Fascist terror and military hostility set tone for Lula’s inauguration in Brazil

Tomas Castanheira

The inauguration of Brazil’s president-elect Luís Inácio Lula da Silva of the Workers Party (PT), set for January 1, is being prepared under the shadow of fascistic conspiracies in the country.

The growing threats of far-right violence have been made explicit in the last week with the exposure of a terrorist plot by supporters of current fascistic President Jair Bolsonaro, who has yet to admit losing the election to Lula. The stated goal of the planned actions was to prevent the transfer power to the elected government and pave the way for an authoritarian coup.

Military parade on the commemoration of Brazil’s independence, September 7, 2022. [Photo: Alan Santos/PR]

On Christmas Eve, the 54-year-old fascist George Washington de Oliveira Sousa was arrested in Brasilia after a failed bomb attack at the Brazilian capital’s airport.

Sousa confessed to having armed the explosive, which he said was planted by another man, Alan Diego Rodrigues, in a tanker truck that was heading to Brasilia International Airport (BSB) loaded with jet fuel. The bomb was removed in the vicinity of the airport by the truck driver, who identified the strange object and called the police. The survey by the Civil Police of the Federal District (PCDF) concluded that the bomb was set off but failed due to “a micro technical detail in the detonator.”

In his statement to the authorities, Sousa revealed having planned this and other actions, such as blowing up a power substation in the capital, together with other fascist supporters of Bolsonaro. He stated that their goal was to “start the chaos” that would “lead to the intervention of the armed forces and the decree of a state of siege to prevent the establishment of communism in Brazil.”

The pro-Bolsonaro activist identified himself as a gas station manager and former paratrooper (supposedly in the Brazilian army). He was arrested in a rented property in Brasilia, more than 700 miles away from his residence in the state of Pará.

Sousa, inspired by “the words of President Bolsonaro,” traveled to the capital on November 12 carrying “two 12-gauge shotguns, two .357 caliber revolvers ... a .308 caliber Springfield rifle, more than a thousand rounds of ammunition of various calibers, and five sticks of dynamite,” said the police report. He claims to have invested 160,000 reais (US$32,000) in his arsenal, equivalent to about three years of his declared income.

Sousa declared that the purpose of his trip to Brasilia was “to participate in the protests that were taking place in front of the Army’s headquarters and wait for the sign for the Armed Forces to take up arms and overthrow communism.” He said he planned to distribute part of his weapons and ammunition to other participants in this fascist mob.

This ultra-right armed movement, although it seeks to present itself as an individual and spontaneous initiative, has directly traceable connections to Bolsonaro and his entourage and to the higher echelons of the military and the police.

Over the past two months, the fascist encampment in Brasilia in which Sousa took part has been the focus of a series of actions coordinated by Bolsonaro’s allies to challenge the outcome of the Brazilian election. The idea that individuals like Sousa are independent political actors is immediately refuted by the records of these actions.

On November 30, Sousa and Alan Diego Rodrigues, his currently fugitive accomplice, attended a Senate hearing organized by politicians linked to the fascistic president as a platform to promote their conspiratorial narrative of electoral fraud and openly advocate a military coup.

George Washington Sousa (marked in red, on the left) and Alan Diego Rodrigues (marked red, on the right) attend Brazilian Senate's audition on November 30, 2022. [Photo: Tv Senado]

On social media, Rodrigues displays personal photos alongside the politicians who organized this action in the Senate, such as congressmen Zé Trovão, from Bolsonaro’s Liberal Party (PL), and Daniel Silveira from the ultra-right Brazilian Labor Party (PTB), who was given amnesty by the fascistic president after being convicted of agitating for a coup d’état.

On the eve of the Senate hearing, on November 24, Congresswoman Carla Zambelli (PL), one of Bolsonaro’s main allies, visited the fascist camp at the gates of the Army’s headquarters along with her husband, Col. Aginaldo de Oliveira, the head of the National Public Security Force until March of this year.

Speaking to the crowd, Zambelli, who is also charged with political violence during the October election, claimed she was organizing “an action in the Senate that will shake the structures of the Senate.” She added: “Count on us. While you are here, know that you have people working sometimes behind the scenes ... and I won’t rest for a second until we achieve our freedom.”

On December 12, two weeks before the action that led to Sousa’s arrest, the members of this fascist encampment staged violent protests in Brasilia against the event officially confirming Lula’s victory. Facing virtually no police intervention, the small group of far-right protesters attacked buildings and set fire to more than a dozen cars and buses across the capital. Videos show Rodrigues present at different moments of the day, sometimes walking among police officers, sometimes on barricades or next to burning vehicles.

The violent actions enacted by these fascist foot soldiers, both on December 12 and 24, can be directly linked to the political orientation provided by Bolsonaro in previous days.

In his first extensive political speech since his electoral defeat on October 30, Bolsonaro addressed his supporters in Brasilia (likely Rodrigues and Sousa among them) just three days before the official confirmation of Lula’s victory. His speech instigated and gave legitimacy to the fascist violence carried out in the days afterward. Bolsonaro said:

“I am sure that, among my functions guaranteed by the Constitution, is being the supreme chief of the Armed Forces. ... I have always said, throughout these four years, that the Armed Forces are the last obstacle to socialism. The Armed Forces, be sure, stand united.”

He added: “Today we are living a crucial moment, at a crossroads, a destiny that the people have to take. It is you who decide my future and where I go. You are the ones who decide where the Armed Forces go. Who decides where the Congress, the Senate go, are you too.”

Bolsonaro’s silence after the violent acts committed by his supporters, as on previous occasions, is an indisputable sign of approval.

The Armed Forces, to which both the president and his fascist supporters appeal, have also remained silent on these events. That silence is even more ominous in face of an extraordinary statement given by the Armed Forces Command about the fascist demonstrations demanding a military coup. On November 11, the commanders issued an official note characterizing this movement as “popular demonstrations” and affirming the military’s “unshakable commitment to the Brazilian people” and its historical role as a “moderating power.”

The exacerbation of political tensions in recent days led Lula’s team to make unprecedented preparations and agreements for Sunday’s ceremony.

The team has demanded the closure of the Esplanade of Ministries starting Friday for bomb screening, the employment of the National Public Security Force and the mobilization of 8,000 security agents for Inauguration Day. It is still under discussion whether Lula will ride to the ceremony in a convertible car, as is customary in Brazil, or in a bullet-proof vehicle.

The changes in protocol were motivated not only by fears of individual actions of terrorism, but of the direct participation of state agencies and the military in a possible coup in Brasilia.

Lula’s team decided to take his personal security out of the hands of the Cabinet of Institutional Security (GSI) and to drastically reduce the GSI’s traditional participation in the inauguration ceremony. The GSI is currently commanded by Gen. Augusto Heleno, who recently lamented in public the fact that the president-elect, Lula, “is not sick ... unfortunately.”

In another extraordinary decision, the defense minister pointed by Lula, José Múcio Monteiro, negotiated the moving up of the change of command of the Navy and Army, traditionally held after the presidential inauguration. The action was a preemptive maneuver aimed against the growing threats of insubordination by the military chiefs toward the new government.

The possibility of accelerating the change of command initially emerged as a threat to the elected government by the military chiefs themselves. Lula’s choice of the generals’ favorite, Múcio, for the Defense ministry, praised in the press as a gesture of subordination of the PT government to the military, had supposedly made the proposal recede.

However, the decision, taken hastily on Monday amid rumors that the Navy’s commander Almir Garnier was inclined to resign his post, made it clear that the PT government’s crisis with the military is far from resolved.

The attitude Bolsonaro will take on Inauguration Day remains unknown. The media has announced that, according to his allies, the president will not attend the ceremony, breaking the basic protocols of Brazilian democracy and manifesting his persistent challenge to the election result.

Instead of attending the event, there are reports that the fascistic Brazilian president intends to travel later this week to Florida, where he would spend the next few days at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago complex. The links between Bolsonaro’s coup plots in Brazil and Trump’s allies, who promoted the attempted coup at Washington’s Capitol on January 6, 2021, have long been established.

Bolsonaro has only stated in an interview with CNN that the reports that he would hold a farewell meeting of his government in Brasilia and then embark to Florida were “fake news.”

France whitewashes December 23 assassination of Kurdish nationalists in Paris

Samuel Tissot

Just before 11 a.m. on December 23, a man identified by police only as William M. shot dead three Kurds and injured five more on d’Enghien street in central Paris. The attack began outside the Ahmet Kaya Kurdish cultural center, before the gunman moved into a hair salon and a restaurant nearby.

Fire brigade medics evacuating on a stretcher a wounded demonstrator during a protest against the recent shooting at the Kurdish culture center in Paris, Saturday, December 24, 2022. [AP Photo/Lewis Joly]

Those killed in the attack were Emine Kara, Mîr Perwer and Abdurrahman Kızıl. All three were well known Kurdish activists. Kara, age 48, was a longtime member of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and of the Kurdish Women’s Movement of France. She fought in northern Syria between 2014 and 2018 before being wounded in the battle of Raqqa, which led her to move to Europe for surgery.

Perwer was a 29-year-old Kurdish singer from Eastern Anatolia who was arrested in Turkey in 2015 and served several years in prison. He fled Turkey in 2021, just before being sentenced to 28 years in prison for being a PKK member. Kızıl was a pensioner who had been a “lifelong activist for the Kurdish cause,” according to the Kurdish Democratic Center of France.

The shooting took place almost exactly 10 years after the murder of three other PKK activists in Paris, including PKK co-founder Sakine Cansız, in January 2013.

Hours after Friday’s attack, French Interior Minister, Gérald Darmanin denied that the attacker targeted Kurds, stating it was “not certain [that] the gunman was specifically targeting the Kurdish community,” but more likely “foreigners in general.” French police have denied any links between the attacker and far-right movements in France or internationally. Official accounts present the gunman as an isolated racist lunatic with an unexplained hatred of foreigners who repeatedly slipped through the fingers of police.

The individual workings of the mind of a racist murder do not suffice, however, to identify the political causes of such a mass killing. The PKK is engaged not only in an ongoing conflict with the Turkish state, but in the Kurdish nationalists’ collaboration with US and NATO imperialism in the proxy war in Syria. These wars, and the relentless stoking of xenophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment by the French political establishment, are what created the conditions for the attack to go ahead.

The perpetrator, William M., was well-known to police and had just been released from pretrial detention after a botched attack against refugees just one year ago. On December 8, 2021, he attacked a refugee encampment in Paris’s Bercy Park, wielding a sword and shouting “death to migrants.” Before being restrained by four adult refugees, he slashed a minor and an adult, who both survived. Due to his injuries, however, the adult victim has been unable to work since the attack.

Despite a clear racist motivation for the 2021 attack, William M. was not charged with any terror offense. He was only charged for violence with a weapon, which can carry up to 10 years in prison. He was released on December 12, without having been put on trial.

In the 11 days between his release and the attack, William M. was allowed to acquire the gun used in Friday’s attack. French police have so far provided no information on how and where he acquired a firearm, the trading of which is heavily regulated in France.

French authorities appear determined to prevent the details of how William M. came to commit this murder from ever becoming known to the public. In a preliminary hearing on December 27, William M. was offered a closed-door trial on account of his fragile mental health. His lawyers accepted.

French prosecutors said that after being taken into custody, William M. declared that his own hatred of foreigners was “totally pathological,” and that he aimed to kill as many “non-Europeans” as possible.

This only raises the question, however, of what forces created a political atmosphere in which a pathological hatred of foreigners and people of Middle Eastern origins could flourish. Indeed, while French President Emmanuel Macron denounced the “heinous attack on the heart of Paris,” it is his own government’s promotion of anti-Muslim sentiment and passage of the discriminatory anti-separatism law that has stoked far-right xenophobia and Islamophobia.

Macron’s record is well known. His government—which twice campaigned for and won the presidency as a “republican” alternative to far-right candidate Marine Le Pen—passed an anti-separatism bill with her support in 2021 which encodes discrimination against France’s 8 million Muslims into law. Macron has also continuously worked with the EU to enforce a vicious anti-immigrant policy which has led to over 25,000 drownings in the Mediterranean since 2014.

After the shooting, anger against the French political establishment’s constant promotion of xenophobia boiled over into large demonstrations by Kurds and other immigrant groups in central Paris, denouncing the government for failing to protect them from far-right attacks. On Friday evening, protesters were violently attacked by French riot police using tear gas and batons, who tried to block them from reaching the Kurdish cultural center where the attack took place.

Protesters accused the Turkish government of playing an active role in the attacks. Both Kara and Perwer were well-known PKK activists actively sought by the Turkish government, and Kurdish nationalists have long accused Turkey of involvement in the 2013 murders of PKK activists in Paris.

Unsubmissive France leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon appeared to endorse such allegations on December 24, saying: “We believe that there is no coincidence and that what happened was a terrorist act which targeted political activists.” Mélenchon did not, however, pose the obvious question this raises: why would French police play a central role in carrying out the targeted assassination of individuals wanted by Turkey?

The Turkish government has not acknowledged any direct role in the murder. By its response, however, Ankara has made it clear that it was not angry at the mass killing in Paris. Instead of denouncing the Macron government for failing to protect the victims of Friday’s attack and for attacking protesters, Ankara summoned the French ambassador to Turkey on Monday to complain that PKK flags had been present at the protests after the shooting.

Imperialist-backed Kurdish nationalist politicians made an essentially similar response, supporting French police and denouncing protesters while disregarding the role of Macron’s police in the attack and Macron’s broader policies of imperialist war in Syria and anti-Muslim hysteria at home.

Speaking to the Kurdish-nationalist website Rudaw, Kurdistan Region President Nechirvan Barzani thanked Macron for his response to the attack and called on Kurdish protesters to “exercise restraint.” He absurdly said: “I trust our French partners will spare no effort to protect the Kurdish communities.”

Other Kurdish nationalists cynically used the attack to call for closer coordination with French or NATO imperialism. Mazloum Abdi, general commander of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), told Rudaw the attack showed that “Support for us in the fight against terror should be expanded.”

These comments expose the hypocrisy of the bourgeois nationalists, who thrust aside the well-being of the Kurdish diaspora in France or of Kurds in the Middle East in order to obtain imperialist financial and military support in the wars now devastating the Middle East.

Defense contractor shares surge as US doubles NATO arms sales

Andre Damon

The year 2022 concludes with a shocking death toll: according to figures cited by US General Mark Miley, 200,000 people have been killed or injured in the fratricidal war in Ukraine.

This horrific loss of life has been the basis for the generation of vast profits for the arms manufacturers. Under conditions in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen by 10 percent for the year as a whole, the share prices of US defense contractors have surged.

Over the past 12 months, the share price of Northrop Grumman has increased 40 percent, Raytheon is up by nearly 17 percent, while Lockheed Martin has surged by 37 percent.

President Joe Biden greets workers during a tour of the Lockheed Martin Pike County Operations facility where Javelin anti-tank missiles are manufactured, Tuesday, May 3, 2022, in Troy, Ala. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

By some estimates military spending by the United States and its allies is growing at a level without precedent since the end of the Second World War.

The number and cash value of arms sales approved by the United States to its NATO allies has nearly doubled in 2022 compared to 2021, according to an analysis by Foreign Policy magazine.

Shares of defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp have surged over 40 percent over the past year. [Photo: Google Finance]

Foreign Policy wrote, “In 2021, the U.S. government approved 14 possible major arms sales to NATO allies worth around $15.5 billion. In 2022, that jumped up to 24 possible major arms sales worth around $28 billion, including $1.24 billion worth of arms sales to expected future NATO member Finland.”

In December, Germany announced an $8.4 billion plan to purchase dozens of F-35 fighters from US arms manufacturers. That same month, the US approved a plan to sell over a hundred M1 Abrams battle tanks to Poland.

Shares of Lockheed Martin Corp, maker of the F-35 fighter, are up 37 percent for the year. [Photo: Google Finance]

The United States has already approved plans to sell HIMARS launchers to Estonia and Lithuania, and a similar plan for Latvia is expected to be announced within a matter of months.

The major European powers are surging their military spending, with 10 NATO members spending more than 2 percent of GDP on weapons this year, up from four in 2014.

Last week, US President Joe Biden signed into law the $858 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The final bill passed by Congress was $45 billion larger than that requested by the White House, which was in turn larger than the request by the Pentagon.

The budget marks an eight percent increase over last year and a 30 percent increase in military spending over the 2016 Pentagon budget. The massive surge in military spending comes as the typical US household saw its real income fall by three percent in the past 12 months.

The bill increases funding for every single military department and weapons program. The US Navy will get $32 billion for new warships, including three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and two Virginia-class nuclear submarines. And the Pentagon is authorized to purchase a further 36 F-35 aircraft, each costing approximately $89 million.

Spending by the Army to buy missiles will increase by 55 percent, while Navy weapons purchases are to increase by 47 percent, according to an analysis by the New York Times.

In September, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman won a $1 billion contract to make prototype hypersonic missiles for the US Air Force.

Summarizing the surging orders for major defense contractors, the Times notes, “Lockheed Martin, the nation’s largest military contractor, had booked more than $950 million worth of its own missile military orders from the Pentagon in part to refill stockpiles being used in Ukraine. The Army has awarded Raytheon Technologies more than $2 billion in contracts to deliver missile systems to expand or replenish weapons used to help Ukraine.”

The surge in spending is also taking place among the US’s Asian allies. This month, the Japanese government unveiled a new national defense strategy that will double the country’s military budget and transform its military into an offensive fighting force. For the first time, Japan will procure long-range missiles capable of hitting China in an offensive strike.

The vast amount of military hardware transferred to Ukraine almost defies belief. To date, the United States and its allies have provided Ukraine with over 100,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition, over a million rounds of artillery ammunition, and over 100,000 tank rounds.

This is in addition to providing Ukraine with some of the most advanced weapons in the US arsenal, including the Paladin armored gun, the NISAMS and Patriot anti-aircraft systems, as well as the HARM anti-radar and Harpoon anti-ship missile.

But this is only the beginning. “We’re going to ramp up,” Army Secretary Christine Wormuth told the Times. “We’ve really been working closely with industry to both increase their capacity and also the speed at which they’re able to produce.”

In an analysis for the CEPA think tank, Timothy Ash, a fellow at the pro-imperialist British think tank Chatham House, observes, “Wars are shop windows for defense manufacturers... Putin’s misjudgment has merely provided a fantastic marketing opportunity for its Western competitors.”

The study notes, “With the quality/capability of [Russian] equipment now being questioned because of poor battlefield performance, they will likely be vying to acquire a better US kit.”

No doubt eying immense prospective profits for the US and British defense contractors, Ash concludes, “Yet from numerous perspectives, when viewed from a bang-per-buck perspective, US and Western support for Ukraine is an incredibly cost-effective investment.”

Ash’s comments echo the declaration in July by Ukrainian defense minister Oleksii Reznikov that “Ukraine is now essentially a testing ground,” adding, “Many weapons are now getting tested in the field in real conditions of battle against the Russian army, which has plenty of warning systems of its own.”

He concluded, “We are interested in testing modern systems in the fight against the enemy, and we are inviting arms manufacturers to test new products here.”

Unrest in Peru

Chloe Atkinson

Photograph Source: Galería del Ministerio de Defensa del Perú – CC BY 2.0

Peru unrest highlights country’s instability As Peru experiences nationwide anti-government protests following the removal of President Pedro Castillo after what appears to have been an attempted self-coup, current President Dina Boluarte said she would not step down in the face of violent protests over her predecessor’s ouster as she called on lawmakers to bring forward elections as a way to quell unrest.

Authorities in Peru also arrested six police generals on Monday as part of an investigation into corruption which authorities say Castillo was directly involved in.

It is unclear if this was a self-coup or an imposed coup. Some of the leaders of the region’s countries see Castillo as the victim of a coup rather than the perpetrator. The leaders of Mexico, Argentina, Colombia and Bolivia issued a statement declaring the ousted Castillo as “the victim of anti-democratic bullying” and calling on Peru’s government institutions “to refrain from reversing the people’s will as expressed in a free vote.”

Protesters have blocked highways, set buildings on fire and taken over airports in the wake of Castillo’s move, after he tried to shut down Congress to avoid an impeachment vote he feared losing.    Demonstrators are demanding early polls, and the release of Castillo who

Demonstrators are demanding early polls, and the release of Castillo who appears to have caused this political upheaval over his claim that he is protesting what he said is a hostile Congress which made it extremely difficult for him to govern.

Castillo, 53, was the president of Peru since July 2021. Prior to his presidency, Castillo was a school teacher from a humble background and a union leader in Peru’s rural areas. He ran for president as the candidate of the Peru Libre party and campaigned on a platform that included promises to reduce poverty, combat corruption, and promote social justice. Castillo was elected by a public deeply frustrated by conventional politics, so when he delivered his surprise address to the nation that he intended to dissolve Congress and replace it with an “exceptional emergency government” and also declared a nationwide state of emergency, which he said was aimed at “re-establishing the rule of law and democracy,” the public was not willing to accept it.

Boluarte, 60, the former vice president who assumed the presidency on December 7, has insisted that Congress approve her proposal for a constitutional amendment that would have pushed up elections, originally scheduled for 2026, to December 2023. But now, Boluarte has refused to resign despite the worsening protests that have left at least 20 people dead and more than 500 demonstrators and security forces wounded.

The crisis has only deepened the instability gripping the country, which has seen six presidents in as many years. The country has seen a series of presidents ousted and a number of ex-presidents sent to prison for crimes committed during their time in office. Castillo’s cabinet underwent constant change and in one unusual incident in 2020, the country had three presidents in the space of only five days.

Yet Peru’s problems go back a few decades, if not more. Peruvians experience deep poverty, inequality, corruption, social and political instability, and a lack of access to quality education, healthcare, and other basic services. In addition, natural disasters, such as earthquakes and floods have also caused hardship and discontent in the country as dysfunctional governments have been slow to respond to the needs of citizens. Peruvians, like people in many other countries, want change for a variety of reasons.

They feel that the current political, economic, or social systems in Peru are not meeting their needs or addressing their concerns, and therefore want to see changes in these systems. They feel that the country is facing significant challenges, such as poverty, inequality, and corruption. They also see that the country is not making progress in areas such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure, and want to see improvements and not just empty political promises. Peruvians are fed up with the status quo and the election of Castillo was an expression of their feelings that the status quo is not serving them or their country well, and that there are opportunities for improvement.

US State Department Spokesperson Ned Price announced that Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke on December 16 with Boluarte. “Blinken encouraged Peru’s institutions and civil authorities to redouble their efforts to make needed reforms and safeguard democratic stability,” he said, adding that the US “looks forward” to working with Boluarte on “human rights, security, anti-corruption, and economic prosperity.”

Blinken also called for “constructive dialogue to ease political divisions and focus on reconciliation.”

Through its embassy in Lima, the United Kingdom also condemned “acts of vandalism and violence,” especially “those who take advantage of peaceful protests to sow discord and instability.” “We call to seek dialogue, reach agreements, and work together with President Boluarte and her government to follow the constitutional order, and guarantee a peaceful and democratic path,” the UK added.

These calls for order, peace, and stability are expected but they do little to help the citizens on the ground. Castillo’s self-coup should be viewed as testament to the poor political reality in Peru and the dysfunctional relationship between the executive and legislative branches. The unrest should also be viewed through the prism of the changing world order, with public protests taking place in Iran and China, and the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine.

The people of Peru may be seeing this is an opportune time to rise up and fight for their cause as opposed to sitting back and relying on the politicians. Castillo, whom the people hoped would prove to be the answer to their problems, seems not to have achieved their trust as their living conditions have not improved. The public’s discontent that brought Castillo into power will only grow further unless Peru’s leaders can find a way to improve the lives of citizens and ensure stability. Peru’s leaders must buckle down and deal with poverty, inequality, and corruption as well as problems with education, healthcare and infrastructure. Only then will Peru see a return to stability.

COVID hospitalisations up almost 30 percent in Britain

Robert Stevens

COVID cases are rising sharply, with hundreds of deaths still reported weekly. Latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures published this week but based on the situation nearly three weeks ago in the seven days to December 9, estimate 1.4 million people in private UK households testing positive for the virus. This is up from 1.1 million infections a week previous.

Sarah Crofts, ONS deputy director for infection survey analysis, said, “Today’s data show that Covid-19 infections have risen for the fourth consecutive week in England, with cases also continuing to rise in Scotland.

“Over half of English regions saw an increase, while it’s a mixed picture for different ages. Infections have increased among most adults under 70, while secondary school-age children experienced a decrease in infections.”

The highest level of infection was in Scotland with around one in 40 people (130,900) estimated to be testing positive, a rise from the one in 60 at the end of November. In England, 1.2 million people were estimated to have COVID, one in 45 people and up from one in 60 at the end of November.

The ZOE COVID Study app, the world’s largest ongoing study of COVID, with more up-to-date figures, reported over 3.3 million current infections in Britain on December 26. ZOE app users also recorded 265,000 new infections on the same day. The study had its funding removed by the Conservative government months ago.

A graph designed by Twitter user Dr. Joe Patak showing in the top right 3.3 million current infections in Britain on December 26,. This figure is from the ZOE COVID Study app, as opposed to the 1.1 million infections estimated by the ONS. ZOE app users also recorded over 265,000 new infections on the same day. [Photo: @JoePajak/Twitter]

COVID cases are rising more than 17 months since the pandemic was declared over by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Everyone was told to “learn to live with the virus” by the government, and even more grotesquely to “live well with COVID” by the Labour Party opposition.

Since that date nearly 60,000 more people have died from the disease. According to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University and available on Our World in Data, total deaths in Britain from COVID stand at 213,249. The government’s own tally of fatalities, measured as someone dying within 28 days of a positive COVID test, will soon pass 200,000 (currently 198,937).

The ONS data was released before the start of the Christmas holiday season, when millions met with their families throughout Britain and vast numbers of shoppers gathered in city centres and indoor shopping venues for the winter sales. Such gatherings are proven super-spreader events. Yet more infections will be recorded as the New Year festivities take place.

Scientists fear that a new COVID mutation circulating in the UK, the BQ1 variant of Omicron, could lead to a flood of new cases in a winter that has been mild so far. At the beginning of December, BQ1 made up around half of all cases in the UK, compared to 39 percent the previous week.

As of November 30, according to NHS England, 4,964 people were in hospital after testing positive for COVID—an 8 percent rise on the previous week. Hospitalisations have surged in the month since. According to the ONS, 8,643 people were in hospital with COVID in England alone on December 21. This was an increase of 29 percent week-on-week and the highest total since late October.

While the government and mainstream media no longer publicise any data that conflicts with the “the pandemic is over” narrative, on December 23 Twitter user Tigress @tigresseleanor reported, “#COVID19 hospital admissions continued to increase to 9.56 per 100,000 people in the week ending 18 December 2022. The number of deaths involving #COVID19 increased to 380 in the week ending 9 December 2022.”

Children continue to be infected by COVID and to die from the disease. The previous day the account tweeted, “There were 462 Covid cases reported in 0-4 year olds. 191 children 0-5 were admitted to hospital with Covid. Under reported cases or more severe in 0-5 ?”

The same day Tigress tweeted, “Sadly gov.uk/UKHSA [UK Health Security Agency] report the deaths of another 2 children with Covid.” This brought the number of UK child COVID deaths to 228 (England 205, Scotland 16, Wales 5, Northern Ireland 2).

On December 24, Tigress tweeted, “If we follow last year which we appear to be doing, Covid admissions double around 28th/29th & remain high until mid January. Last year deaths increased around the 30th to 150-200 per day, variants are different this year perhaps more severe.”

The surge in COVID cases, amid rising flu admissions, is putting enormous additional pressure on the National Health Service. Earlier this month, Sky News reported, “Hospital admissions for flu in England have overtaken admissions for COVID-19 for the first time since the coronavirus pandemic began.” Flu admissions to hospital were at the highest level for the last four winters. It cited UKHSA data showing “the rate of flu admissions was 6.8 per 100,000 people in the week to 11 December, compared to 6.6 per 100,000 for COVID-19.”

On December 20, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust declared a “critical incident” due to “immense pressure on its services”. Citing “exceptionally high levels of occupancy, growing pressure on our services and unprecedented attendances” at the A&E department of the Royal Albert Edward Infirmary in Wigan, it tweeted, “Our A&E is full. Do not attend, unless you have a life or limb-threatening emergency.”

A critical incident was also declared at Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust. Its emergency department was “full with patients that need admission,” with only “limited space to treat patients with life-threatening conditions and injuries”.

Hospital staff treating a COVID patient in the intensive care unit at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, England [AP Photo/Neil Hall]

Due to the government’s criminal pandemic policy of infecting as many people as possible, and its abandoning of all COVID safety measures within the space of a few months in 2021, millions of people are suffering from Long COVID. According to the ONS, in December an estimated 2.2 million people (3.4 percent of the population) were afflicted with Long COVID. Over half (1.2 million people) are estimated to have had the condition for over a year.

This week, leading scientist Professor John Drury of the University of Sussex denounced the government for implementing policies that directly led to so much suffering. Drury is a member the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B)—a sub-committee of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) which advised the government throughout the pandemic. He spoke to the inews website which reported, “After many Covid restrictions were eased in April 2021, SPI-B advised the Government to continue with ‘policies that promote Covid-19 protective behavior’”.

Prof Drury said, “Had the recommendations been implemented there would have been fewer people with Covid and therefore fewer people with long Covid…

“They’ve thrown the clinically vulnerable under a bus and made the judgement that it’s ok for two million people to have long Covid. For a significant minority of that two million, this is a highly debilitating condition that has ruined their lives.”

Nothing is being allowed to remain in place that in any way mitigates the spread of the disease or even acknowledges that it exists. From January 6, 2023, the UKHSA Epidemiology Modelling Review Group will no longer publish any more COVID modelling data, including critical updates on the virus’s R (Reproduction) number.

Australian central bank rate rises target working-class households

Mike Head

The year 2022 has already seen the sharpest reversal in working-class living conditions in Australia and globally since World War II, driven by sky-rocketing inflation and interest rates.

Internal documents from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) show that this economic and cost-of-living crisis will intensify in 2023, with a deliberate policy to inflict the suffering primarily on workers and their families.

A man walks past the Reserve Bank of Australia building in Sydney, Australia on Oct. 7, 2021. [AP Photo/Mark Baker]

On December 23, just two days before Christmas, the RBA released the “restricted” documents in response to a Freedom of Information application. The timing was designed to bury the contents as much as possible during the holiday period.

The draft reports and emails, dating back to June, show that the central bank has consciously calculated that the harshest impact of its ongoing interest rate rises since May will fall on lower-income households, threatening many with mortgage defaults.

The documents are a warning of the severe financial and personal stress facing millions of people as the RBA, like other central banks internationally, engages in the fastest raising of rates for decades. Over half of home loan borrowers will suffer a 20 percent decline in their cash flows.

The material shows that the RBA expects its consecutive monthly rate rises—so far from 0.1 percent to 3.1 percent—to dramatically reduce consumer spending by the most indebted and lowest-income households. By contrast, wealthier and older people with cash savings are expected to lift their spending thanks to higher yields on savings.

These calculations are all premised on using the aggressive rate rises to also ensure that real wages continue to be cut. In the RBA’s scenarios, the official inflation rate is expected to be around 8 percent, while annual wage rises—including those for high-salary employees—will average just 5 percent.

Thus workers are being hit by a double blow—real wage cuts and sharp rate rises that have the effect of cutting disposable incomes even more.

At the same time, the documents show that the wealthiest households also obtained the greatest financial benefit of the near-zero interest rates that the bank previously implemented at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Those record low rates were set in order to provide the corporate elite with cheap money, boost the already-inflated property market and stimulate consumer spending.

In sum, the RBA, together with other central banks, is intent on imposing on the working-class the overwhelming burden of the economic and cost-of-living crisis produced by the pandemic and the US-NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

Also revealed are efforts by the RBA to camouflage the regressive “distributive” effect of its interest rate hikes in its official statements and presentations, and to play down the likely suffering of working-class households, so as not to be “alarmist.”

No doubt these calculations have been shared with Treasurer Jim Chalmers, for all his feigned empathy for the “pain” facing ordinary people. The Albanese Labor government has supported the demand of RBA Governor Philip Lowe for wage increases to be kept below 3.5 percent.

Overall, the RBA’s forecasts are stark. Almost two in three home loan borrowers are expected to slash “non-essential” spending, and 30 percent will deplete their savings within 12 months.

A graph shows that more than 80 percent of borrower households will suffer a greater than 10 percent fall in “spare cash,” that is cash flow relative to income.

According to a note: “Just over half of variable-rate owner-occupier borrowers would see their spare cash flows decline by more than 20 percent over the next couple of years, including around 15 per cent of households whose spare cash flows would become negative.”

But the wealthiest 5 percent of variable-rate owner-occupier borrowers would experience an increase in their cash flows. “This group are typically high-income borrowers who spend a low share of their income on essential living expenses” and “their expected income growth would exceed that of their (loan and living) expenses.”

At the other social pole, one report identifies 6 percent of borrowers as “highly vulnerable” and likely to fully deplete their savings “buffer” within six months, even if they cut non-essential spending by 90 percent. This could lead to some being forced to sell their homes, unable to meet elevated mortgage demands.

Some 71 percent of borrowers were supposedly “not vulnerable” but only because they had mortgage prepayment buffers considered large enough to absorb the financial shock for at least two years, providing they cut non-essential spending by 10 percent.

Another graph further illustrates the unequal class content of the bank’s offensive. It shows that a household with two children on a gross income of $120,000 a year with a $600,000 debt would suffer about a 13 percent cut in disposable income, while one on $250,000 would take a smaller 8 percent reduction. No comparison was offered for households on even lower incomes.

A September 15 note records advice by Lowe to hide this distributional impact. “Phil [Lowe] raised a point that a 5‐10 percent decline as share of household income seemed to be alarmist.” So the RBA decided to present overall percentage cuts in “spare cash flows” rather than what these cuts were as a percentage of household incomes.

Another presentation says nearly a quarter of variable loan borrowers would have debt servicing ratios exceeding 30 percent of income—a measure of financial stress. Of these, 75 percent would be “in the lower half of the income distribution,” while one-third would have “less than one month buffer.”

A note states: “Lower income households tend to spend a larger proportion of their incomes on (unavoidable) essential living expenses. Lower income households may also be subject to a higher effective rate of inflation if they are less able to substitute away from purchases of goods and services with more rapidly rising prices.”

One summary concludes that if such households “have limited ability to make other adjustments to their financial situation (e.g. by increasing their hours worked) and pressure on their finances continues, they could fall into arrears on their loan obligations; some may eventually need to sell their homes or may even enter into foreclosure.”

These scenarios understate the depth of the financial stress to come because they assume no substantial rise in unemployment, despite the looming economic contraction. One note admits: “Should labour and housing market conditions deteriorate further than assumed in the Bank’s central scenario over the coming years, a larger share of households would be expected to fall into arrears on their mortgages.”

The housing and financial crisis will worsen during 2023 because about 35 percent of mortgages are on short-term fixed rates, and most are due to expire next year. Many loans were taken out at fixed rates of around 2 percent, relying on RBA statements that it would keep rates at record lows until 2024 at least.

The RBA estimates that many of these households will confront a more than 40 percent rise in mortgage repayments. But the bank’s chief concern is that there is a “lag” in this impact and the wider effect of rate rises on variable rate borrowers.

The documents show that the lion’s share of the benefit of the record low interest rates in 2020 and 2021 went to wealthiest households. In his public statements, Lowe sought to play down the impact of rate hikes by reporting that households had built up $260 billion in savings.

But a graph shows that about $220 billion of the estimated additional household savings from the March quarter of 2020 to the December quarter of 2021 went to the richest two quintiles. Of that, some $160 billion went to the top quintile. That left about $40 billion for the lowest three quintiles—a thin “buffer.”

Like their counterparts around the world, the bankers know that the rate rises will not bring down global inflation—which has not been caused by workers’ wages or spending. The rises are aimed at suppressing workers’ wages struggles by imposing an economic contraction, or even a recession.

In announcing the RBA’s latest rise earlier this month, Lowe reiterated the bank’s focus on “the importance of avoiding a prices-wages spiral.” He warned of even higher rates in 2023. In November, he had warned that if workers pressed ahead with wage demands, the central bank would lift interest rates to induce a “severe recession.”

Treasurer Chalmers defended the bank, saying the “defining” economic challenge was inflation. “That’s what the Reserve Bank was responding to today.”

Since scraping into office in May the Labor government has demanded “sacrifices” from workers, junking its election slogan of “a better future.” With its state and territory Labor counterparts, the Albanese government is spearheading the suppression of wages by imposing punishing sub-inflation wage caps on nurses, teachers and other public sector workers.

Facing deepening discontent and a resurgence of strikes, the Labor leaders are relying on the trade union bureaucrats to keep imposing sub-inflation workplace agreements to enforce the pro-business agenda laid out in the Albanese government’s first budget on October 25, which was predicated on at least two more years of real wage cuts.