European Central Bank points to slowing economic growth

Nick Beams

Signs of an economic slowdown in the euro zone for the first months of this year have put a question mark over moves by the European Central Bank (ECB) to further wind back its program of quantitative easing and its ultra-low interest rate regime.

The ECB had been expected to announce by June the future direction of monetary policy after September, when its program of asset purchases is due to end. The ECB currently purchases €30 billion of bonds per month, down from the highest levels of €80 billion per month.

But at the meeting of its governing council in Frankfurt yesterday, the ECB appears to have adopted something of a “wait and see” approach to the future direction of monetary policy in light of the slowdown, following the highest level of annual growth for a decade in 2017.

The first question addressed to ECB president Mario Draghi following the meeting was on the impact of weaker-than-expected data on the bank’s monetary policy. “The interesting thing is that we didn’t discuss monetary policy per se,” he replied.

Draghi then sought to elaborate why that was the case, pointing to the extent of the slowdown. He noted that all countries had reported a loss of momentum and it was across most sectors of the economy.

“Sharp declines” were experienced in purchasing managers’ indexes in almost all sectors, including retail, manufacturing, services and construction. “Then we had declines in industrial production, in capital goods production,” as well as in export orders. There were also declines in “national business and confidence indicators.”

Draghi admitted: “All of these declines were sharp and in some cases the extent of these declines was unexpected.”

In assessing these developments, Draghi pointed to a variety of factors, including cold weather and the impact of workers’ strikes. He said that after four quarters of growth at around 0.7 percent per quarter “some sort of normalisation was expected.”

However, there were also other factors in the manufacturing and capital goods areas that “could suggest a more durable softening in demand.”

Draghi returned to the issue of lower growth in response to another questioner who said he was “a little bit surprised” that the governing council did not discuss monetary policy or a roadmap. The questioner suggested it was “already high time” that such things were discussed, given they were not decisions to be made in a couple of weeks.

Draghi’s answer indicated that the ECB policymakers have been somewhat wrong-footed by the downturn and unsure how to assess it.

“The reason why we didn’t discuss monetary policy per se is that the reading of the current developments since the beginning of the year is actually very important in deciding the next steps,” he said.

“The very first thing we have to do is understand exactly—and place what’s happened in the proper context—whether it’s temporary or permanent, whether it’s supply or more demand. Whether it’s something that is just the beginning of a more significant decline or it’s simply normalisation after a prolonged period of very strong growth.”

There had been considerable speculation that the ECB would indicate at its June meeting what the tapering of its easy monetary policy could look like, but Draghi brushed aside a question on that issue. He said the policy had not been discussed and it would be “premature” to make a comment.

Another major issue to arise during the question and answer session was the impact of trade war measures. In his prepared remarks, Draghi said the risks surrounding the euro area remained broadly balanced, however, “risks related to global factors, including the threat of increased protectionism, have become more prominent.”

In response to a question, Draghi again adopted a “wait and see” approach. “We have to see what the exchange of, so far, rhetoric … about protectionism will produce.” There could be direct trade-related effects but so far they did not seem to be substantial.

“However we don’t know the extent of the retaliation yet,” Draghi said. “Obviously we can’t yet know what are going to be the direct effects of potential retaliation.

“What is certainly known is that these events have a profound and rapid effect on confidence, on business confidence, on exporters’ confidence, on confidence generally speaking. Confidence can in turn affect the growth question.”

The official rationale for the ECB’s monetary policy is that “accommodative” measures, that is, very low interest rates and asset purchases, must continue until the inflation rate reaches the ECB’s designated target of below, but close to, 2 percent.

However, there is little sign of an upward movement. The annual inflation rate increased to 1.3 percent in March, from 1.1 percent in February, and the headline rate is expected to hover around 1.5 percent for the remainder of the year. In his prepared remarks Draghi noted that “measures of underlying inflation remain subdued and have yet to show convincing signs of a sustained upward trend.”

There is some speculation in financial circles that after moving to pull back on its low-interest rate regime and asset purchasing program, the ECB may be considering delaying its first rise in interest rates until later in 2019 because of the weak economic data for the first quarter of this year. Some analysts also are predicting that the asset purchases may continue beyond September this year.

The concern in the ruling class is that if the low-interest rates and quantitative easing continue the ECB will have little monetary ammunition at its disposal if the current weakness in growth turns out to be then start of a more substantial downturn.

Thousands of UK auto jobs to go

Margot Miller

Japanese-based car manufacturer Nissan is to cut hundreds of jobs at its Sunderland branch, in the northeast of England. This is only the latest in a series of job losses to hit the UK car industry, responding to a downturn in Europe.

Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) will be cutting around 1,000 jobs and reducing output at its two factories in the West Midlands. Owned by India Tata, JLR has seen its sales to Europe fall in March from 45,000 to 35,000. The biggest car maker in Britain, it will cut the jobs from its 2,000 temporary-contract workforce at its Solihull plant, which employs 10,000.

The biggest job losses are not in production. Last week, Vauxhall—owned by French-based PSA—said it would terminate the contracts with its 326 dealerships in the UK, citing falling sales. The dealerships employ 12,000 people. This follows January’s announcement that Vauxhall is shedding 250 jobs at its largest UK car plant at Ellesmere Port, in the northwest of England, amid fears that the entire operation could close within two years.

Earlier in October, 400 jobs were lost through early retirement and voluntary redundancies—reducing the workforce from 1,900 to 1,150—with plans to reduce the plant to just one shift in April.

PSA is also aiming to cut a massive 3,700 jobs by 2020 in its German Opel plants—acquired from General Motors (GM) last year. Two thousand jobs have already been eliminated through buyouts and early retirement, with another 2,000 expected to go.

GM is eliminating a shift in its factory in Ohio in the US, laying off 1,500 employees. In South Korea, where it employs 16,000, it is closing its Gunsan plant, while the jobs at its three other factories hang in the balance.

Nissan is the sixth largest automaker globally, after Toyota in first position and GM in second. It is the largest producer of electric vehicles (EVs) in the world. Its sales in the UK have dropped by a third so far this year, which is proving a dismal year for the industry overall, with a 12 percent decline in demand for new cars.

Nissan’s exports to Europe are also falling, from 75,000 in March compared with 91,000 in the same month last year. Eight out of 10 Nissan cars assembled in the UK are sold on the continent.

Nissan dismissed its job losses in Sunderland, where it employs 7,000, as temporary while it is “transitioning to a new range of powertrains [motors] over the next year,” insisting the move was “not related to Brexit.” The company urged its workforce to vote to remain in the 2016 EU referendum.

In 2016, Nissan announced it would build its next-generation Qashqai, Juke, Infinity and its new X-Trail model in Sunderland, where it manufactures the EV Leaf marque. The company and government both denied they had agreed to a sweetheart deal to protect sales from EU tariffs post-Brexit.

Nissan promised the new models would secure more than 7,000 jobs and 28,000 more in the supply chain and not cause redundancies. Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell applauded the news.

JLR put the market slowdown to a combination over uncertainties over Brexit and increasing hostility towards diesel cars following the ”Dieselgate” emissions scandal that erupted in the car industry in 2015. To bypass EU clean air targets, German auto giant Volkswagen AG (VW) fitted its cars with “defeat device” software designed to fool laboratory emissions tests—thus contributing to air pollution, which results, says the Royal College of Physicians, in 40,000 unnecessary deaths in the UK per year.

VW was singled out over Dieselgate because of the escalating trade war between America and the EU. The device, however, is used widely throughout the car industry.

The legal air-quality thresholds in 23 out of the EU’s 28 countries and 130 of its cities, as reported by the Guardian, have been consistently breached.

The sale of diesel cars declined by 37.2 percent in March this year across the industry, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers. Consumers have been deterred by a small government tax on diesel cars, and reduced resale values due to uncertainties over EU tax levies.

UK car industry bosses all supported a remain vote in the referendum and have since pressed the Conservative government of Theresa May to opt for a soft Brexit, including tariff-free access to the single market. Substantial sections of industry and finance regard Brexit as disastrous for their prospective profits. Manufacturing exports from the UK could be cut by a third. This is underlined by recent remarks to the Observer by Japan’s ambassador to the UK, Koji Tsuruoka. He warned that firms such as Nissan and Toyota in the UK that sell in the European Union (EU) market will relocate if they no longer have access to the single market after March 2019.

Workers in the UK car industry, which employs 169,000, and throughout the world face an onslaught on their jobs and conditions in a race to the bottom as global competition for markets grows. The US imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminium ushers in trade war.

In response, the auto workers’ unions line up with management to increase the competitiveness of their own companies in the global market, at the expense of their members.

The response of the Unite union to the present UK redundancies has been to work with management to facilitate the job losses and suppress any opposition from its members.

Unite officer Steve Bush said the union was “working with Nissan to minimise job losses.” He said Unite was assured that there would be no compulsory redundancies and “any job reductions will be on a voluntary basis and on enhanced terms. … We expect to see temporary workers at the plant move into permanent positions as volumes pick up again in future years.”

Unite also agreed to the previous job losses at Vauxhall “on a voluntary basis.” It has nothing to offer its members but job losses today and the forlorn hope of a permanent contract tomorrow.

The unions act as company spokesmen in the escalating trade war.

The United Auto Workers in the US has played a vital role in suppressing strikes over the last decades. At GM in South Korea—where union membership has plunged by half in the last two decades to fewer than 10 percent of the workforce—the unions will not put in a pay rise or bonuses this year.

The UK car unions are no different. Commenting on a union report advocating the expansion of the manufacture of EVs, Unite General Secretary Len McCluskey said, “We want to see high-skilled secure jobs on decent pay and for the UK automotive sector to hold its own against Germany, the United States, Southern Asia and China.”

Unite Assistant General Secretary for Manufacturing Tony Burke agreed, saying, “The government must do more to put the UK in the fast lane of electric vehicle technology and to secure our automotive industry’s world leading status for the years to come.”

Ford announces plans to slash US car production, cut billions in costs

Marcus Day 

Ford Motor Company announced Wednesday that it plans to slash both production and sales of passenger car sedans in the US, gambling on continued demand for more profitable SUV and pickup truck models. Ford will eliminate the Taurus, Fusion, Fiesta, and C-Max from its line-up, leaving only the Mustang sports model and next year’s Focus Active crossover.

In addition, the company revealed its intention to cut $11.5 billion in costs between 2019 and 2022. The cuts come on top of $14 billion previously announced last fall.

Ford’s historic shift away from traditional cars and other restructuring measures are being driven by Wall Street’s relentless demands for greater efficiency, cost-cutting, “labor flexibility,” and investment returns from the automaker, which is facing flat sales and flagging profit margins.

A Morgan Stanley investment firm analyst told CNBC, “Virtually eliminating Ford’s NA [North American] car portfolio makes a lot of sense, in our view. No more Fusion. No more Focus. No more Fiesta. No more Taurus.”

In their drive to overhaul their operations and lower workers’ living standards still further, Ford and the other auto companies are fully expecting to rely upon the United Auto Workers union to suppress growing opposition and act as a partner in the attacks, as it has done for the last four decades.

The UAW has thus far been silent on Ford’s restructuring plans. “The UAW is going to let the company say whatever they’re going to say,” said a veteran worker at Ford’s Chicago Assembly Plant contacted by the WSWS Autoworker Newsletter. “Then they’re going to come out and try say why it’s a good thing or offer a lukewarm rebuttal that won’t change anything.”

Ford’s announcement that it would effectively eliminate its sedan lineup follows Fiat Chrysler’s 2016 decision to end passenger car production in the US, shifting towards larger, more profitable vehicles such as Jeep SUVs and Dodge pickups. Pressure is now building for General Motors to follow suit. “I think we have been on this path for a number of years,” Chuck Stevens, GM’s chief financial officer, said Thursday.

However, any substantial increase in gasoline prices or interest rates would have disastrous implications for such a setup, and would once again throw the US auto industry into a tailspin.

While Ford has stated that its latest raft of cuts will impact marketing, sales, engineering, and materials costs, it has thus far concealed to what extent they will include mass layoffs or plant closures in the US. However, officials have indicated that “money-losing” operations in Europe and South America may be targeted next for closure or sale.

“We have looked at every single part of the business. It’s a little bit of everything, and I don’t think they’re done yet,” said Bob Shanks, Ford’s Chief Financial Officer. “We are undergoing a profound transformation and are committed to decisive action.”

A second-tier worker from Chicago Assembly denounced the corporate indifference to the suffering the restructuring would inevitably inflict. “They only care about the money. The corporate people won’t be affected by this,” he continued. “It’s the people on the low end, the laborer, they’re the ones who are hurt by this. All they’re trying to do is make a living and support their families.”

News of Ford’s restructuring plans came amidst the release of first-quarter financial results for the US auto industry Wednesday and Thursday. Each of the Big Three auto companies saw declines in pretax profits for North America from a year ago, with GM’s down 37 percent, Ford’s 14 percent, and Fiat Chrysler 2 percent.

The decrease in pretax profits at Ford has been attributed by company officials in part to rising commodity prices, primarily steel and aluminum. President Trump’s tariffs on imports of both are expected to squeeze the profitability of the automakers further.

However, both Ford and Fiat Chrysler saw an uptick in after-tax profits, due to the Trump administration’s massive corporate tax-cut handout. According to Ford spokespeople, the increase in net income was almost entirely the result of the slashing of their effective tax rate from 28.6 percent to 9 percent.

In response to industry “headwinds,” GM has undertaken its own restructuring measures, announcing plans in recent weeks to lay off an entire shift at its assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio, while hiring thousands of low-paid temporary workers under a subsidiary, as part of an agreement worked out with the UAW behind the backs of workers.

In addition, GM has sought and extracted massive concessions from autoworkers at its operations in South Korea.

Holding a gun to the head of workers with the threat of throwing GM Korea into bankruptcy protection, the company, working with the Korean Metal Workers Union (KMWU), forced through an agreement this week, which freezes wages, cancels bonuses, and cuts benefits, among other concessions. The Detroit automaker will shut its operations in Gunsan, one of four GM plants in the country. Over 2,600 workers, or 16 percent of the company’s South Korean workforce, have been coerced into leaving via a “voluntary” severance program.

Whether in South Korea or the United States, Europe or South America, workers are facing unending demands to lower their living conditions, even as corporations such as the Big Three continue to rake in billions in profits every year. In this struggle, workers are finding that the unions are no less determined enemies than the employers themselves. They are increasingly being driven into opposition against them, as seen in the rebellions of teachers in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona, and other states.

When asked what he thought the way forward is against the companies’ demands, the veteran worker from Chicago Assembly said, “I honestly think we need to move away from the union, from the UAW. The UAW is showing its true colors. How can you trust them?”

“We’ve seen it with the teachers taking a stand. Is it hard? Yes. Is it impossible, no. It’s a hard position because everyone is afraid of losing their jobs and incomes. On the other hand, it’s too hard to continue working the way we’re working and being treated the way we’re treated.”

In order for workers to secure any of their social interests—whether for decent jobs, health care, a secure retirement, or safe working conditions—they must take matters into their own hands and establish rank-and-file factory committees, which are not only independent of but also opposed to the pro-company unions. Such committees must link up all the various struggles against inequality, in the US and throughout the world, and advance as their demands not what the capitalist ruling class and their political representatives say they can afford, but rather what the working class needs.

Australian health care costs among the worst internationally

John Mackay

A recent healthcare affordability study has found Australia ranks among the most unaffordable for people aged 65 and over, when compared to 11 comparable OECD countries, including New Zealand.

In Australia nearly 20 percent reported spending $1,000 or more in “out-of-pocket” healthcare costs during the year, the third largest proportion after Switzerland (53 percent) and the US (37 percent). “Out-of-pocket” expenses are extra costs not covered by private or public health insurance.

Published in December, the 2017 International Health Survey performed by the Commonwealth Fund, a private US foundation, surveyed 24,000 people across the 12 countries, which included 2,500 from Australia. The study focused on the costs of healthcare for an aging population—that is, people who more commonly suffer from multiple chronic illnesses, compared to younger people.

When asked about the difficulty of paying medical bills, 13 percent in Australia said they had problems, the highest rate of all the countries surveyed. In the United States, where the privatisation of the health system is most pronounced, resulting in soaring health costs, 10 percent reported problems paying medical bills.

The remaining 10 countries in the survey recorded 5 percent or less. They were Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland and New Zealand.

In Australia, 8 percent of those surveyed said they had skipped medical care due to cost and 14 percent missed filling out a medical prescription. This was second only to the US (13 percent and 23 percent, respectively).

These results indicate working-class elderly people, usually those most in medical need, are likely to be suffering serious health consequences, with major impacts on their quality of life, purely because of their inability to pay the high costs of treatments and medications.

Surgical expenses for such common procedures as hip replacements in Australia, for example, can typically add $5,500 to out-of-pocket costs, unless patients wait months for a public hospital operation.

Australia and the US recorded the highest prevalence of elderly patients who responded as being “high-need”—suffering from multiple chronic conditions, having “limitations with basic function” and requiring assistance.

Asked if they considered themselves economically vulnerable, in the US one-third of the high-need respondents worried about not having enough money to buy nutritious meals, and pay for housing, utilities and medical needs. This was followed by both Australia and Germany, with one quarter considering themselves economically vulnerable.

In all countries, many high-need respondents expressed low levels of satisfaction with the quality of their care. Australia was again on top, with 41 percent of this group giving their care low marks, compared to the lowest result of 21 percent in Switzerland.

Australia recorded the highest proportion of elderly patients missing dental appointments due to cost (23 percent), eclipsing the US on 21 percent. Yet, regular access to dental care is also vital for maintaining health.

Poor oral health leads to increased likelihood of tooth loss, periodontal disease and oral cancers. The impacts on daily life are significant, such as reduced chewing performance, constrained food choice, weight loss and impaired communication, as well as low self-esteem and wellbeing, leading to poor quality of life.

These findings debunk the myth of “free” or “socialised” health care in Australia, as well as the conception that Australia’s system is more humane than the more overtly profit-driven US healthcare system. The study suggests that health care is deteriorating in Australia, with a damaging impact on the elderly and the poor in particular.

Deepening real cuts to public health funding mean that patients confront higher “out of pocket” charges from doctors, clinics and hospitals. Those patients who can afford take out private insurance in the hope of securing better treatment are also facing soaring premiums and bigger “gaps” between their medical bills and the refunds they receive from the insurers.

Years of funding cuts by both Liberal-National Coalition and Labor governments are resulting in increasing sections of the population unable to access the required health care.

Statistics from the Australian government-funded Institute of Health and Welfare show that total government health expenditure for 2015–16 was $114.6 billion, up by just 4.1 percent from the previous year. That was lower than the average annual rise of 4.4 percent for the decade.

When the almost 10 percent population increase in the same period is taken into account, healthcare funding has been cut significantly. Moreover, medical treatment and pharmaceutical costs are rising at a faster pace.

There has been an unending drive in Australia, mirroring processes in the US and other countries, to create an increasingly profit-driven, privatised healthcare system. This has created a “two-tier” health system, with an increasing proportion of the population forced to buy private insurance to avoid delays.

However in the past two years, there has been a reversal in private health coverage. The proportion of people privately insured fell to 45 percent in 2017, after rising from 43 percent in 2006 to 47 percent in 2015.

Annual hikes in private health insurance premiums sanctioned by successive governments have averaged 5.35 percent per year since 2000, far outstripping wage rises. This is now resulting in an exodus from private health coverage, and this is placing greater demands on the already underfunded public health system, resulting in longer waiting lists and sub-standard treatment.

Those most affected are the working class and poor. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ annual Patient Experiences in Australia survey in 2016–2017 showed that the percentage of patients who delayed or failed to seek treatment was highest among the poorest fifth of the population. For instance, 27 percent of the poorest quintile delayed seeing a dentist, or did not see one at all, compared to 11 percent of those in the wealthiest fifth of the population.

Dental care in Australia is not covered by the Medicare public insurance scheme and 80 percent of people are not eligible for public dental care. Such is the dearth of public dental services that even those who are eligible face extraordinarily long waiting lists that preclude timely and adequate treatment.

These studies further demonstrate the worsening state of the health system and the growing healthcare inequality, which is accelerating the social inequality being driven by the widening gap between the incomes and wealth of working-class households and the tiny corporate elite.

UK government’s persecution of Caribbean workers the tip of an iceberg

Paul Mitchell

On Monday Conservative Party Home Secretary Amber Rudd apologised again to “Windrush Migrants,” the generation named after the first ship bringing workers from the Caribbean to the UK in 1948 to help fill a massive labour shortage following the Second World War.

Hundreds of members of the Windrush generation have been denied free healthcare and benefits, lost jobs and have been threatened with arrest and deportation as a result of the “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants introduced by then home secretary, now Prime Minister Theresa May in 2013.

Rudd lamented the “hardship they had endured,” claiming it was an unfortunate mistake by over-zealous civil servants and declared, “It is only right that the significant contribution the Windrush generation have made to the UK is recognised.” She announced that citizenship and compensation would be offered to their families and those of other Commonwealth nations who came to the UK between 1948 and 1973.

The UK government’s scandalous persecution of Caribbean migrant workers is just the tip of an iceberg, however.

According to Robert McNeil, deputy director of the Migration Observatory, this could affect “tens of thousands of people from other Commonwealth countries in Asia, Africa, the Americas and elsewhere” because they did not regularise their residency status and are threatened with deportation.

Margaret O’Brien, 69, who emigrated from Canada in 1971, got married and had three children, told the Guardian how she has fought for over two years to persuade the Home Office to be allowed to stay. In 2015, O’Brien, after being refused disability benefit, received a letter stating, “Home Office records indicate that you do not have permission to be in the UK. You should make arrangements to leave without delay.”

The letter informed her “of our intention to remove you from the UK to your country of nationality if you do not depart voluntarily. No further notice will be given.”

Soon afterwards, O’Brien received another letter with her photo declaring, “You are a person without leave who has been served with a notice of liability to removal.”

It was only due to the diligence of her lawyers in finding supporting evidence that O’Brien did not suffer the fate of countless others.

In 2016, almost 40,000 people were removed from the UK or classified as “departing voluntarily,” after receiving threatening letters. Many more are detained at Britain’s airports and ferry terminals and sent to another country under the “deport first, appeal later” policy.

Figures also show that around 10,000 people are waiting for more than six months for a decision on their asylum claims and, because they are banned from work, are forced to live on an allowance of £37.75 a week. The Red Cross has said these conditions are pushing a growing number of vulnerable people into destitution.

No belated apologies, emergency measures and attempts to blames the civil service can hide the fact that the Conservative government and its Liberal-Democrat coalition partners ignored warnings about the consequences of the “hostile environment” policy, which Rudd has “escalated”—a promise she made to her predecessor.

The results were both inevitable and intended. It was what the system was designed to do. They knew people’s lives would be wrecked and families torn apart.

Former Head of the Civil Service Lord Robert Kerslake likened May’s “hostile environment” to fascism. “You cannot create a climate and then not expect it to have consequences,” Kerslake explained, adding, “I think it was not just a question of the home secretary being told it was a challenging policy, the prime minister [David Cameron] was as well.”

“This was a very contested policy across all Government departments. Now I can’t say, and shouldn’t say as a former Head of the Civil Service, precisely who gave advice to whom but what I can tell you is that it was contested.

“And there were some, who I shall not name, who saw it as almost reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the way it was working.”

Kerslake has called for an inquiry into why the Home Office decided to destroy thousands of documents such as landing cards relating to the Windrush generation, which made it much harder for them to prove their status.

Short shrift should also be given to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson who yesterday repeated his call, subsequently dismissed by May, for a “broader” amnesty for those from Commonwealth nations who had no criminal records and had lived in the UK for more than 10 years.

Johnson is resorting once again to disgusting politicking in the wake of Brexit and attempts by the ruling elite to re-establish the Commonwealth with its more than 50-member nations as an economic and trading partner and alternative source of labour to the European Union (EU).

Johnson’s newfound sympathy for immigrants is, of course, not extended to EU workers. The Migration Observatory also reports that “substantial” numbers of UK residents could be at risk of losing their legal status after Brexit, with particularly vulnerable groups including victims of domestic abuse, elderly people and children, many of whose parents mistakenly believe that they are automatically UK nationals. In addition many people do not realise that they are covered by the new regulations and need to apply for “Settled Status.”

The reaction of the Labour Party opposition has been predictable and tame. Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry declared that there was something “rotten at the heart of government,” urging that Rudd should take the decision to resign. “People have died, people have lost their jobs, lost their futures. People working in the National Health Service all their lives suddenly lose their jobs… I really think she should quit.”

Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn called on May to repeal the 2014 Immigration Act, which imposed requirements on employers, landlords, employers, banks and the NHS to check people’s immigration status.

Diane Abbott, shadow home secretary, criticised Rudd for blaming the scandal on “successive governments,” including Labour, and said it was mainly the fault of the 2014 Immigration Act. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said Labour would substantially change the 2014 legislation.

This is about as far as Labour’s “left” leadership can go, because they are intent on concealing the party’s despicable anti-immigrant history.

Only 18 MPs, including Corbyn and Abbott, voted against the Immigration Bill in 2014. And little wonder, because former Blairite home secretary from June 2009 until May 2010, Alan Johnson, pioneered the approach prior to Labour losing the 2010 general election.

The BBC’s Nick Robinson told Thornberry that it wasn’t the Tories who first used the phrase “hostile environment,” referring to a UK Home Office report from February 2010, which said, “This strategy sets out how we will continue our efforts to cut crime and make the UK a hostile environment for those that seek to break our laws or abuse our hospitality.”

This was the policy underscoring Labour’s election campaign that saw the party selling mugs and badges reading, “Controls on immigration. I’m voting Labour.”

Thornberry was forced to admit, “Alan Johnson first used it in a speech,” while suggesting that to “lift that phrasing, to embed it as much as it was, to strengthen it, to make it sharper and nastier, that was the difference. The words were used but the culture was not.”

Her objection is difficult to understand, given her insistence that she “did not have a problem” with checks being made on people seeking homes, jobs and health care—the provisions introduced by the 2014 Act: “It’s right that we should have rules and that they should be enforced, and that it should be done fairly and fast and it should be firm.”

Alleged corruption scandal in Bremen used to restrict right to asylum in Germany

Martin Kreickenbaum

Rumours about alleged cases of corruption in the German city of Bremen during decisions on applications for asylum have been used over recent days to launch a right-wing campaign against supposedly unlawfully-issued asylum decisions and to further curtail the already heavily restricted right to asylum. A closer inspection shows that the accusations are groundless.

The floodgates were opened by a report published last Friday morning in the daily Süddeutsche zeitung, and broadcasters NDR and Radio Bremen. Under the sensationalist title “Suspicions of wide-ranging corruption scandal at the Federal Office for Immigration and Refugees,” the nominally liberal Süddeutsche reported in its online edition that the head of the Federal Office’s Bremen division “allegedly granted asylum in around 2,000 cases” between 2013 and 2017 “although the legal prerequisites were not present.”

The incident, which the Bild tabloid blew up into a “major corruption scandal,” was not even a storm in a teacup. In reality, the case does not involve any corruption, since the head of the Bremen office neither received money nor benefits in kind for herself or a third party, or any “unlawfully” issued positive asylum decisions.

Those involved in the overwhelming majority of the cases being called into question are members of the Yazidi religious group who were forced to flee Syria and Iraq, and are guaranteed a right to protection under German asylum law.

The Yazidis, who lived in northern Syria and Iraq, were brutally persecuted during the early stages of the advances of the so-called Islamic State, which was initially backed by the imperialist powers, particularly the United States. They were systematically enslaved, raped, abused, and executed. Yazidis were recognised as having refugee status in Germany according to the Geneva Convention and European Convention of Human Rights in well over 90 percent of the cases.

The civil servant is therefore merely being accused of taking control of the decision-making process, even though the Bremen office was not responsible for the cases, and of failing to inquire systematically as to whether the applicants had previously filed asylum applications in another European Union state.

Nonetheless, the Bremen state prosecutor is investigating the civil servant, as well as three lawyers and an interpreter, for alleged bribery and conspiring “as a criminal gang to encourage the filing of abusive asylum applications.” Private apartments and lawyers’ offices were raided, and the Süddeutsche rushed to report that a weapon with ammunition had been found, as if the group under investigation was a bunch of mafia gangsters.

In reality, the civil servant in Bremen acted out of humanitarian considerations. She had been closely following the fate of the Yazidis and positively cited reports from the refugee aid organisation ProAsyl on Twitter.

This humane reaction to the plight of refugees is now being turned into a criminal offence. The goal is to make an example of her to prohibit similarly humanitarian responses to those seeking sanctuary. It is significant that the Federal Office for Immigration and Refugees became aware of the case when the Bremen office was able to stop the deportation of a Kurdish family to Iraq at the last minute.

Boris Pistorius, the Minister for the Interior in the state of Lower Saxony, wrote a sharply-worded letter to the Federal Office’s then head, Frank-Jürgen Weise, in which he bitterly complained about the failure to carry out the deportation because the Kurdish family had received a positive asylum decision from the state of Bremen. “The procedural manner of the Bremen office’s decision is totally incomprehensible,” raged Pistorius, according to the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

Yet the scandal is not the recognition of asylum claims from people who are fleeing war, persecution, and misery. Rather, the scandal is that German authorities, and state and federal governments refuse to grant these desperate people refugee status and ruthlessly deport them.

According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Federal Interior Minister Horst Seehofer was “deeply affected” by the case. He announced the formation of an investigative commission to find out if there are “systemic shortcomings” in asylum decisions. In other words, the aim is to apply even more pressure to asylum decision-makers so that they issue as few positive decisions as possible.

The manufactured corruption scandal was accompanied by a report in the Bildnewspaper that the Immigration and Refugee Office had stopped working with 2,100 interpreters because “accumulated violations” had taken place “in many cases.” Others had their employment terminated due to a lack of expertise.

The report was intended to suggest that the interpreters, by providing false translations, caused the authorities to make incorrect asylum decisions. This gross accusation is utterly false from a technical standpoint.

In reality, only 30 interpreters will no longer participate in asylum hearings because they violated the Office’s “code of conduct,” although it remains entirely unclear what they were accused of doing. All other cases result from the wave of job cuts currently being implemented across the Federal Office for Immigration and Refugees.

The interpreters are not employed directly by the Federal Office, but are hired from a pool on an hourly or daily basis. When thousands of asylum applications were being processed in 2016 and 2017, the authorities expanded the pool and reduced the qualification requirements to join it. However, interpreters must now produce evidence that they have sufficient knowledge of the German language. On this basis alone, the number of interpreters dropped by around a third to roughly 5,200.

The sensationalist articles calling positive asylum decisions into question and spreading lies that are being enthusiastically adopted by the nominally liberal media serve a definite political purpose. A systematic propaganda campaign against refugees and immigrants is being whipped up. While the 1,200 cases from Bremen fill the newspapers and commentators demand a “tough clampdown” (Süddeutsche Zeitung), or that the “relaxed mentality” towards asylum seekers “must fundamentally change” (Westfalen-Blatt), the high number of wrongly-rejected asylum applications is barely being reported on.

It was revealed a month ago that in 2017, the courts upheld appeals from asylum seekers against the rejection of their application in 32,000 cases. Appeals by Syrian and Afghan refugees were upheld in around 60 percent of cases.

The Bremen case is being used as a pretext to establish a commission to review positive asylum decisions. By contrast, the government commented on the high number of appeals upheld by the courts against negative asylum decisions with the laconic remark that they represented “no indication of the correctness or incorrectness” of the Federal Office’s asylum decisions. However, the high number of successful appeals to the courts can only lead to the conclusion that negative decisions are being intentionally produced by the Federal Office.

This is also in keeping with Seehofer’s urging, during a visit to the Federal Office for Immigration and Refugees earlier this month, to move towards the creation of arrival, decision-making, distribution, and repatriation (Anker) centres. He summed up their purpose with the statement, “Arrival, decision, repatriation.” The concept apparently does not allow for the refugees to “remain.”

Officials of the Federal Office for Immigration and Refugees will work closely with federal police officers and administrative court judges in the Anker centres, even though such collaboration between executive and judicial branches violates the constitution. The up to 1,800 refugees confined in the camps will be denied basic rights during the decision-making process. They will not be permitted to receive unrestricted legal representation for their asylum case, will not receive a work permit, and children will generally not be allowed to attend school. Instead, they will be permanently watched over by security forces, subjected to unannounced searches, and thus constantly bullied and intimidated.

In the coalition agreement, the Christian Democratic Union, Christian Social Union, and Social Democrats largely adopted the demands of the far-right Alternative for Germany on immigration policy, and they are now taking steps to implement them. The attack on the right to asylum, and the propagandising against Muslims, refugees, and immigrants is part of a comprehensive programme to strengthen the state’s repressive apparatus directed at the working class.

Germany’s ruling class is ever more explicitly resorting to the fascistic traditions of its past. Germany is rearming its military and pursuing an aggressive great power policy. This foreign policy transformation is being accompanied by the construction of a police state and the destruction of democratic rights, which initially impacts the most vulnerable sections of society.

Government of Poland Masters and PhD Scholarships for Students from Developing Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 11th May 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries (Angola, Chile, Colombia, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Myanmar, Nigeria, Palestine, Peru, The Republic of South Africa, The Philippines, Senegal, Tanzania, and Vietnam).

To be taken at (country): Poland

Field of Study: Varying

About the Award: The Government of Poland Scholarships offered as a part of the programme include free 2nd degree studies conducted in Polish language (preceded by a year-long preparation course for taking up studies in Poland) and 3rd degree studies conducted in public universities supervised by the minister responsible for higher education (the list of universities at the following link).
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the Polish government department tasked with maintaining Poland’s international relations and coordinating its participation in international and regional supra-national political organisations such as the European Union and United Nations.

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility: The Scholarship will be offered to the citizens of the above-mentioned countries who:

• are graduates of first cycle programmes (completed no earlier than in 2014) or students of the last year of first cycle programmes in the academic year 2017/2018 in the following areas of study: sciences, natural sciences, technical sciences, agricultural, forestry and veterinary sciences;
• do not hold a magister (Master’s) r magister inżynier (Master of Science) degree;
• have a certificate confirming proficiency in English of at least B2 level;
• are neither graduates nor students of Polish higher education institutions.

Selection: Candidates are selected on the basis of a competitive procedure, based on the quality assessment of applications carried out by reviewers of the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange who are academics working in higher education institutions.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program:

• The NAWA scholarship is paid once a month through the higher education institution.
• The scholarship rate is PLN 1500 per month for second cycle programme students and for participants of the preparatory course for learning in Poland.
• During the course of education, beneficiaries shall also receive:
  • in the first year of studies, the first monthly scholarship is increased by PLN 500 to cover the costs of starting out in Poland.
  • in the last year of studies, the last monthly scholarship is increased by PLN 500 to cover the costs of the thesis.
• In the event of a documented unforeseen circumstance, the NAWA Director may, at the written request of the Scholarship Holder, increase the monthly scholarship paid out to him/her by PLN 500 on account of such an unforeseen circumstance

Duration of Program: 12 months

How to Apply: Applications can be sumbited only via https://programs.nawa.gov.pl/login.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland and Minister of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland

European Investment Bank/Global Development Network (GDN) Fellowship Programme in Applied Development Finance (Fully-funded) 2018

Application Deadline: 30th April 2018.

Eligible Countries: African, Caribbean and Pacific countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Candidate’s home country.

About the Award:  The purpose of the program is to provide a select group of highly qualified and motivated young researchers a practical opportunity to hone their impact assessment skills, by working on real-world projects in private sector development funded by one of the world’s leading financial institutions, under the mentorship of top international experts. The researchers will be inducted into the Program as Candidate Fellows; at the end of the 12-month program cycle and on satisfying all program requirements, they will receive joint certification from EIB and GDN as EIB-GDN Fellows in Applied Development Finance.

Type: Research, Fellowship (Career)

Eligibility: The Fellowship is open only to nationals of ACP countries.

Selection Process
Candidate Fellows will be selected through a 3-stage process:

1. Initial Screening: In this stage, applications will be judged on the following criteria:
   1. Relevance of academic training
   2. Professional experience
   3. Private sector experience
   4. Research experience
   5. Professional experience in evaluation and impact assessment
   6. Academic knowledge of evaluation and impact assessment
   7. Communication skills and career aspirations, as stated in the Statement of Purpose (SoP), that will be judged on
      1. Language
      2. Motivation
      3. How well the candidate explains the fit of the program to his/her background
   8. Location, i.e. match with project geographies.
2. Written Assignment: Candidates who pass through the screening stage will be issued a written assignment designed to test their grasp over basic statistical and econometric concepts and their understanding of impact evaluation.
3. Interview: Candidates will be ranked on the combined scores they receive in the previous two stages, and shortlisted candidates will be interviewed by skype or over the telephone.

The profiles of the finalists will be reviewed by the Expert Advisors and EIB for final selection.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: For successful candidates, the program offers the following benefits:

1. Firsthand experience in the rapidly developing fields of Impact Investing and Development Finance;
2. The opportunity to apply academic knowledge and training to real world private sector development projects;
3.  Deepening of subject matter expertise in evaluation methodologies, with mentoring from some of the world’s leading evaluation experts;
4. Working with two leading international institutions;
5. Professional certification;
6. Inclusion in a knowledge network which can work locally in ACP countries for national and regional development; and
7. Part-time commitment with excellent financial support.

Financial and Non-financial Support
Each researcher inducted into the program will receive a stipend of €15,000 (to cover time costs), along with a grant of up to €10,000 to cover all direct and indirect expenses of conducting the research (including field trips, data collection and analysis). These will be disbursed in installments through the length of the 12-month program cycle and will be tied to deliverables and contingent upon satisfaction of all program requirements. GDN will provide administrative, management and logistical support.

Duration of Program: 12 Months (1 October 2018 to 30 September 2019)

How to Apply: To apply, please visit https://gdn.catsone.com/careers

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: European Investment Bank, Global Development Network

Ernst and Young (EY) Entrepreneurial Winning Women™ for Southern African Female Entrepreneurs 2018

Application Deadline: 2nd May 2018

Eligible Countries: Southern African countries

About the Award: Spanning 50 countries and over 400 participants, the EY Entrepreneurial Winning Women programme identifies high-potential women entrepreneurs whose businesses show real potential to scale and provides them with ongoing support to help accelerate their growth.
The EY Entrepreneurial Winning Women programme is an executive leadership programme that identifies a select group of high-potential women entrepreneurs whose businesses show real potential to scale — and then helps them do it.
The programme helps these entrepreneurs by:

• Expanding their knowledge with the latest information, research and executive dialogues about business strategies and practices
• Identifying potential partners, strategic alliances, as well as prospective sources of private capital
• Providing access to informal, one-to-one guidance and support
• Increasing visibility for themselves and their companies among corporate executives, investors and the media

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: Applicants must fit the following criteria to participate:

• Have a substantial ownership of the business – at least 50%
• Have decision making roles and –
• Demonstrate passion to grow their business and scale up
• Are ready to fully commit to the programme and attend the series of four workshops in Johannesburg over the twelve months
• Businesses must be at least three years old and have reported at least R3.5m revenue during the last financial year

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Those selected for the Entrepreneurial Winning Women programme are exposed to entrepreneurs, investors and advisors who can help them on crucial actions needed to scale their companies:

• Think big and be bold
• Build a public profile
• Work on the business, rather than in it
• Establish key advisory networks
• Evaluate financing for expansion

How to Apply: Nominations close 2 May 2018. Click here for nomination form download.
complete, in full, the application form and submit to: winningwomen@za.ey.com

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Ernst and Young (EY)

Young Statisticians Writing Competition 2018 for Early-Career Statisticians – Cardiff, Wales

Application Deadline: 28th May, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

To be taken at (country): Wales

About the Award: The rules of entry are simple: send us your best article, of between 1500 and 2500 words, on the subject of your choosing.
In past years, winning submissions have been based on original analyses produced specifically for the competition. This does take work, but it often results in a unique and compelling article.
You can write about work you have done as part of your studies, or during your career, but if these articles draw on previously published work, you must ensure that the competition submission is sufficiently different in terms of style and structure. Remember, Significance is a magazine, not an academic journal.
You can also write about the work of others, but this must be in the form of a critique or wider overview of a subject area.
Whatever you choose to write about, articles must be engaging and easy to read. Significance is published for a broad audience with varying levels of statistical expertise. This means technical terms and mathematics should be kept to a minimum and explained clearly where used.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: The competition is open to:

1. Students currently studying for a first degree, Master’s or PhD in statistics or related subjects.
2. Graduates whose last qualification in statistics or related subjects (whether first degree, Master’s or PhD) was not more than five years ago.

Selection Criteria: 

• Articles must be interesting, engaging and easy to read.
• Technical terms and mathematics must be kept to a minimum, and explained clearly where used.
• Readers should finish your article knowing more about statistics, or the application of statistics, than they did before.

Number of Awardees: 3

Value of Program:

• Three finalists will win a full registration to the 2018 Royal Statistical Society International Conference in Cardiff, Wales. Please note that travel and accommodation costs will not be covered.
• The winning article will be published in Significance magazine and online at significancemagazine.com.
• Runner-up articles may be published on the Significance website or in Significance magazine, at the editor’s discretion.

Duration of Program: 3–6 September 2018

How to Apply: Email your submission as a text/Word file or PDF to significance@rss.org.uk. Make sure to include the competition entry form.

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Royal Statistical Society, RSS (Young Statisticians Section); AND Significance Magazine

CEDEJ /IFAO PhD Scholarships for Students from Developing Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 31st May 2018

To Be Taken At (Country): Egypt

Type: PhD

Eligibility: 

• This scholarship is open to students of any nationality who hold a Master or equivalent and are or will be registered for a PhD at the date of September 1, 2018.
• Allocation of this scholarship requires that the beneficiary shall reside in Egypt for twelve months.
• He/She must subscribe a health insurance and a repatriation insurance.
• He/She will have all the practical and logistical facilities of both Institutes.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value and Duration of Award: The scholarship amount is 12 monthly payments of 1 000 euros net per month (in addition to the granting of a round-trip flight ticket). The beneficiary may, at his/her option, receive this scholarship either for 12 consecutive months starting from September 1, 2018, or for 12 months spread over two years from September 1, 2018
till August 31, 2019.

How to Apply: The application should include the following:

1. ID Photocopy;
2. A detailed curriculum vitae in English or French;
   If the candidate is not registered for the PhD yet: a certificate of Master’s degree or equivalent, or alternatively, a certificate of registration for the second year of the MA for the year 2017-2018;
3. If the candidate is already registered for the PhD: a registration certificate of the University for the year 2017-2018;
4. A research project presentation, in a maximum of ten pages, in French or English;
5. Two recommendation letters in English or French.

The application should be sent in electronic form, no later than May 31, 2018, to
IFAO: direction@ifao.egnet.net
CEDEJ: karine.bennafla@cedej-eg.org

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: CEDEJ /IFAO