25 Apr 2022

British ruling class fears “summer of discontent”

Thomas Scripps


Workers in the UK are in a strong position to launch an offensive for improved wages and conditions but are being hamstrung by the trade unions.

The Sunday Times admits as much in an April 17 article showing that the British ruling class is acutely aware of the social explosion threatened by its pursuing war against Russia abroad and austerity at home, precipitating an historic fall in living standards amid an ongoing pandemic.

The piece asks, “Is Britain heading for the summer of discontent?” The reference is to the 1978-9 Winter of Discontent which saw millions of days of strike action over pay during the Labour government of James Callaghan.

In this 1979 file photo, a man sits on the ground in front of a mound of garbage in London's Leicester Square, accumulated during a strike by council employees. (AP Photo/John Glanville, File)

Part of the Murdoch empire, the Times article was written by editor for the City of London section Jill Treanor, together with reporter Laith Al-Khalaf, and clearly reflects the concerns haunting Conservative government ministers and business executives alike.

Describing the current record inflation and tight labour market (there is now one vacancy for every unemployed worker), Treanor and Al-Khalaf say the situation is “raising questions about whether workers are going to be powerful enough to wrest inflation-busting wage rises from employers”. They add, “There is a feeling that the balance of power weighted in favour of management for decades is beginning to shift.”

Large sections of the working class are currently pushing for action, including 40,000 rail workers balloting for a national strike, a similar number of BT workers doing the same, and refuse workers engaged in local disputes all over the country. Tens of thousands of university workers have taken weeks of strike action this year and recently renewed their ballot. Education workers have voted at their annual conferences to fight for above-inflation pay increases. On May 3, around a thousand workers at the UK’s 114 Crown Post Offices are set to walk out to oppose Royal Mail’s refusal to grant a pay rise for 2021-22.

The Times raises its warnings with reference to the trade unions. Its authors note, “The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has already registered the highest number of industrial disputes (300) in five years—after a period of record-low industrial strife”. They include an interactive strike map identifying each dispute across the country.

But the same article reveals that the unions’ role is not to lead the charge of a militant working class, but to head it off. The authors explain, “given the high demand for workers from so many employers, economists have anticipated wages rising across the board—and are confounded by what has actually happened. ‘It’s an odd situation where economists would expect pay inflation to take off at this point, and working people actually to be able to start raising their pay. But we’re not seeing that—prices are still rising faster than wages,’ [senior lecturer in economics at the Open University Alan] Shipman said.”

On Monday, the Times’s economics correspondent Arthi Nachiappan provided the grisly details in, “Wage rises on the back burner despite inflation”. She reports, “Forty-eight percent of companies are not awarding pay rises, according to research by the Chartered Management Institute. Of the 52 percent of companies who are, the average increase is 2.8 per cent—less than half the [Consumer Prices Index-CPI] rate of inflation.” That rate is expected to climb towards 10 percent over the year—Retail Price Index (RPI) inflation is already at 9 percent.

This would worsen an already crippling situation for workers’ budgets. Annual pay growth to February, excluding bonusses, was 4 percent, less than half RPI inflation in the same period. In the public sector, where union density is significantly higher (52 percent) than in the private sector (13 percent), pay growth was much lower, just 2.1 percent. Two of the worst rates of annual pay growth to February, including bonusses, were for education (1 percent) and public administration (1.4 percent) workers; the two sectors with the highest union density, at roughly five in 10 and four in 10 workers respectively.

The slashing of real wages has not been achieved through a crushing defeat of the unions but with their collaboration. Successive waves of industrial action have been carved up, delayed, demobilised and betrayed, with swathes of redundancies and below inflation pay deals imposed.

What could have been a national strike at the largest private bus operator Stagecoach was divided into a series of separately fought and sold-out disputes by Unite. Bus drivers in the capital, employed by different operators, were split up the same way. Thousands of distribution workers for some of the UK’s largest supermarkets met the same fate at the hands of Unite, USDAW and the GMB. University workers have been worn down by the UCU’s refusal to wage an effective struggle in defence of their pay and pensions, with savage cuts enacted earlier this year.

Unions in the public sector, including UNISON, the Royal College of Nursing, the National Education Union and Unite, oversaw the imposition of below inflation pay rises for health, education and local government workers, without a strike even being launched—either by refusing to organise a ballot or failing to win a mandate from members disgusted by years of betrayals. In the private sector, the Communication Workers Union averted a national Royal Mail strike and what would have been the first national strike at BT since 1987.

Attacks on wages and conditions were allowed to be pushed through with the threat of “fire and rehire” at British Gas, Go North West, British Airways and Jacobs Douwe Egberts, to name only the most prominent defeats.

Through these efforts the unions have kept industrial action safely within the bounds of the historic lows maintained since the end of the 1984-5 miners’ strike, with the average number of days lost to strike action each year in 1990-2019 less than a tenth of the figure for 1960-1989. Nothing flattering is implied of the unions of the 1970s—whose pro-Labour Party, nationalist politics could provide no way forward for the working class, opening the way to Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 election—to say that the contemporary unions are corporatist shells by comparison.

They are the forces through which Governor of the Bank of England Andrew Bailey’s infamous demand for wage “restraint”, cited by Treanor and Al-Khalaf, is being enforced. The authors also quote the revealing response to Bailey of deputy general secretary of the TUC Paul Novack: “The chancellor himself said that inflation has been driven by what’s happening to energy prices; it’s not about wages spiraling out of control.”

Novack and the TUC see the 300 disputes cited by the Times as a hit list, with each one to be throttled in turn. The figure was first reported by the Guardian under the headline, “Strikes in UK at highest in five years as inflation hits pay”. It was forced to issue a correction, “The headline of this article was amended… to refer correctly to industrial disputes, not strikes.”

This is the state of the class struggle in the UK. Workers are straining for a fight against the employers and the Tory government; the unions are working overtime to prevent a strike wave developing; the sections of the affluent middle class who staff papers like the Guardian and recognise this service are doing what they can to boost the unions’ shredded reputations.

Protesters in Dover march in protest at the job losses at P&O (WSWS Media)

Columnist Owen Jones provided the most shameless and ill-advised example at the end of March, warning, “Exploiters such as P&O”, who had just sacked 800 ferry workers on the spot and replaced them with a slave-wage overseas crew, “watch out—there’s a new wave of trade unionists coming for you”.

Describing an “existential menace to trade unions”, Jones noted, “Trade union membership is around half of its 1979 peak” and the “very concept” of trade unionism “is alien to many younger people”. But, he insisted, “unions are the only viable challengers to the P&Os of this world—and that fact is surely becoming ever more obvious.”

A week later, the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union responsible for the P&O workers had overseen a rout, with not a single job saved and not a day of solidarity action called as it joined the Labour Party in making nationalist and always futile appeals to the Tories to “Save Britain’s Ferries”.

These are organisations which defend nothing. Far from proving the unions’ rediscovered militancy, events at P&O were a damning confirmation that there is no attack too brutal the employers can launch that will force them into serious opposition.

Jones’s risible attempt to evoke a “union resurgence” is part of a broader effort to stop workers drawing the necessary conclusion from this situation that new organs of class struggle are needed. When the Times writes that “some experts see opportunities for the unions to prove their purpose”, or the Financial Times of “a test for Britain’s unions in the most intense period of worker unrest since the 2016 Trade Union Act placed new, onerous limits on their activities”, what really concerns them is whether the unions can get out in front of a mass movement of the working class they know is coming, the better to bring it under control.

Sharon Graham (Credit: Unite)

An absurd myth has therefore been built up around the Unite General Secretary Sharon Graham—a “new broom… shifting the focus… to the nitty-gritty of what unions used to do: getting better deals for workers” (Times) and “the biggest potential threat yet to the Thatcherite anti-union settlement” (Guardian)—to provide proof of the unions’ supposed vitality.

Graham in fact sums up the modern trade union movement better than Jones and his ilk would like. A political nobody whose life has been spent in backroom discussions with managers, shareholders and investors as part of Unite’s “leverage” department, elected by fewer than 50,000 people out of 1.2 million members, she hovers like the grim reaper over every strike.

Under her leadership, Unite officials have been the foremost firefighters damping down outbreaks of working-class struggle, negotiating above inflation pay rise only in critical sections of the economy with acute labour shortages such as among HGV drivers. The vast majority of disputes were sold out in below inflation deal defeats that are falsely portrayed as “wins” by Graham’s many pseudo-left hangers-on.

That the second most commonly cited proof of union dynamism is the small Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB), an organisation which recruits mainly super-exploited migrant workers ignored by the major unions and with less than 7,000 members, but which remains oriented to the TUC, says everything about the reality of a “union resurgence”.

The trade unions barely feature in the lives of most UK workers, three quarters of whom are not in a union and not covered by a collective agreement in their workplace. Those that are members confront in these organisations a hostile force, led by general secretaries with incomes in the top five percent, standing on the side of the employers and the government. A bureaucracy which through its suppression of industrial action has facilitated spiraling inequality for decades, stagnating wages since the 2008 financial crash, and now sharply falling pay in service to the war drive of British imperialism.

Mélenchon to ally with Greens, PCF, NPA in French legislative election

Kumaran Ira


Unsubmissive France (LFI) candidate Jean Luc-Mélenchon came in third with 21.95 percent of the vote in the first round of the presidential election, eliminating him from yesterday’s runoff. In response, Mélenchon is now trying to rally his supporters behind a campaign for the French legislative elections in June.

Mélenchon aims not to mobilise the working class but to demobilise it. LFI called for building a Popular Union, an electoral coalition of discredited bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties, aiming to make Mélenchon prime minister under a Macron or Le Pen presidency.

On April 15, LFI sent a letter to several parties including Europe Ecology-The Greens (EELV), the Stalinist French Communist Party (PCF) and the Pabloite New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA). The letter was not addressed to the big-business Socialist Party (PS) of former president François Hollande. However, the PS National Council adopted a resolution on Tuesday evening proposing to discuss with all supposedly “left” forces, including LFI.

In the letter, LFI refers to Mélenchon’s results in the first round: “Last Sunday, three clearly defined political blocs emerged from the ballot box. One around the liberals, another with the far right, the third with the Popular Union.”

Tacitly pushing for a vote for Macron as the lesser evil, the letter cynically asserts that Macron or Le Pen both represent a danger, “even if they are of a different nature.” It adds that “in the present context and given the sharp delineations between the three groups, this second round will therefore elect a presidency by coercion and by default. None of the country’s political tensions will be resolved. On the contrary, they are likely to be aggravated.”

This reveals the class chasm separating the Socialist Equality Party (PES), the French section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, from Mélenchon and LFI. The PES has called for an active boycott of the second round, to mobilise workers, reject the two reactionary candidates, and prepare struggles against the next president, be it Macron or Le Pen. Mélenchon, on the other hand, seeks to disorient the working class by steering social opposition to the next president into a parliamentary dead end.

Mélenchon got more than 7.7 million votes among workers and young people who opposed both the unpopular Macron and the neo-fascist Marine Le Pen. Objectively, LFI is in a powerful position. Armed with the votes of young people and millions in the working class areas of the big cities, Mélenchon could call for strikes and demonstrations to boycott the presidential election, and to oppose austerity and war. This would have broad support among workers in France and beyond.

However, LFI does not seek to mobilise workers and young people against the next reactionary president. Instead, it aims to work with Macron or even a neo-fascist president to channel working class opposition into parliament and suppress the class struggle. This also unmasks the role of the NPA, which has responded favorably to LFI’s proposal of talks.

“I ask the French to elect me prime minister” by voting for a “majority of Unsubmissive [referring to his LFI party]” and “members of the Popular Union” in the legislative elections of June 12 and 19, Mélenchon said on BFM-TV on April 19. The aim would be to achieve a parliamentary bloc within the capitalist state to legitimise the next president, be it Marine Le Pen, an openly neo-fascist candidate, or Macron, who also pursues far-right policies against workers.

Workers’ struggles against the next president cannot take place in parliament, through parties of the established order like EELV or the PCF. Deep anger is rising among workers in France and Europe amid a growing social and economic crisis, exacerbated by rising inflation, the pandemic and the dangerous military conflict between NATO and Russia in Ukraine. This anger is also directed at parties, such as EELV, which openly called for a Macron vote.

In order to make itself heard by workers in its electorate, LFI admits that both the Macron and Le Pen campaigns represent a “danger” for workers. But far from seeking to mobilise this opposition to Macron and Le Pen in struggle, LFI offers itself to Macron or Le Pen as potential allies in the same government that would pursue reactionary policies on all the main issues of the day.

Mélenchon’s letter says nothing about the pandemic or NATO manoeuvres against Russia, which threaten to provoke nuclear war. On the war, Mélenchon has sided with NATO by solely blaming Russia for the conflict. On the pandemic, LFI supported the anti-vaccine movement, dominated from the outset by the far right, adopting its reactionary arguments that collective vaccination is an attack on individual liberties.

The People’s Union aims to lure voters into voting for an unprincipled electoral coalition around Mélenchon, which could also include openly right-wing forces. LFI claims Mélenchon would pursue radical policies to build “a new governmental majority, that is, a political majority in the National Assembly.” It promises in its letter to “stabilise and further entrench the popular pole to make it available and a majority as soon as possible, especially for the next legislative elections.”

LFI says the People's Union wants to “build based on a programme, not party logos.” LFI does not limit its alliance with the parties to which it sent the letter. According to the letter, “This new stage will obviously be a coalition of parties and movements but also of personalities and associative and trade union figures. They will meet in a new parliament, like the parliament of the People’s Union, reconstituted for this election.”

Mélenchon clearly implies that he is open to alliances with the right. In a tweet on April 19 he wrote: “I don’t ask people what they were before, if they were right-wing or left-wing. I welcome all those who want to join us on the basis of a programme. All those who want to participate in the victory of the programme are welcome.”

A clear warning must be made on the so-called “popular bloc” Mélenchon is assembling. It is not a revolutionary, socialist, or working class movement, but an unprincipled petty-bourgeois bloc. He wants to work with parties and unions that for decades have helped close factories, cut jobs, and isolate and demoralise struggles against social austerity and police-state violence.

Mélenchon proposes to obtain various concessions under capitalism, rejecting the overthrow of capitalism and the struggle for socialism on a European and international scale. While he advances important social demands—raising the minimum wage to €1,400 monthly, freezing prices to fight inflation, and keeping the retirement age at 60—he calls to build alliances with parties that are in fact hostile to such demands. He thus aims to deceive the workers and block a struggle against the financial aristocracy.

The discredited parties with which Mélenchon wants to ally himself called to vote for Macron, denounced “yellow vests” protesting for social equality against Macron, and gave a blank cheque to policies of mass infection with the coronavirus. LFI voted for many parts of Macron’s Islamophobic “anti-separatist law.” Mélenchon himself repeatedly chanted, “We must not give a single vote to Mrs Le Pen,” after the first round, encouraging his supporters to vote Macron yesterday.

“Breaking the back” of Russia: US war aims emerge in Ukraine

Andre Damon


On Sunday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin traveled to Kiev, Ukraine to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in the highest-level US official visit to Ukraine’s capital city since the war broke out.

Their trip comes as, in the span of just ten days, US President Joe Biden announced that the US would send $1.6 billion in weapons to Ukraine, including aircraft, drones, artillery and armored vehicles.

Blinken and Austin went to Kiev to give Zelensky his marching orders. The US is calling the shots in the war, with Zelensky’s government serving as a puppet. Ukraine’s oligarchs have been bought off with billions of dollars to supply the Ukrainian people as cannon fodder in a conflict with Russia.

U.S. Army Lt. Gen. John Kolasheski, the Commanding General of V Corps, holds an operational overview as he speaks with reporters, Sunday, April 24, 2022, in Poland near the Ukraine border. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, Pool)

Fighting a “hot war on Ukrainian territory” has been a central goal of US imperialist planning since at least the 2014 Ukrainian coup, and likely as far back as the 2004 “Orange Revolution.” So vital were the US military preparations for this conflict that they led to what was only the third impeachment of a president in US history, over allegations that then President Donald Trump withheld weapons from Ukraine.

On February 24, the years-long buildup of Ukraine as a US/NATO fortress against Russia prompted Washington’s desired outcome—Russia’s invasion of the country—in what US strategists hoped would become “Russia’s Afghanistan,” which would “bleed” the country “white.”

Now, two months since the outbreak of the war, US officials are stating publicly what they previously admitted only in secret: The United States is the driving force in a war aimed at crippling and subjugating Russia and overthrowing its government, no matter the cost in Ukrainian lives.  

In an interview with CBS, former US Army Europe Commander Ben Hodges declared, “You know, we’re not just observers cheering for Ukraine here.” The United States, Hodges said, should declare, “We want to win.”

He continued, “that means all Russian forces back to pre-24 February … a long-term commitment to the full restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty—that means Crimea and Donbas—and then finally breaking the back of Russia’s ability to project power outside of Russia to threaten Georgia, to threaten Moldova, to threaten our Baltic allies.”

In other words, the goals of the United States must be not only to retake Crimea—territory that Russia claims as its own—but to destroy the fighting capacity of the Russian military. 

On Friday, the New York Times used the phrase “bring Russia to its knees” in an editorial, declaring, “Sanctions alone—at least any sanctions that European countries would be willing to now consider—will not bring Russia to its knees any time soon.”

The deliberate use of these phrases—“bring Russia to its knees” and “breaking the back” of Russia—expose the official narrative of the war presented for public consumption in the media, namely that it was an unprovoked onslaught by powerful Russia against poor and helpless Ukraine.

The clear implication of these statements is the expansion of the war inside Russian territory, potentially including the deployment of US forces either in Ukraine, on Russian territory, or both.

In a statement on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Senate Democrat Chris Coons, referred to by Politico as Biden’s “Shadow Secretary of State,” effectively doubled down on his demand for a discussion about sending US troops to Ukraine.

Coons was asked, “In some public remarks this week, you said the country needs to talk about when it might be willing to send troops to Ukraine.” To this, Coons replied, “Putin will only stop when we stop him.”

In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” US Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer was asked point blank: “Is the US policy objective right now for Ukraine to defeat Russia? Can you say that definitively?” Finer effectively answered yes. “Russia is more isolated in the world. Its economy is weaker… And our objective is going to be to continue that trend.”

This is not just a war that Washington wanted. It was a war that the United States provoked. The billions of dollars in arms funneled to Ukraine under the last three presidencies, Biden’s declaration that he does not recognize Russia’s “red lines,” the refusal to negotiate over Ukraine’s potential membership of NATO—all were calculated to provoke the present war.

Once the war broke out, the United States has done everything possible to cut off any diplomatic settlement. Along with goading US officials to openly declare the US policy to be the military defeat of Russia, the talk shows Sunday were dominated with condemnations of the efforts of the United Nations to broker a diplomatic settlement of the war.

US newscasters poured scorn upon efforts by UN Secretary-General António Guterres to find a peaceful settlement of the war by meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Asking a leading question, Kristen Welker of NBC demanded, “Does the UN Secretary General, is he authorized to speak on behalf of the Ukrainian government?”

Igor Zhovkva, deputy head of the office of Ukrainian President Zelensky, replied by condemning Guterres’s efforts. “This is not good idea to travel to Moscow. We did not understand his intention to travel to Moscow and to talk to President Putin.”

In order to drum up public support for the war, the US media is carrying out a campaign of incitement, accusing Russia of war crimes, massacres, and genocide, aimed at creating a hatred of Russians with increasingly racist overtones.

The liberal and pseudo-left apologists for US capitalism, including disoriented layers of academics, incapable of seeing anything in historical context, have been swept up in the militarist hysteria against Russia.

A warning must be made: The aims being pursued increasingly openly by the United States in the war inevitably involve the expansion of the conflict. There is nothing left of the fiction that the United States and NATO are not at war with Russia. In pursuit of regime change, the dismemberment of Russia, and the plundering of its vast resources, American imperialism is risking nuclear war.

New Zealand Labour government advances pro-union, anti-strike law

John Braddock


Under conditions of a rapidly developing global economic crisis, attacks on living standards and escalating class struggles, New Zealand’s Labour-led government has introduced into parliament new industrial legislation designed to boost the trade unions as the policemen of the working class.

So-called “Fair Pay Agreements” (FPAs) framework formed the cornerstone of Labour’s industrial policy during the 2017 election but is only now being brought forward. Labour was hampered during its first term due to opposition from then coalition partner, the right-wing populist NZ First. The bill finally passed its first reading on April 5 with Labour, the Greens and Maori Party in favour, and the opposition National and ACT parties against.

Nurses protesting outside parliament in June 2021 [WSWS Media]

The legislation will establish a tripartite system in which unions, employers and the state will decide what are “fair” minimum pay rates and conditions across an entire occupation or industry.

Labour claims that the FPA system will give power back to workers and improve pay and conditions by preventing employers from competing against each other by lowering wages. In reality, the legislation will establish a corporatist framework of employer-union-government wage setting while further curtailing the right to strike.

The law will entrench low pay across entire industries, enforced by draconian legislation and by the unions. These pro-capitalist organisations, which have worked for decades with business and governments to impose below-inflation deals, are being further empowered and integrated into the structures of the state.

At present, unions can only negotiate collective agreements covering their members at individual companies and, in some cases, across multiple employers. Under the new legislation, if a union persuades 10 percent or 1,000 members of a particular workforce (e.g., cleaners or fast food workers) to pursue a FPA, then the union can negotiate a nationwide FPA for that entire occupation. The reach of unions will be extended to potentially tens of thousands of workers who are not union members.

When workers are presented with a proposed FPA that suppresses their wages and conditions they will be banned from taking strike action against it: strikes will be illegal during FPA negotiations. This adds to draconian provisions in the Employment Relations Act, passed by the Helen Clark-led Labour-Alliance Party government in 2000 which already make strikes illegal except when collective agreements are being re-negotiated or for health and safety reasons.

Introducing the bill to parliament, Workplace Relations Minister Michael Wood said it would help “essential workers” such as supermarket workers, “who have done so much to get our country through Covid but have been left out in the cold by a ‘race to the bottom’ labour market.”

Wood, however, reassured the business elite by emphasising that “no strike action is allowed” while FPAs are being decided. He stressed that the measure would drive improved productivity through “collaboration, innovation, and investment.” Sectoral bargaining, he noted, is common in “many successful economies.” The central goal is to defend capitalism through mechanisms to lift the exploitation of the workers and expand profits.

The FPAs were designed by a working group led by former National Party Prime Minister Jim Bolger. As prime minister from 1990–97, Bolger deepened a sweeping assault on the working class, begun by his Labour predecessors, which sharply increased poverty and inequality.

While the opposition parties and organisations such as Business NZ view the FPAs as unnecessary and inflationary, Bolger, one of the more far-sighted representatives of the capitalist class, has voiced concerns about the historic decline of the unions, and therefore their reduced ability to control the working class.

Bolger told TVNZ’s Q+A last November that “obscene inequality” was pushing societies towards revolution. He declared that while National’s 1991 Employment Contracts Act (ECA) was essential to stop industrial action “debilitating the country,” union membership was now lower than is “healthy,” with unions “probably too small now to have the influence they should have.”

The ECA reduced legislative backing for the trade unions and resulted in a dramatic fall in multi-employer collective contracts and union membership. “Flexible” work practices were introduced, along with individual agreements, contracting, performance pay and the wholesale elimination of overtime and penalty rates. The onslaught was abetted by the union bureaucracy, then controlled by the Stalinist Socialist Unity Party, which suppressed widespread opposition and demands in the working class for a general strike.

The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (CTU) actively promotes the FPA legislation. CTU President Richard Wagstaff has re-iterated that strikes, which are at an all-time low, will not be revived under the FPAs. “There’s no prospect, zero prospect of industrial action from this,” he declared. Employers, Wagstaff told the Dominion Post in 2018, “can plan to increase their productivity over the medium and long term.”

A key role is being played by pseudo-left organisations. The Unite Union, co-founded by former Socialist Action League leader Mike Treen and linked to the Socialist Aotearoa group, is promoting a CTU “Speak Up Sunday” event on May 1, to “drive home just how important FPAs are.” Unite is encouraging its members to make submissions to the parliamentary select committee and to distribute “a short video selfie to show your support.”

The unions, which are deeply discredited after decades of pro-company betrayals, are being brought forward to enforce the sweeping assault on living standards. This month the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) lifted the official cash rate by 50 basis points to 1.5 percent, the biggest hike since May 2000. The RBNZ warned that “inflation is above target and employment is above its maximum sustainable level.”

ANZ Bank economist Sharon Zollner described the “wall of inflation” as “completely unyielding,” and said the RBNZ cannot afford a “softly-softly approach.” Inflation is at a 30-year high at 6.9 percent and forecast to hit 7.5 percent by mid-year. Fixed mortgage rates are likely to top 6 percent in coming months. The New Zealand Herald declared the labour market has gone “from sizzling to red hot,” indicating nervousness in ruling circles over a looming wage push by health sector workers, teachers and others.

Policies pursued internationally by governments of all stripes, particularly since the 2008 financial crash, have seen the printing of trillions of dollars to bail out the rich. These developments have been exacerbated by the COVID pandemic and the US-NATO proxy war against Russia. The ruling class is determined to make the working class pay for the bailouts and escalating costs of war.

In response, an explosive growth of the class struggle is erupting internationally, involving a direct confrontation between radicalised workers against the state and corporatist unions. In New Zealand, 10,000 NZ allied health workers have voted for renewed strike action after a previous strike was called off by the Public Service Association when the Employment Court ruled it illegal.

In Australia, tens of thousands of nurses across New South Wales walked off the job for a second time this month over chronic understaffing and unsafe conditions, made worse by COVID. The striking nurses defied the NSW Industrial Relations Commission which banned the industrial action.

Macron re-elected French president against neo-fascist Marine Le Pen

Kumaran Ira & Alex Lantier


Last night, French President Emmanuel Macron was re-elected with an estimated 58.2 percent of the vote, with 41.8 percent of the vote going to neo-fascist candidate Marine Le Pen.

The race between France’s widely-despised “president of the rich” and its leading neo-fascist provoked disgust and disillusionment among broad layers of workers. Abstention was the highest recorded since the 1969 elections, when the then-massive Stalinist French Communist Party (PCF) called for a boycott. Nearly three million people cast blank or spoiled votes. Including those who did not vote, 16 million voters, or one-third of the electorate, did not vote for either candidate.

The election between the two widely despised candidates fueled demonstrations throughout the country Sunday, with riot police charging demonstrators and spraying tear gas in central Paris. Police killed two people in Paris, opening fire on their vehicle, claiming that it failed to stop at a checkpoint.

Despite Le Pen’s defeat, it was the largest vote in history for the French far right, which obtained eight percentage points more than in Le Pen’s last run-off against Macron in 2017. Le Pen carried outright the overseas territories of Guadeloupe (70 percent of the vote), Guyana (61 percent) and Martinique (61 percent). If Macron’s own legitimization of far-right politics and his violently anti-worker policies drive a similar rise in the far right vote in his second term, Le Pen would be poised to take power in 2027.

Le Pen conceded the election shortly after the voting projections were announced at 8:00 p.m. yesterday evening, declaring her vote to be “a striking victory.” She said, “Despite two weeks of unfair, brutal and violent methods, the ideas we represent are reaching new heights.”

Le Pen demagogically postured as the defender of masses of people whose living standards she predicted would collapse during Macron’s second term. “The French people made clear tonight their desire for a strong opposition to Emmanuel Macron,” she claimed and said that she would oppose “the disintegration of their purchasing power, attacks on individual liberties … and Emmanuel Macron’s increase in the retirement age, delinquency, anarchic immigration and a lax judicial system.” She pledged to “continue serving France and the French” in future elections.

Shortly after Le Pen spoke, rival far-right presidential candidate Eric Zemmour—a journalist who promotes the memory of the Nazi collaborationist Vichy regime and has been convicted of inciting racial and religious hatreds—called for the unity of the far right in upcoming legislative elections. The elections will take place on June 12 and 19 of this year.

Macron appeared somewhat later yesterday evening and gave a short, perfunctory victory speech to a crowd of a few thousand supporters, mainly high-ranking state officials and journalists, in front of the Eiffel Tower. He claimed that by voting for him, France had “chosen a humanist program that is ambitious for the independence of our country and of Europe.”

Having pledged to increase the retirement age three years to 65, introduce US-style university tuition fees and force welfare benefit recipients to work, he referred to his policies of war and austerity. Macron pledged to carry out the “liberation of our academic, cultural and entrepreneurial forces.” He said that “the war in Ukraine is there to remind us that we are living through tragic times” and asked his supporters to be “benevolent and respectful” towards far-right voters.

Nonetheless, after admitting that “our country is riven by so many doubts and so many divisions,” he cynically claimed he would re-invent himself to build a “new era” in his second term. “This new era will not be in the continuity of the term in office that is ending but the collective invention of a new method to create five better years in the service of our country and of our youth,” he said, pledging, “No one will be left behind.”

This pack of lies from Macron is an insult to the intelligence of the public. It is apparent that his draconian social cuts aim to massively increase inequality and that his call to be “benevolent and respectful” to the far right is a pledge to continue with the anti-Muslim agenda laid out by his “anti-separatist law” and mass closures of mosques. Faced with ever intensifying class tensions for which it has no progressive solutions, the French ruling class is moving towards dictatorial forms of rule, whether under Macron or Le Pen.

Tens of millions of workers and youth who suffered badly under his first term view Macron’s re-election as a disaster. He carried out violent police repression of “yellow vest” protests and rail strikes against austerity. On the pandemic, he placed profits before lives, championed a policy of “living with the virus” that led to 145,000 deaths in the country and 1.8 million in Europe, while boosting the wealth of French billionaires by over 40 percent. He aligned France on NATO’s stoking of a conflict with Russia in Ukraine that threatens to provoke world war in Europe.

As inflation stoked by massive cash handouts to the super-rich and NATO sanctions against Russia devastates workers’ living standards in France and internationally, the stage is being set for an explosive confrontation between the Macron government and the working class.

Indeed, the first statements of support for Macron came primarily from fellow European imperialist politicians who see his re-election as guaranteeing that France will continue to work closely with the European Union (EU) to militarize Europe and threaten Russia. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen tweeted her “congratulations” to Macron on his re-election, adding: “I am glad to be able to continue our excellent cooperation.”

Somewhat more frankly, EU Foreign Policy chief Josep Borrell told Spain’s El Confidencial that the French people’s support for mild criticisms of NATO’s war on Russia in Ukraine made by Le Pen and populist candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon had terrified NATO. “Half the population politically supports either leaving the alliance, like Jean-Luc Mélenchon, or the NATO military command, like Le Pen, which means the same thing. The French population has shown it is in a very worrying place in terms of its comprehension of the world.”

As NATO military and diplomatic officials watched the elections, El Confidencial wrote, there was “only bated breath and hidden tension. The French elections turned into a security issue.”

If Washington and the European NATO powers viewed the French elections as a military question, it is not because of the statements of Mélenchon or Le Pen. Both have made clear that they will adapt to the NATO war targeting Russia. Le Pen endorsed Macron’s policy on Russia in last Wednesday’s televised debate, and Mélenchon has signaled his willingness to serve under either Macron or Le Pen as prime minister, a position that would give him no influence over foreign policy.

Indeed, Mélenchon, who was the undeserving beneficiary of a massive left-wing protest vote of 22 percent of the electorate on the first round, briefly appeared on the BFM-TV news channel last night to again stress his availability to serve as Macron’s prime minister.

23 Apr 2022

US Supreme Court upholds exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from supplemental income benefit

Barry Grey


On Thursday, the US Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of Puerto Rico’s 3.2 million residents from the federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) safety net program, which provides a monthly cash lifeline to children and people over 65 who are blind or disabled and have very low income.

In this Oct. 18, 2021 photo, the Supreme Court is seen in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

All but one of the court’s nine justices supported the opinion authored by Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of three Trump appointees and part of the hard-right, five-justice majority. Two of the three Democratic-appointed justices—Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer—signed onto the ruling. The only dissent came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose parents were born in the Caribbean colony seized by the United States in the 1898 Spanish American War.

The ruling is a vicious assertion of the prerogatives of US imperialism in the service of Wall Street banks and hedge fund speculators who hold tens of billions in Puerto Rican government debt. It reflects the American ruling class’ contempt for the impoverished population, whose workers and youth rose up in mass protests three years ago that toppled the Democratic Party-aligned governor.

The Biden administration supported the opinion. Its Justice Department joined the appeal originally lodged by the Trump administration of lower court rulings overturning the exclusion of SSI benefits for residents of the island. Under a 1952 law passed following the brutal suppression of a nationalist revolt, Washington granted residents of the colonial territory citizenship, but without voting representation in Congress or the right to vote in presidential elections.

The 1972 law that established the SSI program limited eligibility to US citizens in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Northern Mariana Islands, while excluding citizens residing in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and Guam.

The case, United States v. Vaello Madero, was brought by Jose Luis Vaello-Madero, who was born in Puerto Rico but lived in New York from 1985 to 2013. In 2012, he suffered a stroke and was found eligible for SSI disability benefits, which were deposited directly into his checking account.

In 2013 he moved back to Puerto Rico and continued to receive the monthly payments. When the Social Security Administration became aware that Vaello-Madero was no longer residing in one of the 50 US states, it cut off his benefits and ordered him to pay back $28,081.

Vaello-Madero sued, arguing that the exclusions violated the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal treatment. In the spring of 2020, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, based in Boston, unanimously ruled for Vaello-Madero, declaring the that 1972 law’s exclusion of US citizens who reside in territories violated the Fifth Amendment and did not pass muster as serving a “rational” purpose.

In his ruling, Kavanaugh argued that Congress had “substantial discretion” about how to structure federal tax and benefit programs for the territories. He noted that residents of Puerto Rico are exempt from the federal income tax, though they do pay other federal taxes such as Social Security, Medicare and unemployment taxes. He implied that denying SSI benefits to indigent, blind or disabled seniors on the island was a “fair” tradeoff for not paying income taxes.

Puerto Rico has its own separate aid program for the same categories of people, but its pitiful average monthly payment of $75 is far less than the already inadequate average SSI payment on the US mainland of $590.

Biden’s deputy solicitor general, Curtis Gannon, offered essentially the same argument as Kavanaugh in his oral argument before the court, saying, “It’s always appropriate for Congress to take account of the general balance of benefits and burdens associated with a particular federal program.”

The Biden administration, in a transparent attempt to provide political cover for itself, has called on Congress to amend the 1972 law so as to include Puerto Rico and the other territories. It knows full well, of course, that no such provision will be passed.

In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote: “In my view, there is no rational basis for Congress to treat needy citizens living anywhere in the United States so differently from others. To hold otherwise, as the Court does, is irrational and antithetical to the very nature of the SSI program and the equal protection of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution.”

She noted that the US Government Accountability Office estimates that over 300,000 Puerto Rico residents would have qualified for the SSI benefit—a staggering 10 percent of the island’s population. She also pointed out that those receiving SSI benefits pay few if any taxes at all.

Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said the ruling was “a big deal both for what it holds and for what it opens the door to.”

“The core holding,” he noted, “is that Congress is allowed to withhold certain federal benefits from Americans who live in territories like Puerto Rico so long as it has any rational basis for doing so, and that no special justification is required. That makes it far easier for Congress, a body in which the territories are not represented, to treat residents of those territories differently with those who live in the states—not just for Supplemental Security Income, but for all federal benefit programs, like Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements funded at least in part by taxes paid by those living in those territories.”

The legacy of 124 years of colonial-style plundering of Puerto Rico by US imperialism is mass poverty, indebtedness, high unemployment and a shrinking and increasingly elderly population. According to US government figures, median household income on the island is $21,058, per capita income is $13,318, and the share of the population that lives in poverty is 43.4 percent.

Fifty-seven percent of children are in poverty and one third of adults report food insecurity.

In September of 2017, Puerto Rico was devastated by Hurricane Maria, which destroyed its already crumbling social infrastructure, including the electrical grid. Virtually the entire island was without electrical power for weeks on end, crops were destroyed, clean water and food were in short supply, untold hundreds of people who depended on oxygen tanks or dialysis died. Damage was estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Trump called his administration’s response to the catastrophe “amazing” and boasted that only 19 people had died—an obvious cover-up and lie. More realistic estimates put the death toll at more than 5,000.

The mayor of the capital, San Juan, called the impact of the storm, compounded by decades of debt payments to the banks and austerity policies, “something close to a genocide.”

One week after the hurricane struck, Trump took his first public notice of the disaster. He noted that “much of the island was destroyed,” but immediately added that the “billions of dollars… owed to Wall Street and the banks” had to be repaid.

And indeed, even as much of the territory’s infrastructure continued to rot in disrepair—with only a trickle of federal aid coming from Washington—the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (FOMBPR) established in 2016 under Obama developed its plan to place the full burden of debt repayment to the banks on the working class.

The mass protests that brought down Governor Ricardo Roselló in 2019 filled the ruling class with alarm, above all that the social unrest would spread to the mainland. Teachers had already struck in opposition to both the politicians and the unions in the US, part of a global wave of working class strikes and protests. But lacking a revolutionary and internationalist perspective and leadership, the revolt succeeded only in replacing one stooge of Wall Street and the Puerto Rican bourgeoisie with another.

Now the stage is set for new struggles, with social anger intensified by the pandemic and the “let it rip” response of the ruling elite.

In January of this year, a federal judge imposed the Puerto Rican debt restructuring plan proposed by the Financial Oversight Board over protests led by teachers, government employees, students and retirees. The plan guts workers’ retirement plans, replacing defined benefit pensions with 401K plans. The banker’s dictatorship, in the form of the Financial Oversight Board, is to remain in control until four years have passed with the government budget in balance, i.e., indefinitely.

Sri Lankan big business demands a “bipartisan national government”

K. Ratnayake


The crisis of the Sri Lankan government has deepened as big business this week demanded immediate measures to end the country’s economic, social and political turmoil, including the formation of national unity government.

State sector workers demonstrate in Colombo on April 20, 2022. (Photo: WSWS Media)

The corporate and financial elite are fearful of the revolutionary implications of the mass protest movement that has convulsed the country as major sections of the working class show signs of taking up the demand for the resignation of President Gotabhaya Rajapakse and his government. The brutal police shooting of unarmed protesters in Rambukkana on Tuesday that killed a poor workingman has further enraged the masses.

On Wednesday, all big-business lobbies, including the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Sri Lanka, wrote to the president requesting he immediately initiate legislative action to repeal the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, saying it “contributed to the present situation.”

The 20th amendment enacted in October 2020 reinstated all of the sweeping draconian powers of the executive presidency and, among other things, transformed the parliament into nothing more than a rubber stamp.

The big-business chambers expressed the fear “that the current political deadlock coupled with growing public unrest could potentially derail the actions being taken to resolve the serious economic crisis” of the country. Repealing the 20th amendment had to be combined with a “consensual approach.” 

The letter stated: “We recommend that a bi-partisan national government is established… to come out the current economic crisis” and “resolve the issues relating to fuel, electricity, gas and other critical elements of the supply chain.”

Sri Lanka’s major conglomerates Brandix, MAS, Hemas, Dialog, Dilmah, John Keels yesterday wrote separately to the president calling for “swift changes to [establish a] good governing system.”

The direct unprecedented intervention of big business is not because it has an iota of concern for the plight of working people. The corporate and financial elite amassed huge profits during the COVID-19 pandemic while insisting on a policy of herd immunity that allowed the virus to ravage the island.

Port workers marching in Colombo Fort on 20 April, 2022. (Photo: WSWS Media)

The ruling class fears that, unless the protests are brought rapidly to an end, a far broader political movement will erupt once talks currently underway with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a bailout package conclude, revealing the extent of the austerity measures required.

In talks with Sri Lanka, the IMF has required “adequate assurances” that the country’s debts can be put on a sustainable path. This means deep cuts into government expenditure, increased taxes and the extensive restructuring of state-owned enterprises among other things.

Rajapakse knows such measures cannot be implemented peacefully. Both the president and his brother, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse, have blamed protesters for the police shooting on Tuesday in Rambukkana. Yesterday the president yesterday renewed his order for the military to maintain law and order in 25 of the country’s districts.

However, the ongoing mass protests against the Rajapakse regime have continued for more than two weeks, driven by rampant inflation, shortages of food, medicines and other essentials, such as fuel and electricity and are growing.

Workers have participated in the protests as individuals. However, they are now pressing for industrial action for wage hikes and other measures to alleviate the social catastrophe they are confronting.

Bank workers' demonstration on April 20, 2022. (Photo: WSWS Media)

To deflect the groundswell of opposition, the trade unions have been forced to call limited protests and strikes.

On Tuesday, tens of thousands of workers took part in protest demonstrations in Colombo and other major cities. They demanded an immediate wage increase, an end to shortages and a reduction of prices, and branded the IMF talks as a trap.

About 1,500 workers, including teachers, health, port, electricity, telecom and postal employees, demonstrated outside the Fort railway station. On the same day, teachers at all universities went on strike and thousands marched in Colombo opposing the government.

On Thursday, about 150 plantation workers at the Gartmore Estate held a demonstration and marched to nearby Maskeliya town. They chanted slogans against the police shooting in Rambukkana and the huge price hikes. The previous day, Maskeliya Alton Estate workers held a similar demonstration while yesterday Agarapatana workers took protest action.

On April 25, public school teachers will engage in one-day sick leave strike, opposing unbearable skyrocketing price of fuel and shortages. The same unions that organised Tuesday’s large protests have announced a one-day general strike to be held on April 28 that will involve up to one million workers.

Far from seeking to build the opposition movement against the government, the trade unions are seeking to contain the anger of workers. The unions that called the latest protests have betrayed every struggle that has erupted over the past year, enabling the government to impose the burden of the worsening economic crisis on workers and the poor.

Gartmore Estate workers march on April 20, 2022. (Photo: WSWS Media)

Having lost the confidence of big business, the ruling coalition is falling into further disarray. Yesterday, the newly-appointed media minister, Nalaka Godahewa, offered his resignation and called for an interim government. President Rajapakse refused to accept the resignation.

Thirteen of the ruling party’s parliamentarians met this week with the president and called for an interim government under a new prime minister. In a meeting of government MPs, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse, the president’s brother insisted that the present government would continue and try to find solutions to the economic crisis.

The opposition parties—the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) and Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)—are also desperate to bring the mass protest movement under control. In a bid to tap into the popular opposition, SJB leader Sajith Premadasa submitted proposals on Thursday to the parliamentary speaker to abolish the executive presidency. However, his deputy, former army commander, Sarath Fonseka, told the media that abolishing executive presidency would solve nothing.

The JVP completed its three-day march to Colombo that involved thousands. JVP speakers addressed the crowd, demanding Rajapakse government go, but did not explain what the party proposed next. Over the past month, the JVP has been campaigning for an “interim government” and new elections. Any government involving the SJB and JVP would, like the current one, impose the IMF’s austerity agenda on working people.

22 Apr 2022

UK National Health Service abandons social distancing and other COVID restrictions

Robert Stevens


There is scarcely a single COVID restriction left in Britain, as the Johnson government ruthlessly implements its “Living with COVID” policy.

On Tuesday, the National Health Service (NHS) was told by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) to “return to pre-pandemic physical distancing in all areas”. This occurred less than two months after Johnson addressed parliament on his “strategy for living with COVID.” With that February 21 speech Johnson ended almost all remaining restrictions in non-NHS settings, including the ending on February 24 of the legal requirement to self-isolate after a positive test, routine contact tracing and self-isolation support payments.

This allowed the virus to spread unhindered for the next two months. The clearest indication of the government’s herd immunity agenda was the announcement this week that the deadly disease would now be allowed to spread through the NHS. Simply put, if there are no restrictions in the NHS there can be none anywhere else.

A patient is pushed on a trolley outside the Royal London Hospital in east London, January 12, 2021, during England's third national lockdown since the coronavirus outbreak began. (AP Photo/Matt Dunham)

The NHS was issued by the UKHSA with new “stepping down” rules applying to “all areas”, including emergency departments and other hospital settings, ambulances, patient transport services and GP surgeries.

In an April 19 letter to health service leaders, NHS England declared, “With the pressure from COVID-19 continuing, we are setting out a way forward on a number of areas where guidance has evolved throughout the pandemic; adapting the way that the NHS operates with COVID-19 in general circulation and with the virus likely to remain endemic for some time to come [emphasis added].”

The new rules will ensure that hundreds of thousands will get COVID, as patients in waiting rooms surgeries, emergency departments and even ambulance services in England are no longer required to socially distance. Patients with COVID symptoms will still be isolated from other patients, but NHS England now advises, “Virus patients can be released from isolation wards after a week, if they produce two negative lateral flow tests on days six and seven.” However, any inpatient exposed to the virus from other patients, or from family, but without symptoms, will not have to isolate at all.

NHS England also instructed a return “to pre-pandemic cleaning protocols outside of COVID-19 areas, with enhanced cleaning only required in areas where patients with suspected or known infection are being managed.”

This criminal set-up was announced on the same day as almost 18,000 people were in hospital with COVID. According to Chris Hopson, the chief executive of NHS Providers representing hospital trusts, 70,000 NHS staff are currently off sick, a staggering 40 percent of them with COVID-19. While Hopson has opposed bringing back all restrictions, saying “Nobody is arguing we should go back to draconian lockdown restrictions,” he warned, “but this is not all or nothing.”

He continued, “There is concern across the NHS that the government doesn’t seem to want to talk about coronavirus anymore. But we think we need a proper grown-up national debate about what living with COVID actually means.” Hopson said the government was pretending that the virus “doesn’t exist anymore and that nobody needs to take any precautions” and this was one of the main reasons why the virus remained widespread in the population.

Since the end of all major public health measures outside the NHS on February 24, over 3 million more people have registered positive tests, taking total recorded infections to almost 22 million. This is under conditions in which there is no longer any universal free testing.

According to the Office for National Statistics, there were 15,861 deaths in Britain from COVID in the 14 weeks from January 1 to April 8. But the figures in the two weeks since have been even more brutal. In the week to April 14, the UK saw almost 2,000 deaths and well over 1,500 deaths have been recorded in just the last three days (Tuesday, 482; Wednesday, 508; Thursday, 646). It is likely that Friday’s figures will mean another 2,000 dead in a week.

Such figures spread out annually would mean 100,000 plus deaths a year. At least 172,000 people are already dead from COVID in Britain, according to the government’s own manipulated figure tallying those who die within 28 days of a positive test. The real figure is above 192,000, as defined by the Office for National Statistics counting instances of COVID being recorded as a cause on a death certificate, and will shortly hit 200,000.

The absence of any systematic testing means there can no longer be any accurate daily figure for the number of COVID infections. This accounts for the 19,482 new positive tests recorded by the UKHSA on Thursday, an absurdly low figure when compared to a surging death toll under conditions in which Omicron and its variants are not as deadly as previous variants, particularly in vaccinated populations.

Another clear indication of the state-sanctioned cover-up of the scale of COVID is that thousands of care home residents continue to die from the disease, despite some restrictions still being in place in these settings. In the 15 weeks from January to April 14 this year, 3,242 care home residents died in England from the disease (2,372 in homes, 826 in hospitals and 44 elsewhere). According to an April 18 article on the Leicestershire Live website, information not available on any national news source, there are “Covid outbreaks in a quarter of the 18,000 care homes across the UK.”

Recent figures on infections and deaths cover the two-week period of the Easter school holiday from April 4-18. At every other stage of the pandemic, children and educators returning to the classroom has sent COVID case numbers rocketing. Last term, on a single day—March 17—the Department for Education recorded over 200,000 pupils off school for reasons relating to COVID. Some 202,000 state school pupils in England were not in class, and nearly one in 10 teachers were off due to COVID.

Among Thursday’s fatalities were the tragic deaths of another three children; two boys aged 0-4 and a boy aged 15-19. Child deaths from COVID stand at 174.

On Wednesday Safe Education for All campaigner Lisa Diaz, a parent of two from Wigan, tweeted a photo of a 10-year-old child in hospital, explaining, “This is my friend @cocobelladoodle’s daughter. She is 10 years old. After protecting her little girl for 2 years, omicron has finally got her. She is now in hospital with PIMS [Paediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome], on an intravenous drip and faces multiple organ damage.”

The horrific impact of COVID on the human body only appears to worsen.

Twitter user @HRHMHowler, a critical care nurse, posted Sunday a tweet with over 11,000 shares and nearly 48,000 likes including the following harrowing observation: “Last night, we palliated a COVID patient in his 30s. All treatment has failed. We held his hand as we gave him morphine for the pain from the pieces of lung he was coughing up. No family. No friends. Just us. It’s real. Not talking about vaccination - talking about reality.” A subsequent tweet in the thread from the nurse read, “Our patient is dying. Not dead yet. He has no family or close friends. It’s our job to be there for him. For those who have tweeted love - thank you.”

None of this finds any reflection among Britain’s compliant media. The fact that over 500 people died from COVID in one day this week was hardly mentioned. It was afforded one sentence on the BBC website under the subhead, “Daily deaths remain low”. Many twitter users responded with anger that the BBC devoted an analysis to three deaths reported in the Chinese city of Shanghai, while passing over hundreds of deaths in Britain as not worthy of any coverage.