehrmacht and the Nazi state. The Socialist Equality Party (SGP), on the other hand, is referred to in the BfV report as “left-wing extremist” on the grounds that it is opposed to “alleged nationalism, imperialism and militarism” and criticizes capitalism.

A neo-Nazi network was also uncovered last year in the Bundeswehr, when the terror plans of Franco A. emerged by accident. The Bundeswehr officer had registered as a Syrian refugee, procured firearms and planned attacks on high-ranking politicians, seeking to blame them on refugees. Nevertheless the Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt Main saw no reason to bring charges against him.

More recently, when the Focus magazine published new details in November about a neo-Nazi terrorist cell in the German Army involving about 200 former and active Bundeswehr soldiers, other media outlets did not react and the matter was quickly hushed up and dropped.

The judiciary in Germany often looks the other way when it comes to the criminal activities of fascists. It accepts the close connection of the prosecution and the police. No satisfactory explanation has ever been offered in the cases of Oury Jalloh and Amad Ahmad, who both burned to death in police custody in separate incidents. In both cases, the prosecution accepted the unconvincing arguments given by police.

Another example is the NSU trial, which ended in July 2018 after five years, and 438 days of hearings. The only defendant to be sentenced was Beate Zschäpe, the only survivor of the NSU murder trio. The trial simply ignored the role played by the dozens of undercover agents and police officers, who actively supported or were active in the milieu surrounding the trio. Prominent supporters of the NSU such as Ralf Wohlleben and André Eminger, who assisted in the murder of nine immigrants and a policewoman, received only brief prison sentences. They are already both at large.

Attorney Seda Basay-Yildiz took part in the NSU trial as a co-prosecuting attorney for the Simsek family. In an informative review of the NSU trial by the radio station Bayern 2 (“What’s left of the NSU trial?”), she notes that she lost many illusions and became “more political” in the course of the trial. She stated: “In the case of every family of the victims, the family itself was always the first to be suspected—all families with an immigrant background. According to the constitution we should all be the same but this is simply not the case.”

Rising homelessness: The reality of life for workers in a “booming” US economy

Genevieve Leigh 

On any given night in the United States 553,000 people experience homelessness, according to the 2018 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and sent to Congress on Monday.

AHAR 2017

The report shows that homelessness is on the rise for the second year in a row. It underscores the harsh reality for broad sections of workers in the world’s richest and most “advanced” capitalist country, under what is routinely described as a “booming” economy.

The report sheds light on many aspects of the worsening social crisis in America. Below are some of its most essential findings:

• Some 36,000 of those experiencing homelessness on any given night in 2018 were unaccompanied youth (defined as people under the age of 25). Of this subset, almost 90 percent were between the ages of 18 and 24. Just over half of these unaccompanied youth were unsheltered—a much higher rate than for all people experiencing homelessness.

• Homelessness declined this year for all racial groups except people identifying themselves as white, who saw an increase of four percent. White people accounted for 54 percent of the homeless overall.

• Half of all people experiencing homelessness were in one of five states: California, New York, Florida, Texas or Washington.

• In January 2018, 3,900 people were staying in sheltered locations specifically reserved for people displaced by presidentially declared national disasters. These people were displaced from areas struck by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria and Nate, as well as regions hit by Western wildfires and other storms or natural disasters.

Largest changes in homeless people in families with children

Among the top factors driving the increase in homelessness is the drastic rise in housing costs in major cities. This is exacerbated by the continuation of wage stagnation, despite a near-record low official unemployment rate.

According to the report, over half of all people experiencing homelessness resided in one of the nation’s 50 largest cities. The most notable increase took place in King County, Washington, which includes Seattle, the sixth most expensive city in the US. Homelessness rates there rose by 4 percent.

In New York City, where the critical loss of affordable housing is well documented, homelessness increased by 2.8 percent. The report revealed that nearly three in 10 people in families that experience homelessness in the US do so in New York, which has an estimated 52,070 people in homeless families.

The rise in homelessness among people in families with children increased in 12 states between 2017 and 2018. The largest increases were in Connecticut, which experienced a 44 percent increase (516 more people in homeless families with children), and Massachusetts, which saw a 17 percent rise (1,959 more people).

The results of the HUD homeless report are damning, and even more so when one considers its significant limitations. The data largely comes from locally conducted “point in time” surveys, which are nearly a year old. This method of data collection involves teams of government workers who take a headcount of everyone they can find living outside on a single night in January.

Homeless man in New York City, Credit: WIkipedia user Lujoma ny

In addition, a number of communities did not participate at all in the 2018 national count, including San Francisco, which has seen an immense increase in homelessness in recent years. It is likely that the number of homeless people in the United States is significantly under-reported.

Earlier this year, a report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition revealed that there does not exist a single place in the US where someone working a full-time minimum-wage job could afford to rent a modest two-bedroom apartment. A person working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, would require a $26.87 hourly wage to afford such an apartment without spending more than 30 percent of his or her income. In the nation’s capital, Washington DC, where the current minimum wage is $13.25, one would have to earn $34.48 an hour to afford a modest two bedroom apartment.

These two reports taken together tear to shreds the notion that the Democratic Party’s “radical” demand for a $15 an hour minimum wage would seriously lessen the crisis facing workers. The cost of housing coupled with the attack on wages and full-time work has pushed hundreds of thousands of workers into precarious living situations, if not outright homelessness.

Such conditions are widespread across industries. Nearly 95 percent of the jobs created during the Obama administration were part-time, contract, on-call or temporary. This piecemeal work, referred to as the “gig” economy and cynically sold to the younger generation as “flexible” work, excludes health care and other benefits and is often unreliable.

It has become commonplace for workers to hold down two or three part-time jobs in order to make ends meet and provide for their families. Just 39 percent of Americans say they have enough savings to cover a $1,000 emergency room visit or car repair.

Out of Reach report on minimum wage

As the World Socialist Web Site has documented in the case of Texas Amazon worker Shannon Allen, who has been living out of her car for months after being injured on the job, tens of thousands of workers live one paycheck away from homelessness, though they are employed by some of the largest and richest companies in the world.

Reports have emerged this year documenting the growing number of adjunct college professors, many of whom have a Masters degree or PhD, who are forced to live in their cars. Dubbed the “fast food workers of the academic world,” a quarter of these workers are said to be enrolled in public assistance programs. During the wave of teachers’ strikes that erupted early in the year across the US, thousands of teachers spoke out about being forced because of low wages to take second and even third jobs to make ends meet.

In the auto industry, companies have entered into special “competitive cost structure” agreements with the United Auto Workers under which more experienced “legacy” workers are pushed out of the plants and replaced by low-paid, second- and third-tier workers, making as little as the $9 Michigan minimum wage.

These younger workers are often brought on as temporary part-time (TPT) employees, with no rights and no job security. They can be fired at will. They face the most brutal working conditions, as exemplified by the case of Jacoby Hennings, the 21-year-old TPT worker who held jobs simultaneously at two auto plants in Michigan and allegedly killed himself in the fall of 2017 in the UAW local union hall, under still unexplained circumstances. His story is representative of an entire generation of workers.

AHAR 2017

The statistics on rising homelessness are all the more significant when one considers that they have not only persisted, but worsened in the midst of the supposedly “booming” US economy.

In the “financial recovery” overseen by Democratic President Barack Obama and continued by Donald Trump, the ruling class has grown richer than ever. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has tripled since 2009, propped up by a new financial bubble created by the Federal Reserve’s $4 trillion in quantitative easing. As the Financial Times wrote at the end of this year’s third quarter: “For the big, diversified US banks—Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo—the story of the third quarter was simple: reap the benefits of a good economy, contain expenses, pay less taxes, buy back shares, and make lots of money.”

These vast fortunes were made on the backs of the working class, whose experience since the 2008 crisis has been a nightmare of immense proportions. Democratic and Republican politicians alike, at the behest of the banks and corporations, used the 2008 crash to create the best possible conditions for the financial oligarchs. This meant gutting social services, casualizing labor, loosening safety regulations and attacking healthcare and other benefits.

The indifference and contempt of the ruling class for the plight of workers is indicated by the official response to the HUD report on homelessness. It went virtually unmentioned by both big business parties and barely reported by the corporate-controlled media.

In the eyes of the banks and corporations, the chronically underemployed and unemployed are seen not as economic refugees, but as what Marx called the “industrial reserve army,” available to provide labor for sudden expansions in production while keeping wages low due to their precarious situations.

Carrington Youth Fellowship Initiative (CYFI) 2019 for Young Nigerian Entrepreneurs

Application Deadline: 13th January, 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Interviews follow at the US Consulate, Lagos, Nigeria

About the Award: The CYFI fellowship is built around year-long social innovation projects that are designed by fellows and supported by the U.S. Consulate and private partners. Following successful completion of their projects, fellows remain involved with CYFI and the U.S. Consulate through the CYFI Alumni Program.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Walter Carrington, was a champion of civil liberties, democracy and closer ties between the U.S. and Nigeria. CYFI invites applications from fellows who are committed to putting the ideals of Walter Carrington into practice. The CYFI Board of Directors will select fellows who demonstrate the exceptional passion, skill, experience, strategic thinking and vision necessary to implement their own innovative and impactful projects.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 

• Passion
  You are committed to making a significant contribution to your community and country
• Skill & Experience
  You have a unique set of skills and experiences that you can use to make an impact
• Strategic Thinking
  You are excited about the opportunity to launch an innovative CYFI project.
  You know how to design a project that is based on sound research, uses resources creatively, builds or improves on existing systems, and leverages partnerships with complimentary organizations
• Vision
  You know the area of social change in which you would like to work, and you can articulate the positive change that you would like to make

Selection: Applicants selected for an interview will be notified by the CYFI Board. Interviews will be held at the U.S. Consulate General in Lagos.

Value of Program: 

• Implement concrete, youth-oriented solutions to issues that concern you
• Access U.S. Government resources and contacts
• Catch the attention of American and Nigerian leaders in the public and private sectors
• Work alongside talented and motivated peers with diverse backgrounds, but similar visions
• Participate in CYFI Alumni Program

How to Apply:

• In addition to providing biographical information, applicants will be asked to complete a hypothetical scenario.  All fields are required.
• You may save the application and return to it at a later time.  Please note however that incomplete applications will not be considered.
• To start the application, proceed to fill the form (to be available soon).

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: An Initiative of the U.S. Consulate General, Lagos.

GSK Scholarships for Future Health Leaders in sub-Saharan Africa 2019/2020 (Fully-funded to study in UK)

Application Deadline: 13th February 2019 midnight (GMT).

Eligible Countries: sub-Saharan Africa

To be Taken at (country): UK

About the Award: These highly competitive scholarships are available to applicants intending to study on a one-year, full-time, London-based MSc programme at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: To be eligible for these scholarships, applicants must

• be nationals of, and resident in, countries in sub-Saharan Africa; and
• intend to return to sub-Saharan Africa on completion of their MSc year at the School; and
• confirm in writing that they would not otherwise be able to pay for the proposed programme of study; and
• meet the School’s minimum English language requirements; and
• hold a first degree at either a first or upper second class equivalency level, and
• hold an offer of admission for 2019-20 for one of the School’s 18 London-based MSc programmes of study.

Preference will be given to applicants who demonstrate (in their application documentation) the potential to make significant contributions to public health and/or health-related research in Africa.

Number of Awards: 3

Value of Award: Each scholarship will cover

• tuition fees, including any mandatory field trip fees, and
• a tax-free stipend (living allowance) of GBP16,950.00.

Duration of Program: 1 year

How to Apply: Applicants should complete both steps below by the scholarship deadline.

• Step 1: Submit an application for 2019-20 for a London-based MSc programme of study, as per instructions under the ‘How to Apply’ tab on the relevant programme of study page. Applicants should ensure that all necessary supplementary documents (including references) are submitted via the School’s Admissions Portal by the scholarship deadline. (Where possible, we would encourage applicants to submit a complete application for study as far in advance of the scholarship deadline as possible, to allow for timely processing.)
• Step 2: Submit an online scholarships application, selecting this scholarship option from the drop-down menu by the scholarship deadline. A completed Supplementary Questions Form for this scholarship must be uploaded as part of this application. This is the only attachment required in Step 2 (as applicants should have already submitted references; transcripts; a CV etc with their application for study).

If you encounter any technical difficulties whilst using the online application system please contact LSHTM IT by email, providing them with your full name; the scholarship that you are applying for; and the issue that you have encountered. Please attach a screen shot of the difficulty.

Visit Program Webpage for Details

United Nations ECA Fellowships 2019 for Young African Professionals

Application Deadline: 9th January 2019

Eligible Countries: Member countries

To be taken at (country): Various duty stations 

About the Award: The programme aims to provide practical, on-the-job experience to the young professionals as they prepare either for a career in research and international development and the public sector. It will also familiarize them with the Commission’s broad programmes and services to member States and sub-regional bodies in addressing the social dimensions of Africa’s development. 
ECA is hereby inviting applications from qualified young African Professionals in the following thematic areas:

• Macroeconomic policy, Economic Governance & Public Finance;
• Private Sector Development & Finance, including Innovative Finance & Capital Markets;
• Poverty, Inequality and social development,
• Gender equality and women empowerment;
• Demographic Dynamics for Development;
• Innovation and Technology;
• Climate Change & Management of Natural Resources, including Green Economy;
• Industrialization and Economic Diversification Policies;
• Development Planning and Statistics;
• Regional Integration; Infrastructure and Trade;
• Labor Economics and Employment.

Type: Fellowship, Internship

Eligibility: The Fellowship programme is targeted at young Africans. Candidates applying for Fellowship position must be below 30 years of age when entering the programme. They must have Masters Degree or related Advanced degree. Candidates currently enrolled in a Ph.D programme or with an admission are also welcome to apply. 

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

• Fellows must be available to travel to the assigned station by 1 March 2019;
• Will receive a return air ticket between his/her country of residence and the assigned duty station
• A one-off settling-in grant of USD 3,000 and a monthly stipend of USD 3,000 for the duration of the fellowship. Note that the final month stipend will only be paid upon submission of a peer reviewed fellowship research paper, a comprehensive fellowship report, an approved final performance evaluation of the fellow, a completed fellowship programme evaluation form and an exit boarding pass or immigration stamp showing that the fellow has departed the duty station and returned back to his/her home country, where both are not the same, at the end of the fellowship programme.

Duration of Programme: Six months

How to Apply: 

• Applications with all the supporting documents should be emailed to the address indicated below, bearing the appropriate subject line.
• Go through all application requirements on the Program Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details 

Government of Italy Invest Your Talent Scholarship and Internship Program 2019/2020 for International Students

Application Deadline: 31st January 2019

Eligible Countries: Scholarships are awarded to citizens, permanently resident in their home country, of the following list of countries:  Azerbaijan, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ghana, Kazakhstan, Mexico, People’s Republic of China, Tunisia, Turkey, Vietnam.

To Be Taken At (Country): Italy

About the Award: Scholarships are awarded for courses of Master’s degree (Laurea magistrale or Master universitario) at Italian Higher Education Institutes (state-owned institutions or institutions legally recognized by the relevant state authorities) partners of the Invest Your Talent in Italy Program. The program includes the attendance of a mandatory internship at selected Italian companies partners of the initiative.
The aim of the Program is to foster cooperation among Italian Universities and Italian companies in order to promote their internationalization by sustaining higher education courses tailored to the needs of the labor market. Thanks to this Program, young foreigners, educated in Italy and properly trained in their specific fields of expertise, will have the opportunity to make a working experience at selected Italian companies, partners of Invest Your Talent in Italy.

Type: Masters, Internship

Eligibility: Applications may be submitted only by those who meet the following requirements by the deadline of this call.
Academic qualifications: Applications may only be submitted by those candidates referred to in Article 2 who hold the required academic qualifications (Bachelor’s Degree) to enroll in the chosen Master’s degree Program (Laurea Magistrale or Master Universitario).
Age requirements: Candidates may apply if they are no more than 28 years old on the deadline of this call, except for the only renewals.

Language skills:

• Candidates should submit an English language certificate as proof of their proficiency in English .
• Candidates should hold at least a B2 level certificate within the Common European Framework of
  Referrqence for Languages (CEFR).
  Proof of proficiency in Italian is not mandatory but will be taken in consideration in the selection process.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• Candidates who have been granted scholarships under the Invest Your Talent in Italy Program are exempted from the payment of tuition fees except for the regional tax for “Diritto allo Studio”.
• Grantees must subscribe a health insurance policy to bear any expenses due to illnesses or accidents.
• Grantees will receive 888 euros monthly allowance every three months on their Italian bank account. The first installment of the scholarship can only be received after the University enrollment according to the necessary administrative procedures

Duration of Program: The scholarship will cover a period of study of 9 (nine) months starting from October 1, 2019. Students will receive the installment every three months.

How to Apply: Only those students who have submitted their application for one of the postgraduate courses (laurea Magistrale or Master) included in the Program can apply for a IYT scholarship: http://www.postgradinitaly.esteri.it/postgradinitaly/en/how-to-apply

 REGISTRATION

Visit the Program Webpage for Details


Award Providers: Government of Italy

The Case that Dare Not Speak Its Name: the Conviction of Cardinal Pell

Binoy Kampmark

“Freedom of the press in the world will cease to exist if a judge in one country is allowed to bar publication of information anywhere in the world.”

– Martin Baron, Executive Editor, The Washington Post, Dec 13, 2018

It had been shrouded in secrecy akin to the deepest conspiracy, but the trial of Cardinal George Pell, while not letting much in the way of publicity in Australia, was always going to interest beyond the walls of the Victorian County Court. This was the legal system of a country, and more accurately a state of that country, glancing into the workings of the world’s first global corporation and its unsavoury practices.  The Catholic Church, in other words, had been subjected to a stringent analysis, notably regarding the past behaviour of one of its anointed sons.

Cardinal Pell, a high-ranking official of the Catholic Church and financial grand wizard of the Vatican, was found guilty on December 11 of historical child sexual abuses pertaining to two choir boys from the 1990s.  But details remain sketchy. We know, for instance, that the number of charges was five, and that the trial has been designated “the cathedral trial”.  We also know that a first trial failed to reach a verdict.

Scrutiny from the Australian press gallery and those who had been victims of sexual abuse at the hands of priests over the years, was limited for reasons peculiar to this country’s ambivalence to open discourse.  They were told that would be so.

The Pell case is a classic instance of suppression laws in action and, more particularly, their appeal in the Victorian jurisdiction that was not dimmed with the passage of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic).  Section 4 of the Act noting “a presumption in favour of disclosure of information to which a court or tribunal must have regard in determining whether to make a suppression order” has proven a fairly weak exercise.

Victorian judges, such as former Victorian Supreme Court Justice Betty King, have gone so far as to boast about the frequency they have handed down such orders.  Former Victorian Chief Justice Marilyn Warren, writing in October 2015, illustrated the classic struggle between the media which “has its own interests” and the judicial system. “Crime,” she reminds us prosaically, “sells.”

Little wonder then that Judge Peter Kidd relented to the prosecutor’s request in the Pell case that a gag order be imposed ahead of the trial “to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.”

The suppression order issued by the Victorian County Court is still in force, covering “all Australian states and territories” and “any website or other electronic or broadcast format accessible within Australia”. The reason lies in a connected trial, known as the swimmers’ trial, in which Pell is also being tried for allegedly abusing two other boys at a Ballarat swimming pool in Victoria during the 1970s, proceedings of which will take place in late February or early March.

Australian newspapers have engaged in what can only be regarded as an absurd song and dance that demonstrates the hollow, ceremonial nature of such restrictions.  Melbourne’s The Age noted how “we are unable to report their identity due to a suppression order.”  (Tantalising!)  The paper did, however, note that, “Google searches for the person’s name surged on Wednesday, particularly in Victoria.  Two of the top three search results on the suppressed name showed websites that were reporting the charges, the verdict and the identity of the person in full.”

The Daily Telegraph huffed with “the nation’s biggest story” in its front-page headline. “A high profile Australian with a worldwide reputation has been convicted of an awful crime.”  In evident terror, the paper has done its best to delete any links on the web to that initial story.  Likewise the Herald Sun of Melbourne, despite its agitated bold headline “Censored.”

Other Australian outlets have also been cowed. Josh Butler of 10 Daily sounded anguished.  “We’d like to tell you what happened, instead of speaking in riddles, but our legal system – specifically, the legal system of one Australian state – forbids us from telling you.”   In the words of feminist and voluble website Mamamia, “we too cannot report on the person’s identity or the crime they have been found guilty of.”  Spot the Australian in question, but in heaven’s name do not mention him in Australia proper.  The pathology of suppression proves irresistible.

It was left to foreign press services to run with the story, or not, as it were, leaving an absurd spectacle of neurotic meanderings in its wake. Some agencies, like Reuters and Associated Press, played the cautious card and resisted temptation.  Reuters’ spokeswoman, Heather Carpenter, insisted that Reuters was “subject to the laws of the countries in which we operate”.

In the United States, the reaction was particularly determined, though the enthusiasm did not spread to The New York Times, despite that paper having given extensive coverage to the allegations themselves. The paper’s deputy general counsel, David McCraw, claimed that the paper was abiding by the court’s order “because of the presence of our bureau there.  It is deeply disappointing that we are unable to present this important story to our readers in Australia and elsewhere.”  Press coverage of judicial proceedings, he insisted, was “a fundamental safeguard of justice and fairness.”

The Washington Post, National Review, Daily Beast and National Public Radio were all busy in their efforts to run stories on Pell.  The Daily Beast has, however, geoblocked reports to Australian readers.  In the words of the outlet’s editor, Noah Shachtman, “We understood there could be legal, and even criminal, consequences if we ran this story.”

In a global, relentless information environment, one accessible at the search on a phone, suppression orders retain an anachronistic insensibility.  When it comes to matters concerning an individual of such standing and influence as Cardinal Pell, including the clandestine institution he has represented for decades, the courts risk looking all too cosy with creatures of power.

While barristers rightly seek to defend their clients and hope, often elusively, for that fair trial to be extracted from a prejudiced milieu, such court directives smack of theatrical illusion rather than impact. Imposing suppression orders can be a case less of assisting the accused have a fair trial than preventing discussing what is already available.  To make them function in any effectual manner would be to select jurors hermetic and immune to the Internet or an interest in foreign news sources – a nigh impossible task.  Victoria’s judges, like King Canute, are attempting to control the tide in vain.

Big Pharma Fights Proposal to Keep It From Looting Medicare

Martha Rosenberg

The Trump administration has proposed that insurance plans providing drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries will no longer be forced to cover six hitherto “protected” drug classes. The classes––which include drugs for psychiatric conditions, cancer and immune diseases––are among the priciest of all drugs and account for as much as 33 percent of total outpatient drug spending under Part D of Medicare.

Under the proposal, Medicare plans could “exclude from their formularies protected class drugs with price increases that are greater than inflation, as well as certain new drug formulations that are not a significant innovation over the original product,” says Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

In 2014, the Obama administration sought the same “price relief” for Medicare but was defeated by drug industry lobbyists. At the time, 100 pills of the “protected” psychiatric drug Abilify cost $1,644, 100 pills of the “protected” psych drug Geodon cost $958, 100 pills of the “protected” psychiatric drug Invega cost $1,789 and 100 pills of the “protected” psych drug Seroquel cost $2,000. Since then, even pricier psychiatric drugs have emerged as well as 6-digit cancer drugs.

The Obama proposal was roundly defeated by drug industry funded groups like the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). NAMI received $23 million in just two years from drug makers and is heavily financed by them.

The proposal “undermines a key protection for some of the sickest, most vulnerable Medic beneficiaries,” said NAMI lobbyist Andrew Sperling, one of many voices that defeated the proposal. “You get much better outcomes when a doctor can work with patients to figure out which medications will work best.” He might have added, as long as the taxpayer pays.

Such drug industry tactics are well known. “When insurers balk at reimbursing patients for new prescription medications, these groups typically swing into action, rallying sufferers to appear before public and consumer panels, contact lawmakers, and provide media outlets a human face to attach to a cause,” writes Melissa Healy of the Los Angeles Times about this well known Pharma tactic to loot Medicare dollars.

The six protected drug classes are not the only example of lobbyist-initiated regulations which protect nothing more than drug industry profits and its expensive psychiatric drugs, many of which have cheaper alternatives. In Texas, a Medicaid “decision tree” called the Texas Medical Algorithm Project was instituted that literally requires doctors to prescribe the newest psychiatric drugs first. It was, not surprisingly, funded by the Johnson & Johnson linked Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Already drug industry lobbyists are berating the new Trump Medicare proposal on behalf of the “sickest, most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries” who they say will be hurt if taxpayers won’t fund its 4 and 5 digit priced drugs. The Pharma-friendly Alliance for Patient Access has saturated broadcast airwaves warning cancer patients about “European style” restrictions on the “newest drugs” without which they will presumably die. The scare tactic ads even give out lawmakers’ phone numbers for patients to call.

Yet few to none of the newer psychiatric or cancer drugs show clear improvements over cheaper ones. They all lack the safety profiles of older drugs that are widely in use and their main benefit is enriching Pharma.

Will this cost-saving Medicare proposal be defeated as it was in 2014?