Average house in England only affordable for the richest 10 percent of households

Thomas Scripps

The average house in England is affordable for only the richest 10 percent of households according to the Office for National Statistics, using the traditional affordability measure of five times a household’s annual disposable income.

It would take the average household eight-and-a-half years of total disposable income (£35,000 a year) to afford the average-priced home of £298,000. This is double the ratio of 1999.

North London suburban housing, London Borough of Enfield [Photo by Alan Hughes / CC BY-SA 2.0]

The ratios are better in Wales—where the average house is considered affordable for the top 30 percent of households—and Scotland—the top 40 percent—but only in Northern Ireland is the average house considered affordable to the average household.

London, as always, is yet further removed from reality: essentially a fortress, inaccessible to almost anyone without significant family wealth. It is not even enough to be in the richest 10 percent of local households (average annual disposable income: £89,901) for the average house price in the city of £530,000 to be considered affordable. This is over 14 times the average household disposable income.

To emphasise, these are the ratios for an entire household’s entire disposable income (income after tax and benefits payments) in a year. The real meaning of these figures is that getting a mortgage on a house is an impossibility for swathes of the working class. Home ownership rates are falling, from 71 percent to 65 percent.

Sky-high house prices are matched by rents. The average yearly cost to rent in the UK is now £15,240—an increase of 27 percent since 2021. This is expected to rise by another 4 percent next year. According to the latest English Housing Survey, covering 2022-3, private renters already spend roughly a third of their income on housing costs—rising to 59 percent for the poorest fifth of the population.

In London, the average annual rent is £25,452, with the average renting household in the capital handing over 40 percent of their earnings to their landlord.

This is being paid for the oldest housing stock in Europe, with 38 percent of UK properties built before 1946. Over 3.5 million properties (15 percent of all homes) are classed as non-decent, falling below minimum standards of repair, warmth and modern facilities. More than 2 million have at least one Category One hazard and one million severe damp. For renters, average floor space has shrunk by 16 percent in the last two decades.

The social implications are terrible. Young people are locked out of whole regions of the country or from starting their own families. In 1995, 57 percent of 25–34-year-olds were homeowners, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies; the figure in 2022 was 39 percent, meaning a growing proportion are living at home with their parents.

Parents are also relied upon to fund their children’s first steps towards buying a house, embedding inequalities in property ownership. Aside from any other financial assistance, inheritance is predicted to account for 16 percent of the average millennial’s lifetime earning—up from 9 percent for Gen X. But while the top fifth will see their incomes lifted by 29 percent, the bottom fifth will gain just 5 percent.

Wealthier areas with the best jobs, schools and transport links are off limits for the bulk of the working class. Living within 500 metres of a station in London will cost an extra 10 percent (£53,000 using the average house price), or 4.3 percent (£22,790) to live within a kilometre. Anything from an extra 3 percent extra can be paid for a good school catchment area, up to 26 percent for those considered the best.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, parental earnings now much more strongly correlate with the incomes of children born after 1970 than they did for previous generations, with inheritance a major driver.

For those at the bottom, worries about meeting the rent or the mortgage hang over every day of their lives. Britain has by far the highest rate of homelessness in the developed world—a shocking one in every 200 households—with the number of people living in temporary accommodation more than doubling to 112,000 between 2010 and 2023.

This is not a natural calamity, but the result of exploitation on a gigantic scale—as Karl Marx described it, “One section of society here demands a tribute from the other for the very right to live on the earth.”  Nick Bano explains well in his book Against Landlords that the twin engines of this process are a legal system designed to virtually guarantee rising rents for landlords, and the investments of the ultra-wealthy in the endlessly lucrative housing market created.

Margaret Thatcher’s Right to Buy scheme took two million houses out of council ownership and put them on the market—40 percent are now being rented out privately. Rates of actually affordable social housing building have been falling ever since. The UK has 1.8 million fewer households in social housing than in 1980.

The introduction of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy in 1988, and its being made the default contract in 1996—lowering the length of tenancies and allowing for easy and rapid evictions—gave landlords enormous power to ratchet rents. In Bano’s words, “The state has now adopted the practices of the twentieth century’s most notorious landlords”.

The final piece of the puzzle is housing benefit in its various incarnations, which has acted as an enormous state subsidy to landlords charging more than their tenants can afford, setting a steadily rising floor of minimum private rents. In effect, the working class pays taxes to subsidise the landlords and the process which ensures workers’ rents keep rising. The government funded roughly a third of the nation’s rent bill in this way in 2022.

Quoting Bano: “When rents rise that reliably, they are translated into every-growing prices of residential land. By this mechanism—a direct consequence of the Thatcherite system of government-backed price increases in the private rented sector—housing since the late 1980s has become an incomparably secure and fruitful form of investment.”

As a result, house prices have increased more than fourteenfold since 1979, while wages have climbed just eightfold—both in nominal terms—taking the average household spend on housing costs from 9 percent in 1957 to today’s astronomical figures.

The process went uninterrupted during the Labour governments of Blair and Brown, with an average real-terms increase in property prices of 173 percent between 1997 and 2007, and 253 percent in London. Meanwhile, real wages for 25–34-year-olds increased by just 19 percent.

Crippling costs for the working class are a feeding frenzy for landlords, banks and corporations.

Tenants in the UK paid a record £85.6 billion in rent in 2023, after the biggest jump on record (£8 billion) over the previous twelve months. The total is more than double the £40.3 billion paid in 2010. Mortgage owners are paying interest on outstanding residential mortgage loans worth £1.6 trillion.

Research from Sheffield Hallam University shows the eight largest housebuilding companies in the UK paid shareholders £16 billion in dividends over the last 18 years supplying this lucrative racket. Profit on the average new build house rose £75,000 between 2000 and 2019, according to Brunel University.

All of these interests have huge lobbying and revolving door operations with Parliament—and local councils are now a byword for property developer corruption—but in some cases the connections are even more direct.

More than one in 10 (13 percent) Members of Parliament are landlords themselves. The 85 MPs own 184 rental properties between them, each of them receiving more than the £10,000 a year threshold required to declare these earnings publicly—on top of their £91,346 annual salary.

Fully one quarter of Tory MPs are landlords, however most landlords in this Parliament (44 of them) are in the Labour Party. Three of them claim the titles of the first, third and fifth largest property portfolios in the House of Commons: Jas Athwal, who own 15 residential and three commercial properties; Gurinder Josan, who owns eight rental properties; and Bayo Alaba, who owns seven.

Elon Musk’s wealth approaches half a trillion dollars: Capitalism and oligarchy

Joseph Kishore

Elon Musk arrives in Notre Dame Cathedral Saturday, December 7, 2024 in Paris. [AP Photo/Thibault Camus]

The wealth of Elon Musk, owner of Tesla, SpaceX and social media platform X (Twitter), is rapidly approaching half a trillion dollars, according to the latest estimate from Forbes magazine. Musk’s personal fortune of $442 billion has increased by approximately $180 billion over the past two months alone, with much of the surge occurring in the six weeks since Donald Trump’s re-election.

Musk’s net worth is now nearly $200 billion higher than the next wealthiest individual, Jeff Bezos (Amazon, $248 billion), who is followed by Mark Zuckerberg (Meta, $223 billion) and Larry Ellison (Oracle, $195 billion). Collectively, the world’s 10 richest individuals—nine Americans plus France’s Bernard Arnault—have increased their wealth by $305 billion in just six weeks, bringing their combined total to a staggering $2.1 trillion. 

The total wealth owned by these 10 individuals is more than the GDP of all but seven countries. It is more than 40 times the estimated annual cost to end world hunger, and more than 100 times the estimated annual cost to end homelessness in the United States.

The sharp increase in the wealth of this layer is closely tied to the speculative mania in the stock market, fueled by anticipation of Trump’s policies: tax cuts for the rich, deregulation and sweeping cuts to social programs. In particular, Tesla’s stock price has hit new records, while SpaceX, now valued at $350 billion, conducted a buyback this month to boost its share values. Musk’s fortune also includes a $50 billion Tesla pay package currently held up in a Delaware court.

Musk embodies the fusion of oligarchy and the state in the incoming administration. He personally contributed an estimated $277 million toward Trump’s election, while using his control over X to influence the election outcome. He is now playing a dominant role in determining the policies and composition of the Trump administration. Musk has been appointed to co-lead the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), alongside fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy. The department’s stated goal is to slash $2 trillion in federal spending, a figure that, notably, is approximately equal to  the combined wealth of the world’s top 10 billionaires.

The targets of these austerity measures are clear enough. Last week, Musk declared that the term “homeless” is a “misnomer,” stating, “Unhoused individuals are in reality violent drug zombies with dead eyes, and needles and human feces on the street.” Musk added, “The more money spent combating homelessness, the worse it gets.” Meanwhile, Ramaswamy has proposed cuts of “hundreds of billions of dollars” from Medicare and Medicaid, the two main government healthcare programs.

Musk and Ramaswamy are joined in Trump’s billionaire-packed government by figures such as Warren Stephens (ambassador to the UK), Scott Bessent (treasury secretary), Linda McMahon (education secretary), Jared Isaacman (NASA administrator), Howard Lutnick (commerce secretary), and Steven Witkoff (Middle East envoy).

Billionaires who did not initially back Trump have scrambled to align themselves with the new regime. According to a report in the New York Times, Silicon Valley leaders—including Bezos, Zuckerberg, Sam Altman (OpenAI), Tim Cook (Apple) and Sergey Brin (Google)—have “promised to support President-elect Donald J. Trump’s inaugural committee with seven-figure checks over the past week, often accompanied by a pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago to bend the knee.”

The Democratic Party’s response to Trump’s re-election—and to Musk’s role—is equally revealing. Trump’s re-election was made possible by the fact that the Democratic Party is a party of Wall Street and militarism, whose central priority is the escalation of the US-NATO war against Russia in Ukraine. Top Democrats have responded to Trump’s return to the White House with pledges of cooperation and collaboration.

So too in relation to Musk. Democratic Representatives like Ro Khanna and nominally independent Senator Bernie Sanders have fawned over the world’s wealthiest individual, pledging to “work with” Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. Politico recently noted, “As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to install Musk as the federal government’s cutter-in-chief, some ambitious Democrats are taking a warmer approach to the billionaire businessman.”

As the World Socialist Web Site explained in its statement following Trump’s victory, the election marks a “violent realignment of the American political superstructure to correspond with the real social relations that exist in the United States.” In pledging their “cooperation” with Trump, the Democrats are proclaiming the unity of the ruling class in defense of its fundamental interests.

The personal fortunes amassed by the world’s richest individuals have no precedent in history. Their accumulation is bound up with an unrestrained frenzy of speculation, the gutting of social programs and the subordination of all aspects of life to the drive for private profit.

In the nearly three decades since then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan warned (on December 5, 1996) of the “irrational exuberance” driving share values, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen from 6,381 to a record of over 45,000 earlier this month (an increase of more than 700 percent). The Nasdaq has risen from 1,300 to more than 20,000 (an increase of more than 1,100 percent). The rise in share values has been accompanied by a surge in even more speculative assets, including cryptocurrencies. Last week, the price of one bitcoin surpassed $100,000 for the first time.

The increase in the price of financial assets has been fueled and sustained by an endless diversion of resources into the bailout of the banks, particularly in the midst of the 2008 financial crisis and, on an even greater scale, in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Trillions have been funneled by the Federal Reserve and other global central banks directly into the financial system, producing a surge in government debt.

All of this must be paid for through a massive assault on the working class, whose labor is the source of all value.

And it requires a major intensification of imperialist war abroad. Imperialism, Lenin explained, is “(1) monopoly capitalism; (2) parasitic, or decaying capitalism; (3) moribund capitalism. The supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the fundamental economic feature, the quintessence of imperialism.” When Musk declares, “We will coup whoever we want,” he is merely giving expression, in particularly crude and stupid form, to the striving of corporate-financial capital for world domination.

The political form that corresponds to this social reality is dictatorship. Musk’s close ties to far-right and fascist figures, such as Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and Argentina’s Javier Milei, exemplify the alignment of the financial oligarchy with authoritarian forces globally. On his social media platform X, Musk, a self-described proponent of “Dark MAGA,” has elevated neo-Nazis, transforming the platform into a breeding ground for the far right.

This is not merely a reflection of Musk’s personal proclivities, but a manifestation of the broader turn of the capitalist oligarchy toward dictatorship as it confronts mounting social opposition.

In the United States, this turn finds its sharpest expression in Trump’s plans for a second term, which include deploying the military domestically, dismantling basic democratic rights and targeting immigrants and refugees. The ultimate target of these measures is the “enemy within,” that is, the working class.

Society can no longer afford the rich. There is not a single problem, including the defense of the most basic democratic rights, that can be addressed without a frontal assault on the wealth and power of the capitalist oligarchy.

The immense fortunes of the billionaires are bound up with their monopolistic control of the banks and corporations that control the global economy. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg and the rest, along with the titans of finance, control vast resources, productive capacity and technologies which, if controlled democratically, could vastly improve the living conditions of the entire population. Instead, they are subordinated to private profit and the escalation of a war that threatens all of humanity.

China makes steps to increase economic stimulus measures

Nick Beams

The leadership of the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has announced some more measures to try to stimulate the economy as Beijing braces itself for the hit if incoming US president Trump goes ahead with his repeated threat to impose a 60 percent tariff on Chinese imports. But the general reaction has been that the proposed actions do not go far enough.

Women walk past by a display showing the Shanghai stock market index outside a brokerage in Beijing, Wednesday, November 6, 2024 [AP Photo/Ng Han Guan]

There have been a series of top-level meetings, involving both the CCP, the central bank and other authorities over the past months as signs of a China slowdown grow. Foreign investors, as well as those in China, calling for greater stimulus, have been awaiting the announcement of a “big bazooka” to lift the economy. However, nothing akin to the kind of measures taken in the past has been forthcoming.

But some limited measures have been undertaken. On Monday the 24-member Politburo concluded a two-day meeting with the announcement of a shift in monetary policy.

It abandoned the term “prudent” and said that henceforth monetary policy would be “moderately loose.” Such language has not been used since the global financial crisis of 2008–2009 to which China responded with major stimulus measures.

The Politburo also indicated that China’s budget deficit would be allowed to expand above the current level of 3 percent of GDP.

But as with previous measures there is a lack of detail. At the end of September, a $1.4 trillion package was announced to ease the debt burden of local governments which is proving to be a major drag on the economy. But nearly three months on it is still unclear how it is operating and what the broader plans of the government are in regard to the property market.

Following the Politburo meeting, President Xi Jinping sought to provide an upbeat assessment to a meeting of international financial officials, including the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva and World Bank president Ajay Banga, in Beijing.

“China has full confidence in achieving this year’s economic growth target and continuing to play its role as the world’s largest economic growth engine,” he told the meeting.

Even as the US economic warfare measures intensify—the latest being a further series of export controls on high-tech components announced by the outgoing Biden administration earlier this month followed by increased tariffs on goods used in solar cells—Xi continued to publicly maintain that some accommodation with the US was possible.

As reported by the state news agency Xinhua, he said China was prepared to maintain dialogue, manage differences and promote a healthy US-China relationship “hoping that the US side will meet China halfway.”

Undoubtedly Xi knows that there is no prospect of such an accommodation. Major think tanks and economic institutions in the US as well as both sides of the political establishment and the military have made it clear that China’s economic development, above all in the field of high-tech, must be prevented at all costs if the US is to maintain its global hegemony.

The news agency report of Xi’s remarks contained a veiled warning. “Tariff wars, trade wars and technology wars go against historic trends,” he said. China would “resolutely safeguard its sovereignty, security and development interests.”

Some evidence of how that response will unfold has been revealed in the past two weeks with the imposition by China of bans on the export of critical minerals to the US needed for chip manufacture and the launching of an anti-trust investigation into the leading US tech firm Nvidia this week.

Following the Politburo meeting, a two-day meeting of the Central Economic Work Conference expanded somewhat on the measures it had announced.

The meeting committed to issuing “ultra-long” special bonds to finance debt and said China would lower interest rates and the amount that banks must hold in reserves—a loosening of monetary policy—at “an appropriate time.”

It said China would “vigorously boost consumption” as a priority, expand domestic demand “in all directions” and undertake other special actions.

The expansion of domestic consumption has been a persistent demand of all the major powers for some time. This is motivated by the concern that if the domestic market continues to slow and even stagnate, the result will be an increase in Chinese exports as the government seeks to maintain the growth rate at or near its target of “around 5 percent.”

But there are considerable doubts about whether even this figure, itself the lowest official target in more than three decades, can be maintained after this year.

Bloomberg cited remarks by Gao Shanwen, chief economist at SDIC Securities, who had previously advised government officials and regulators, that a growth rate of around 3-4 percent was a more realistic level for coming years. He told a meeting of the Peterson Institute in Washington that the “true number of China’s real growth figure” was not known and that following the pandemic, official numbers “may not be so accurate.”

In a Morgan Stanley research note issued on Wednesday, cited in the Wall Street Journal, its economists said the falling yield on Chinse government bonds suggested investors were not convinced policy could successfully boost growth and reverse a persistent deflationary trend.

There was a mixed reaction from economists to the decisions of the Work Conference with the general view that the measures so far are still not enough.

Zhiwei Zhang, chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management, told the Financial Times it was clear Beijing would step up support for the economy and measures this week were more significant than those at the end of September. But he continued, “the market is anxiously waiting for details on what exactly the government will do.”

Kelvin Lam, an economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said there was little clarity on what the government would do to boost consumption and this “lack of details… disappoints the market.”

Zhu Haibin, chief economist as JPMorgan, said: “At this stage, we do not think there will be a fiscal bazooka that some investors hope to see, but the positive thing is that, for 2025, the fiscal package will be more accommodative compared to the last three months.”

Complaints about the lack of details both from within China and outside will not be met until a meeting of the country’s top legislative body, the National People’s Congress, scheduled for March.

But by then the economic situation may have changed markedly with the coming to power of Trump on January 20, depending on how fast and to what extent he goes ahead with his threat to introduce a 60 percent tariff on Chinese exports.

China steps up retaliation against US economic warfare

Nick Beams

Even before Trump is inaugurated as US president and moves to hike tariffs against China—he has threatened to impose a 60 percent impost—Beijing is demonstrating it is prepared to retaliate far more powerfully than it has so far to the economic war being waged against it by the US.

Chinese President Xi Jinping [AP Photo/Maxim Shemetov]

China moved very quickly in response to the decision of the outgoing Biden administration earlier this month to impose a new series of export controls on high-tech components. Those US measures are aimed at shackling China’s high-tech development, which President Xi Jinping has placed front and centre of the drive to develop new “high quality” productive forces.

Beijing imposed restrictions on the export of critical minerals last week and this week announced an antitrust investigation into the leading US chip maker Nvidia in a move that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) characterised as “sending a message that China won’t stand by quietly when targeted by trade and technology sanctions.”

The export bans cover gallium, germanium, antimony and various compounds known as superhard materials, as well as graphite, which play a key role in the production of semi-conductors.

Not only has China banned the direct export of the minerals to the US, it has also extended the ban to third countries which export to the US after acquiring the minerals from China.

This is in line with measures employed by the US which has sought to prevent countries that use components containing American technology that are embodied in products from then exporting them to China. It is the first time China has banned such trans-shipment of strategic exports.

In another move following the latest US bans, four major Chinese industry associations cautioned companies against buying American chips. The WSJ cited an executive from a European chip design company who said he had been receiving nervous calls from Chinese clients seeking assurances they were not American.

“This is the first time private companies have been directed to cut out US chips. It is not a direct order but will have a chilling effect,” the WSJ commented.

China has banned the export of so-called rare earths and critical minerals in the past. Such bans were imposed on Japan in 2010 after its coast guards arrested a Chinese fishing boat captain in waters surrounding the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea following a collision with its vessels.

The immediate dispute was resolved when the fishing boat captain was released but the incident underscored the significance of the bans.

Reviewing these events in an article published in October last year, the World Economic Forum said: “The embargo sent Japanese industry into panic, especially the automobile sector for which rare earths for the production of magnets were indispensable” with Japan dependent on China for 90 percent of the supply of the minerals.

In response to the bans, it continued, “the prices of rare earths soared 10 times in a year following the incident.”

Japan then instituted measures to lessen its dependence on China, which cost the equivalent of $1.2 billion. As the article noted: “The speed and the scale were unprecedented, reflecting the strong sense of urgency.”

Clearly anticipating an escalating response by China to the increasing list of US bans, the WEF said the lesson to be drawn was the development of “concerted international efforts” to lessen dependence on China.

If the experience of Japan is anything to go by that will be a difficult and costly task. Even with its major efforts following the 2010 incident, Japan is still highly dependent on China for rare earths to the tune of 60 percent.

A report by the US Geological Survey last October concluded that as China is the main supplier of gallium and germanium, a complete ban on their export could deliver a $3.4 billion hit to the US economy.

The antitrust probe into Nvidia was announced via state media, indicating the decision was taken at the top levels of the Chinese government rather than simply by the State Administration for Market Regulation which has carriage of the investigation.

Few details were released but the investigation relates to the $6.9 billion takeover of the Israeli networking firm Mellanox Technologies in 2020. This was a major advance for Nvidia and helped propel it to its leading position in the production and marketing of the advanced chips used in artificial intelligence (AI).

As part of Chinese approval of the deal, necessary for Nvidia to continue to operate in the Chinese market which contributes about 12 percent of its total global revenue, Nvidia and Mellanox agreed to the uninterrupted supply of graphics-processing units, crucial for the development of AI and networking equipment to China.

The Chinese regulator did not provide details of how the terms of its approval had been possibly violated. Nvidia is also under scrutiny in other jurisdictions, including the US and France, on antitrust grounds.

While the probe may be formally grounded on these considerations, that is not the underlying reason for the decision.

It is hardly coincidental that it came within days of a significant escalation by the US of export bans and other restrictions on China, including the placing of 140 Chinese companies on an “entity list,” meaning they must obtain approval from the commerce department, seldom granted, to engage in trade.

The effect of the announcement on Nvidia was immediate with its shares falling by around 2.6 percent on Wall Street, wiping off $8.9 billion from its market capitalisation.

Commenting on the Nvidia action, Angela Lang a professor of law at the University of Southern California, with expertise in Chinese antitrust law, told the WSJ that by taking aim at one of the most valuable US companies, “China is now flexing its regulatory muscles to demonstrate its capacity to retaliate and to deter potential further aggressive actions.”

How far that retaliation will go remains to be seen and for China there is the danger that its actions will bring about a major escalation in the US economic war against it under conditions where the government is having to contend with lower growth rates.

So far, its actions have been carefully targeted. As Sydney Morning Herald columnist Stephen Bartholomeusz commented: “By targeting critical minerals and America’s second-most valuable company … China is highlighting its capacity to respond to US trade sanctions that cost it little but cost America a lot.”

The most recent round of measures and countermeasures will not be the last.

If Trump goes ahead with his 60 percent tariff against Chinese goods—and he said he would in an NBC News interview last Sunday—there will be a further escalation. It will impact not just China and the US but the whole world as economic conditions come to increasingly resemble, at a much higher level, the dog-eat-dog fight of the 1930s, which helped create the conditions for World War 2.

Sri Lankan parliament unanimously approves IMF austerity measures

Saman Gunadasa

After two days of debate on December 3–4, the Sri Lankan parliament, without taking a vote, unanimously endorsed the policy statement of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna/National People’s Power (JVP/NPP) government, presented by the President Anura Kumara Dissanayake on November 21.

The government’s interim budget for the first 4 months of 2025 was passed in Parliament without a vote. [Photo: Parliament of Sri Lanka]

The unanimity of the ruling and opposition MPs on the policy statement, which pledged to implement the International Monetary Fund (IMF) program in full, demonstrates the fundamental agreement of the entire political establishment with the savage austerity agenda.

The opposition parties have thus strengthened the hand of the JVP/NPP government to proceed with its assault on the living conditions of workers and the poor. Their support followed the government’s signing of an IMF staff level agreement on November 23, promising to bring next year’s budget into line with its demands.

Last week, the government presented an interim budget for the first four months of 2025, until the formal budget for 2025 to be presented in January is approved. The interim budget was unanimously approved by parliament on December 6.

In presenting the policy statement last month, President Dissanayake emphasised: “Debating whether the proposed restructuring plan is good or bad, advantageous or disadvantageous, serves no purpose.” The country’s “economy is hanging on a thread,” he said. “Due to the scale of the crisis, even the smallest error could have significant repercussions… There is no room for mistakes.”

His comments were a total repudiation of the JVP/NPP election manifesto, which pledged to “renegotiate with the IMF” and “prepare an alternative Debt Sustainability Analysis” so as to salvage “the poor and deprived people from [their] painful condition.”

Now Dissanayake, who is also finance minister, is committed to imposing all the IMF’s demands to the letter. The new government will adhere to increasing the primary budget surplus by four-fold from 0.6 percent of GDP last year to 2.3 percent next year. This means further increases in taxes, utility rates and fuel prices, as well as slashing vital public services and a fire-sale of state-owned enterprises, destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Senior presidential economic advisor Duminda Hulangamuwa stated publicly on December 2 that the country would have to downsize its public sector workforce from the current base of 1.3 million employees to just 750,000. The plan to massacre at least 550,000 public sector jobs is a warning of the kind of brutal measures being prepared by the Dissanayake regime.

In the presidential and national elections, JVP/NPP, which has never before held power, exploited the widespread hostility towards traditional bourgeois parties—such as the United National Party (UNP), its offshoot Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), the Sri Lanka Freedom Party and Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP)—that have ruled since formal independence in 1948. The oppositions now hold just 66 of the 225 parliamentary seats.

During the parliamentary debate of Dissanayake’s policies, the JVP/NPP MPs flaunted their victory, declaring the government had a “vision for the future” and plans to address people’s problems, unlike previous governments. They would eliminate corruption and usher in “a new political culture.” This pack of lies will be quickly exposed as Dissanayake savages living standards creating greater social misery for working people.

Opposition leader and SJB head, Sajith Premadasa, pledged to support the government’s decision to adhere to the IMF framework. He pointed out that “certain aspects of the IMF program harm the people,” but added that his party was “ready to assist the government if it takes action on this issue.”

Premadasa has fully backed the IMF’s agenda. Amid the political and economic crisis of 2021–22, he criticised the SJB government of failing to immediately seek assistance from the IMF. During this year’s presidential campaign, he also declared he would “renegotiate” the terms of the IMF loan—a promise he would have trashed, like Dissanayake, if he had won.

SLPP leader Namal Rajapakse congratulated the government, but sarcastically asked whether the government’s policies would be those of the previous Wickremesinghe government—which the SLPP had backed—“or the policies you presented during the presidential election.”

Former President Wickremesinghe again told the media that he supported Dissanayake’s statement “adhering to the framework agreed upon with the IMF.” He negotiated the deal with the IMF after coming to power in the wake of a mass popular uprising in April/May 2022 against the immense social crisis produced by the country’s debt default.

Wickremesinghe, the only MP of his UNP, had no popular support. Known for his pro-US and pro-IMF orientation, he was installed anti-democratically via parliament, not by election. The JVP/NPP and SJB in league with the trade unions and fake lefts such as the Frontline Socialist Party played the critical role in derailing the mass movement. Their demand for an “interim government” helped legitimise the discredited parliament and thus the decision to elevate Wickremesinghe to the presidency.

The JVP/NPP, which never opposed the IMF program, simply questioned the legitimacy and thus the ability of Wickremesinghe to carry it out. Now it has been backed by the Sri Lankan ruling class, with the blessing of international finance capital, as the means to carry out the IMF’s diktats and suppress any opposition.

Already the Dissanayake government has used the police to crack down on a peaceful protest of School Development Officers on December 2, detaining four. Their crime was to demand proper teaching jobs in state teacher service. They were employed over four years ago and have been used as teachers but on lower pay and poorer conditions.

South Korean president faces second impeachment vote

Ben McGrath

South Korea’s main opposition Democratic Party (DP) has resubmitted a second motion in the National Assembly to impeach President Yoon Suk-yeol over his failed attempt to impose martial law last week and in essence carry out a military coup.

South Korea President Yoon Suk Yeol, May 29, 2023. [AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon, Pool]

DP spokeswoman Gang Yu-jeong announced the DP’s schedule for the motion on Wednesday, saying, “We have decided to reintroduce the impeachment motion today; it will be reported to the National Assembly on the 12th; and the vote will take place at 5 p.m. Saturday.” Like last weekend, the vote will no doubt coincide with large-scale protests demanding Yoon’s removal from office.

The Democrats pledged to repeatedly reintroduce the impeachment motion to parliament after the first was defeated on December 7, when all but three of the ruling People Power Party’s (PPP) 108 members boycotted the proceedings. This prevented a necessary quorum needed to proceed with a vote on Yoon’s impeachment.

The unicameral National Assembly is comprised of 300 seats and a two-thirds majority is needed to pass an impeachment motion. The opposition bloc holds 192 seats, with the DP alone holding 170 seats. The remaining seats are controlled by five minor parties, one nominally independent lawmaker, and the National Assembly speaker U Won-sik, who hails from the DP but is formally independent. As the president is from the PPP, the party is granted ruling party status despite having fewer seats.

If the impeachment motion is approved, the president would be suspended from office and his case decided by the Constitutional Court. A presidential election has to be held within 60 days should the court remove Yoon from office.

The PPP has attempted to implement a so-called “roadmap” for Yoon’s resignation in February or March, hoping this would allow the party to get on top of the situation. Yoon, however, appears committed to remaining in power and is reportedly preparing a legal team to challenge his impeachment.

A PPP member told the Chosun Ilbo, “There’s a growing sentiment within the PPP that if President Yoon does not change his stance before the second impeachment vote, the impeachment motion could become a reality.” At least five PPP members have expressed support for Yoon’s impeachment.

The new motion will be impacted by charges that Yoon directly ordered the military to seize control of the National Assembly and detain lawmakers. Lieutenant General Gwak Jong-geun, the head of the Army Special Warfare Command, told a parliamentary meeting on Tuesday that following the declaration of martial law Yoon called him to demand the arrest of lawmakers.

Gwak stated, “[Yoon] said the quorum did not appear to be met yet, so I should break down the doors, and go in and drag out the people inside.” The general was referring to the quorum and simple majority of 150 necessary for the Assembly to lift martial law, per South Korea’s constitution. A total of 190 lawmakers unanimously voted to lift Yoon’s declaration early on December 4.

Gwak, who has been suspended from duty, had been given instructions to seize at least six locations, including the National Assembly, the Democratic Party headquarters, and the National Election Commission. While claiming he decided to reject Yoon’s order, he also stated he was aware of Yoon’s plans for martial law at least two days in advance, which shines a light on the questions of how many in the military were aware of the plans. Many may continue to support a declaration of martial law.

On Wednesday, Yoon’s now former defence minister Kim Yong-hyun became the first administration official to be formally arrested for involvement in the attempted coup. Kim was detained on Sunday and waived his right to a review of his arrest warrant. He reportedly attempted to commit suicide on Wednesday. The heads of the National Police Agency and Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency Jo Ji-ho and Kim Bong-sik respectively were also placed under emergency detention.

Yoon has already been booked as a suspect in the investigation under charges of insurrection and rebellion. He has been barred from leaving the country and faces the possibility of detention. South Korean presidents are immune from prosecution while in office except in cases of insurrection.

Investigators on Wednesday were sent to raid Yoon’s offices, the Presidential Security Service and the Joint Chiefs of Staff building. They sought documents related to Yoon’s cabinet meeting that took place shortly before the declaration of martial law. Yoon’s security, however, blocked the investigators from entering and only agreed to hand over limited material.

While Yoon is under siege and a number of his top officials are under investigation, the president remains in control of the military, despite a deal cobbled together last weekend by the PPP and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo in which they claimed Yoon would step back from all his state duties.

Jeon Ha-gyu, a Defence Ministry spokesman, confirmed on Monday: “Legally, (the control of military forces) currently lies with the commander in chief,” that is, Yoon. This makes it entirely possible that the president could declare martial law again.

Amid these investigations and parliamentary measures, the concern within the ruling class is not the defence of democracy, but that the political system is increasingly discredited in the eyes of the public. An opinion poll by Hangil Research released Wednesday showed that 72.6 percent of the public strongly support impeachment. Yoon was already widely despised before his failed coup as workers’ wages and conditions have declined and a growing strike wave began to emerge.

Both the ruling and opposition parties hope to head off growing public opposition to not only Yoon, but the political system that created him. The declaration of martial law on December 3 was not simply the result of Yoon’s personality. It was an indication that sections of the ruling class feel they can no longer rule within the framework of bourgeois democracy.

The Democrats, with the aid of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), hope they can quickly remove Yoon through impeachment and install their own candidate as president before social discontent has an opportunity to grow.

Despite claims of launching an “indefinite general strike” last week to force Yoon to resign and its supposed expansion on Wednesday, the KCTU and its affiliated unions have held a handful of limited walkouts—several of which had already been planned in previous weeks—that are now being shut down in coordination with the Democratic Party.

UnitedHealth Group: Corporate criminality and the destruction of healthcare in the US

Marc Wells

The murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson last week in Manhattan is one of those shocking events that suddenly reveal stark aspects of social reality under capitalism, in this case the raw truth about healthcare in the US and its destructive impact on the lives of millions. 

United Healthcare correspondence [AP Photo/Elise Amendola]

UnitedHealthcare and its parent company, UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest healthcare corporations in the world, have long symbolized the prioritization of profit over the health and well-being of the population. Their operations epitomize the predatory nature of for-profit healthcare in the United States, where the pursuit of corporate profit has devastating consequences for patients, families and healthcare workers.

From denying life-saving claims to facing numerous lawsuits for acting in bad faith, UnitedHealth Group’s track record highlights a system designed not to heal but to enrich its executives and shareholders.

UnitedHealth Group has consistently come under fire for denying patients’ claims, leaving countless individuals and families grappling with the financial and emotional toll of medical crises. Reports have surfaced of patients being denied essential treatments, including surgeries, cancer therapies and critical medications, often based on spurious justifications. Last year, 12 percent of claims were denied, a 20 percent increase from 2020. In 2023, 58 percent of insured adults experienced issues with their coverage.

Last October, a report from the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations underscored this grim reality, showing a rise of UnitedHealthcare’s denial rate for post-acute care for people with Medicare Advantage plans to 22.7 percent in 2022, from 10.9 percent in 2020.

Several ProPublica investigations in the last three years have revealed the extent of UnitedHealth and other insurance giant’s criminal practices. 

EviCore, a company owned by Cigna and contracted by major insurers like UnitedHealth and Aetna, systematically denies medically necessary treatments through its prior authorization process. Physicians and patients describe delays or outright rejections for crucial interventions, such as cancer therapies and diagnostic tests, even when recommended by specialists. Their infamous letters to patients constantly include the absurd claim: “Not medically necessary.”

EviCore uses an algorithm backed by artificial intelligence, dubbed “the dial,” that the company can adjust to lead to higher denials. Its primary goal is to save insurers money, meaning they get to pocket more of the monthly—often exorbitant—premiums workers pay in, leading to avoidable health deterioration for patients. The system often prioritizes administrative procedures over medical expertise, leaving patients to navigate bureaucratic hurdles instead of receiving timely care.

Another ProPublica investigation also exposed UnitedHealth Group’s subsidiary Optum and its use of an algorithm to illegally deny mental health and substance abuse treatment claims. A federal judge ruled the company violated laws and its fiduciary duty by using financial considerations to deny coverage. Internal documents revealed employees trained to apply restrictive guidelines ignoring medical necessity. This practice forced patients to forgo treatment, exacerbating their medical crises. 

These practices have been described as “systemic denial of care.” Patients are systematically denied coverage for cutting-edge treatment despite recommendations from physicians. Such denials are not isolated incidents. Physicians and nurses regularly voice their frustrations with UnitedHealth’s policies, which they argue undermine their ability to provide adequate care. 

UnitedHealth Group has faced numerous lawsuits for acting in bad faith, exposing the extent to which corporate greed drives its operations. In 2021, a lawsuit filed by former finance director at UnitedHealth Group Benjamin Poehling exposed UnitedHealth Group’s fraudulent practices within Medicare Advantage. UnitedHealth allegedly exaggerated patient illnesses to inflate risk scores and secure higher government payments, potentially defrauding Medicare of over $1 billion. 

Poehling revealed employees were incentivized to exploit the system, with bonuses tied to inflated revenues rather than patient outcomes. The Justice Department intervened, investigating UnitedHealth and other insurers for systemic fraud. “They’ve set up a perfect scheme here,” Poehling said. “It was rigged so there was no way they could lose.”

The Justice Department has intervened in other whistleblower lawsuits, including one from James Swoben, a former data manager at Senior Care Action Network Health Plan and a consultant to the risk adjustment industry, alleging that UnitedHealth and others defrauded Medicare Advantage by inflating risk scores to secure higher government payments. 

UnitedHealth also challenged a 2014 rule requiring insurers to verify diagnoses submitted for Medicare reimbursements, claiming it conflicted with actuarial equivalence mandates. This challenge highlights UnitedHealth’s alleged focus on exploiting the system, enabling them to overstate patient diagnoses for financial gain.

Additionally, the Justice Department is investigating other Medicare Advantage insurers, including Humana, Aetna, Health Net and Cigna’s Bravo Health, indicating systemic abuse across the industry. Humana, notably, has faced prior fraud allegations. 

In another case, the company was found to have illegally denied mental health and substance abuse treatments. A federal judge in California ruled in 2019 that United Behavioral Health, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth, prioritized profit over patient care, violating state laws and its fiduciary duty to policyholders. The court described the company’s guidelines for coverage as “infected” by financial considerations.

Such lawsuits underscore UnitedHealth’s commitment not to health, but to profit maximization—a grim reality for millions of patients and healthcare workers trapped in the system.

UnitedHealth Group’s actions are orchestrated by its top executives, including CEO Andrew Witty and the late Brian Thompson. Under their leadership, the company has seen record profits, which topped $23 billion in 2023, while patients continue to suffer under its policies. Witty, a former pharmaceutical executive in the UK, exemplifies the revolving door between healthcare corporations and regulatory bodies. After serving as the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline from 2008 to 2017 he took on a series of advisory positions within the UK government, including at the NHS, before becoming the CEO of UnitedHealth in 2021.

A video recorded one day after Thompson’s murder shows Witty defending the company’s claim denial practices. “We make sure that care is safe, appropriate, and is delivered when people need it and we guard against the pressures that exist for unsafe or unnecessary care to be delivered in a way that makes the whole system too complex and ultimately unsustainable,” Witty told employees in the video, leaked to journalist Ken Klippenstein.

Thompson, whose 20-year career at UnitedHealthcare coincided with the expansion of the company’s market dominance, had been equally complicit. Prior to becoming CEO, he held various leadership roles within UnitedHealthcare, including overseeing the company’s government programs and Medicare & Retirement divisions and had been a key figure in shaping the company’s strategy and direction.

A lawsuit by the Hollywood Firefighters’ Pension Fund accuses Thompson, Witty and UnitedHealth Group executive chairman Stephen Hemsley of insider trading. The executives allegedly sold over $120 million in stock in 2023, after learning privately of a DOJ investigation into UnitedHealth’s acquisition of Change Healthcare. The company reportedly failed to establish promised data firewalls, raising antitrust concerns. The pension fund claims significant financial losses due to undisclosed risks.

The ripple effects of UnitedHealth’s policies extend beyond patients to the healthcare workforce across the United States. Nurses and doctors frequently cite insurance hurdles as a significant contributor to burnout and moral injury. The strain on healthcare workers has only intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, as insurance companies like UnitedHealth reported record profits while frontline workers faced shortages of staff, equipment and support, in addition to illness. 

The incoming Trump administration and figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is set to head the Department of Health and Human Services, guarantee that the most unrestrained corporate interests will further entrench themselves in the system. Kennedy, known for his anti-scientific stances on vaccines and public health, aligns with the administration’s broader agenda of deregulation and privatization. This will embolden corporations like UnitedHealth, allowing them to operate with more impunity and even less oversight. 

UnitedHealth Group’s actions serve as a damning indictment of for-profit healthcare. Its denial of claims, exploitation of healthcare workers, and prioritization of financial gain over human life encapsulate the failures of a system driven by profit. As the political elite realigns its policies to social reality and prepares further attacks on living standards and democratic rights, the potential for greater corporate influence looms large, threatening to deepen the crisis in healthcare.