About the Award: The Ireland Fellows Programme enables early to mid-career professionals from eligible countries, with leadership potential, to benefit from a prestigious, world-class, quality education contributing to capacity building. It offers selected students the opportunity to undertake a fully funded one-year master’s level programme at a higher education institution (HEI) in Ireland. The award covers programme fees, flights, accommodation and living costs. Eligible master’s level programmes in Ireland commence in August or September each year and, depending on the programme, will run for between 10 and 16 months. The Ireland Fellows Programme promotes equal opportunity and welcomes diversity.
Eligible Field(s): Eligible courses are in areas such as agriculture, health, education, human rights, computer science, engineering, business and more, and are listed in a Directory of Eligible Programmes.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: To be eligible for an Ireland Fellows Programme – SIDS award commencing at the beginning of the academic year 2024, applicants must:
Be a national of one of the eligible SIDS countries and resident in one of the eligible SIDS countries – they can be a national of one country and resident in another, in the same region, as set out here:
Africa: Cabo Verde, Comoros, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritius, Sao Tomé and Príncipe, Seychelles. Asia: Maldives, Timor-Leste. Caribbean: Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago. For Belize, please see the Latin America Fellowship page. Pacific: Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.
Have a minimum three years’ substantial work experience that is directly relevant to your proposed programme(s) of study.
Hold a bachelor’s level academic qualification from an accredited and government-recognised higher education institution, with a minimum grade point average of 3.0 (4.0 scale) – i.e. a first class honour, or second class honour, Grade 1 (a second class honour Grade 2 may be accepted if the applicant has substantial directly relevant work experience). It must have been awarded in 2012 or later (i.e. within the last 12 years).
Not already hold a qualification at master’s level or higher. Not currently undertaking a programme at master’s level or higher, or be due to start a programme at master’s level or higher in the academic year 2023/24.
Be applying to commence a new programme at master’s level in Ireland no sooner than August 2024.
Be able to demonstrate the following: leadership abilities and aspirations; a commitment to the achievement of the SDGs within your own country; and a commitment to contribute to building positive relationships with Ireland.
Have identified and selected three programmes relevant to your academic and professional background from the Directory of Eligible Programmes.
Have a clear understanding of the academic and English language proficiencies required for all programmes chosen.
Must not have applied to the Ireland Fellows Programme on more than one previous occasion.
Be in a position to take up the Fellowship in the academic year 2024/2025.
The Fellowship covers the recipient only. Financial support or visas for spouses or dependents are not included within the scope of the programme.
Eligible Countries: Antigua & Barbuda, Suriname, Papua New Guinea Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, São Tomé and Príncipe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Palau, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Bahamas, Guinea-Bissau, Barbados, Belize,, Cabo Verde, Comoros, Cuba, Dominica Dominican Republic, Fiji, Grenada, Guyana, Nauru, Maldives, Micronesia (Federated States of)Mauritius Marshall Islands, Haiti, Kiribati, Jamaica
To be Taken at (Country): Ireland
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: The award covers programme fees, flights, accommodation and living costs.
Duration of Award: Eligible master’s level programmes in Ireland commence in August or September each year and, depending on the programme, will run for between 10 and 16 months.
How to Apply: Please read the Applicant Guidance Note carefully before completing as eligibility criteria may differ from country to country.
The application process consists of three stages:
Stage 1 Preliminary Application;
Stage 2 Detailed Application;
Stage 3 Interviews.
It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.
Eligible Countries: Djibouti, Eswatini, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Malawi, Liberia, Lesotho, Kenya.
To be Taken at (Country): Ireland
Field(s) of Study: Eligible courses are in areas such as agriculture, health, education, human rights, computer science, engineering, business and more, and are listed in a Directory of Eligible Programmes
About the Award: The Ireland Fellows Programme enables early to mid-career professionals from eligible countries, with leadership potential, to benefit from a prestigious, world-class, quality education contributing to capacity building. It offers selected students the opportunity to undertake a fully funded one-year master’s level programme at a higher education institution (HEI) in Ireland. The award covers programme fees, flights, accommodation and living costs. Eligible master’s level programmes in Ireland commence in August or September each year and, depending on the programme, will run for between 10 and 16 months. The Ireland Fellows Programme promotes gender equality, equal opportunity, and welcomes diversity.
The aims of the Programme are to nurture future leaders; to develop in-country capacity to achieve national SDG goals; and to build positive relationships with Ireland.
The Programme is intended to support graduates on their return home, through the skills they develop, to contribute to capacity building in their home countries and to become one of the next generation of leaders in their respective fields. It is also envisaged that they will contribute to building enduring positive personal and professional relationships with Ireland, promoting institutional linkages.
The Ireland Fellows Programme is fully funded by the Irish Government and is offered under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). The Programme aligns with the Irish Government’s commitments under Global Ireland and the national implementation plan for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), The Global Island: Ireland’s Foreign Policy for a Changing World,A Better World: Ireland’s Policy for International Development, and Ireland’s International Education Strategy. The programme is managed by the relevant Embassy responsible for eligible countries. Programme implementation in Ireland is supported by the Irish Council for International Students (ICOS).
Type: Masters
Eligibility: To be eligible for an Ireland Fellows Programme – Africa scholarship commencing at the beginning of the academic year 2024 applicants must:
To be eligible for an Ireland Fellows Programme – Africa award commencing at the beginning of the academic year 2024, applicants must:
Be a resident national of one of the countries listed below: Angola, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
For Burundi, please see both this document and the Courtney Fellowship page. For Nigeria, please see both this document and the Roger Casement Fellowshippage. For Namibia, please see the Seán Mac Bride Fellowshippage. For South Africa, please see the Kadar Asmal Fellowshippage. For Zambia, please see both this document and the Frank Ferguson Fellowship page. For African SIDS (Cabo Verde, Comoros, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritius, Seychelles, Sao Tomé and Príncipe), please see the Ireland-SIDS Fellows page.
Have a minimum of two or three years’ substantial work experience that is directly relevant to your proposed programme(s) of study, depending on the country (see Page 8 for details).
Hold a bachelor’s level academic qualification from an accredited and government-recognised higher education institution, with a minimum grade point average of 3.0 (4.0 scale) – i.e. a first class honour, or second class honour, Grade 1 (a second class honour Grade 2 may be accepted if the applicant has substantial directly relevant work experience). It must have been awarded in 2012 or later (i.e. within the last 12 years).
Not already hold a qualification at master’s level or higher. Not currently undertaking a programme at master’s level or higher, or be due to start a programme at master’s level or higher in the academic year 2023/24.
Be applying to commence a new programme at master’s level in Ireland no sooner than August 2024.
Be able to demonstrate the following: leadership abilities and aspirations; a commitment to the achievement of the SDGs within your own country; and a commitment to contribute to building positive relationships with Ireland.
Have identified and selected three programmes relevant to your academic and professional background from the Directory of Eligible Programmes.
Have a clear understanding of the academic and English language proficiencies required for all programmes chosen.
Must not have applied to the Ireland Fellows Programme on more than one previous occasion.
Be in a position to take up the Fellowship in the academic year 2024/2025.
In addition, applications are by invitation only in the following countries: Angola, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eswatini, Eritrea, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Uganda, Zambia. This means that fellowships in these countries are restricted to the staff of government departments and NGOs which work in partnership with Irish Aid, and to personnel of organisations that are aligned with Irish Aid’s development strategy in their country which have already been identified by the Embassy of Ireland. Applications from outside these partnerships will not be eligible. To find out if you are eligible to apply, please contact the relevant Embassy of Ireland or your employer.
The Fellowship covers the recipient only. Financial support or visas for spouses or dependents are not included within the scope of the programme.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value and Duration of Award: The programme offers selected students the opportunity to undertake a fully-funded one-year master’s programme at a prestigious higher education institution (HEI) in Ireland. The award covers course fees, flights, and accommodation and living costs. Eligible master’s courses in Ireland commence in August or September each year and, depending on the course, will run for between 10 and 16 months. The Programme promotes equal opportunity and welcomes diversity.
How to Apply: Please read the Applicant Guidance Note carefully before completing as eligibility criteria may differ from country to country.
The application process consists of three stages:
Stage 1 Preliminary Application;
Stage 2 Detailed Application;
Stage 3 Interviews.
All applicants who are selected to progress after the second stage will be required to sit an online Duolingo English Test. If shortlisted after the interview stage, all applicants will be required to take another English language test, normally the IELTS exam, unless they are already in possession of an IELTS certificate that is dated 2022 or later which shows the applicant has achieved the necessary score for the course(s) they intend to apply to. Early preparation for the IELTS exam is strongly advised, even for native English speakers.
It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.
Almost eighty years after the end of World War II, the world still wonders how, after 1932, Germany could have so blindly followed Adolf Hitler, an uneducated corporal turned populist dictator. The self-destructive mechanisms that a country can adopt and which can lead to national implosion are now also present in Argentina.
Argentina’s economy will face a deeper crisis than ever before in the run-up to October’s elections, due in part to a drought-induced recession and skyrocketing inflation. Argentina’s annual rate of inflation -currently at more than 114 percent- is the third highest in the world, behind only Venezuela and Lebanon.
This high inflation rate has a direct effect on poverty levels in the country. According to INDEC, Argentina’s national statistics agency, 39.2 percent of the population experienced poverty in the second half of 2022. Among children under 15, the poverty rate is even higher, at 54.2 percent. The percentage of the population considered destitute—those who cannot cover even basic needs—is over 8 percent. These percentages would be even higher without the government’s social welfare programs.
At the beginning of the 20th century, economically, Argentina was fifth among the most developed countries in the world. Today, that is a distant memory. The country’s decline seems more perplexing, since Argentina continues to boast fertile land, some of the best meat and wines in the world, and a significant production of soy and wheat. In addition to natural resources, Argentina has a highly educated population, including several Nobel Prize winners.
This prompts the question: What happened to the country? Why is Argentina in such a sorry state, economically, politically, and socially? One could argue that the military dictatorship between 1976 and 1983 destroyed the country’s democracy. But that really does not explain why Argentines consistently vote for leaders who promise everything, but deliver nothing. What is driving the country into the abyss?
Argentina’s contemporary failure cannot be understood without considering the effect of Peronism, a movement based on the ideas and legacy of Argentina’s former President Juan Perón (1946–1952, 1952–1955, 1973–1974).
Some Argentines still believe in the miraculous powers of Peronism, regardless of any given Peronist leader. They are utterly convinced that the country’s saviors will be the Peronists, a completely irrational hope, given the Peronists’ track record.
Juan Perón promoted some greatly needed social reforms that benefitted the poor. Most of his policies favoring the poor, however, are widely credited to his wife, Eva Perón. But many Argentines forget that Peron’s regime collapsed into a corrupt populist and authoritarian regime.
The economic scandals perpetrated during former President Cristina Kirchner’s government have not swayed the support of the Peronist masses for their leaders’ shortcomings. They continue to choose magical thinking over logic and therefore continue to believe in Peronist leaders, regardless of how corrupt they are.
To sustain itself in power, Cristina Kirchner’s government enlarged a vast social group that continues to depend on government handouts and lacks the impetus toward employment and critical thinking. As expected, the subsequent damage to the country’s social fabric has been immense. It is common for people to refuse employment because they claim that their salary is below their social welfare benefits.
Today, former president Cristina Kirchner serves as Argentina’s Vice President to a powerless president, Alberto Fernández, who lives under her shadow. Cristina Kirchner is using her influence over President Alberto Fernández to persecute her political adversaries and to purge the judicial system of all judges who do not have the authority — and the courage — to investigate her misdeeds.
It is tragic that Argentina has, yet again, another incompetent Peronist president, plus a vengeful vice president who is now facing several corruption charges. Ironically, some Argentines say that the worst Argentine mistake was repealing the British invasions of the country (1806-1807). Had the British won, they claim, perhaps Argentina would now be a prosperous country like Australia or New Zealand.
Instead, Argentina still faces the abyss. Nobody knows whether it will eventually be able to rise above it and resume its path as part of the group of prosperous nations. The difference between Germany post-1933 and Argentina in the 21st century is that Germany learned from its grave errors. Argentina has not.
When in 2018, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed took office in Ethiopia, a wave of hope and optimism enveloped the nation. After 27 years living under the brutal TPLF (Tigray People’s Liberation Front) dominated EPRDF coalition, the people breathed a collective sigh of relief. Many Ethiopians living overseas, eager to contribute, returned to their beloved homeland; exiled opposition parties, media workers and activists were invited to return in a spirit of inclusion.
Publicly at least, PM Abiy said all the right things: he spoke of unity, democracy and human rights. And in September 2018, five months after taking office, the positive mood was cemented when a peace deal was agreed with President Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea. Hostilities (fueled by the TPLF, which had been going on for 20 years), came to an end, and in 2019 Abiy was awarded The Noble Peace Prize for his efforts. Unsurprisingly perhaps, Afewerki, who has successfully resisted global interference in Eritrea, was not included in the honor.
Optimism and national hope was quickly extinguished however, and the true repressive colors of Abiy and his regime were revealed; a controlling divisive methodology that has intensified year on year.
The sight of a despot masquerading as a lover of democracy is as repulsive as it is common. Leaders like Abiy, rule through fear, control, and the fermentation of social division. The antidote to their brutality, difficult to accomplish, is unity; sustained, peaceful, collective action (think Arab Spring e.g.). Against a united populous, focused and mobilized, no regime, no matter how cruel, can stand. Repressive regimes know this well, hence the focus on fueling communal divisions and maintaining social hardship. Political activism is a luxury when you’re hungry or destitute.
Crushing criticism
Freedom of all kinds is the enemy of all such regimes; freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of the media; essential elements of a democratic nation and a free society, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Freedom of expression, like all such rights, flows from The Good – that Center of Righteousness, which sits within the heart of everyone, even the dictator, where it is suffocated under the weight of self-delusion and enmity. Animated by the unifying force of love, freedom of expression is rightly seen as a threat, perhaps the major threat to men like Abiy and his cronies. To counter this, a methodology of suppression becomes necessary, with the aim of controlling the flow of information, stifling dissent and silencing government critics.
Open criticism of the regime, in particular the government’s involvement in the genocide of the Amhara people is not tolerated. Tens of thousands (estimates between 25,000 – 40,000) of Amhara, the second largest ethnic group in Ethiopia, have been killed by Oromo fanatics – led by the Oromo Liberation Front/Army (OLF/A), an extreme group of Oromo nationalists, and their sympathizers, including members of the Oromo Regional Authority. Hundreds of thousands are displaced, adding to the estimated 5-7 million of IDP’s already scattered throughout the country.
Predictably, outspoken journalists and independent media outlets of all kinds (including social media), opposition politicians and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are the primary targets. Internet access is closely controlled, surveillance of Government critics is widespread. The US-based NGO Freedom House (FH) report that, “Government security agencies surveil individuals and politicians through wire-tapping. Digital surveillance and the use of individual informants to spy on people is widespread.”
Arbitrary arrests are commonplace. Journalists, political activists and NGO workers taken without warning from their home, place of work or grabbed on the street by “security personnel”, to be hauled away and held in a non-disclosed location.
Dozensof advocates of the truth from the Governments “To Be Silenced” list have been removed from their keyboard, camera or TV screen, their desk or podium, and locked away. Routinely detained without charge or trial and held incommunicado, after an initial period many are accused under the widely criticized Anti-Terrorism Law, which allows individuals to be imprisoned indefinitely.
Commenting on the unlawful detentions, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) state that it “paints a deeply depressing picture of the state of press freedom in the country … authorities should release all detained journalists, investigate allegations that some members of the press have been mistreated or assaulted while in state custody, and ensure that journalists do not operate in an environment of fear.”
An “environment of fear” however, is precisely the atmosphere the Government wants to create; this is being facilitated not just by the arrests but by the violent treatment (including sexual violence) those arrested face in custody. Fear it is that animates the actions of regimes like the one ensconced in Addis Ababa, and fear it is that allows them to remain in place.
‘Not free’
Freedom of expression is a pivotal right, one that relates to and strengthens a range of other universal principles. These include freedom of assembly, freedom for NGO’s to operate, academic freedom, religious freedom, freedom of movement, and freedom from exploitation. Combined with the existence of an independent judiciary, of non-prejudicial laws and the observation of due process, these are the foundations of a democratic nation.
Freedom House looked at all of these areas in there country assessment, and concluded, to the surprise of nobody, that Ethiopia is “not free”. There is no freedom of the media, “reports from state media agencies must follow the narrative of the ruling party; content that is contrary to the government’s narrative is removed.” Academic freedom is highly restricted and “self-censorship remains common in the context of ongoing conflicts and political tensions”. NGOs including local civil society organizations “face threats and warnings for advocating for issues contrary to the government’s position, especially in relation to internal conflicts.”
In practice speaking out against the official line, or drawing attention to Government involvement in the slaughter of Amhara people will lead, not just to “threats and warnings”, but to arrests and potential imprisonment. Once detained, the accused, if they reach the courts, has little or no chance of a fair hearing. “Due process rights are generally not respected. The right to a fair trial is often not respected, particularly for government critics.” The FH report goes on to make clear that the judiciary “is subject to political interference, and judgments rarely deviate from government policy”. Furthermore, “corruption within the justice system remains a significant challenge, and judges caught accepting bribes are rarely punished.”
Those who are being punished in Ethiopia are the lovers of truth, advocates for democracy, human rights and political pluralism. There is no law and order worthy of the name – terrorists in the shape of the TPLF and OLF are part of the political class; ethnic violence against Amhara people and house demolitions of Amhara communities and other non-Oromos are ignored or, as many believe, facilitated by government agencies. Trust in the PM, in government bodies and national institutions is weak, uncertainty and anger is pervasive, particularly among the Amhara people.
For decades Ethiopia has been one of the most repressive places in the world. For independent journalists, political activists and local NGO workers, who refuse to be silenced, it is also one of the most dangerous. The TPLF designed a Methodology of Control and Division; PM Abiy and his Prosperity Party, have refined and expanded it.
A damning report released by the National Audit Office (NAO) reveals that 700,000 children attend schools in England which need major rebuilding or renovation.
Around 38 percent of schools are housed in buildings which have passed their projected design life. Some schools, built on the cheap over a 30-year period from the 1950s using Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC), could collapse at any time. Of these, nearly 600 are undergoing urgent structural investigation.
Aerated autoclaved concrete, close-up view [Photo by Marco Bernardini, own work / CC BY-SA 3.0]
The Conservative government, opposition Labour Party and education unions have been aware for years of the imminent risk of injury or death to pupils and staff caused by dilapidated buildings. Partial roof collapses have already occurred, but remedial work proceeds at a snail’s pace.
In its annual report last year, the Department for Education raised the risk of building collapse from “critical-likely” as of April 2021 to “critical-very likely” in March 2022, after “serious structural issues” were found in five schools in the year to October 2021.
The schools closed for a long-term rebuild, including St Anne’s in Liverpool; Fearnville Primary in Bradford, where a teacher was hospitalised after being hit by a falling ceiling tile; and Fortis Academy in Birmingham after a concrete ceiling panel hit a desk.
In January, cladding fell off the roof of Dore Primary School in Sheffield injuring a parent. A 12-15-foot-long fascia board with 4-inch nails fell from the roof hitting the parent on the head. She suffered a black eye, underwent an MRI scan, and had to take three weeks off work.
On June 16, four schools in Kent closed after the Institute of Structural Engineers warned about concrete used in each school’s roof. Also in June, Mistley Norman Church of England and Hockley primary schools in Essex and two schools run by the Bishop Bewick Catholic education trust in the north-east, closed after RAAC was found in their ceilings.
The first major crisis occurred as far back as 2018 when the roof of Singlewell Primary school in Gravesend partially collapsed—luckily at the weekend with no casualties. Most concerning, the roof only showed signs of stress 24 hours before the incident. The Standing Committee on Structural Safety responded to this potential tragedy with a safety alert on the “failure of RAAC planks,” recommending that those installed before 1980 should be replaced.
RAAC was used widely in the construction of school roofs, walls and floors as a cheaper alternative to concrete. Professor Chris Goodier, an expert in construction engineering materials, has described RAAC as “an aerated lightweight cementitious material with no coarse aggregate; the material properties and structural behaviour therefore differs significantly from ‘traditional’ reinforced concrete.” It is filled with air pockets, degrades in wet conditions, and lacks the strength and durability of ordinary concrete.
In 1982, production of RAAC in the UK ended amid safety concerns, and the BRE research group subsequently declared it life-expiring after 30 years. The material was used in hospitals and many public buildings in the UK, and is still used in China, central Asia, India and the Middle East.
Goodier, who leads a major research project on RAAC, funded by the NHS, explained it can be “an appropriate construction material if properly designed, manufactured, installed and maintained. Our research has shown however, that this is often not the case for RAAC panels built in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.” The DfE has no records showing which schools were constructed using RAAC.
NAO’s report, The Condition of School Buildings, published June 23, found the “DfE has been considering reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC)–a lightweight form of concrete that is susceptible to failure as a potential issue since late 2018 following a school safety incident.”
Condition of school buildings report by the National Audit Office [Photo: National Audit Office]
But the DfE has sought to pass the buck onto schools—“the relevant local authority, academy trust or voluntary-aided body.” It issued “warning notes, expanded its data collection programme, and issued a guide for identifying RAAC.” In March 2022, the DfE sent a questionnaire to schools “asking whether their buildings contained RAAC”. Only the most superficial inspections have been conducted to locate RAAC, “The work mainly consists of visual inspections rather than structural inspections. The latter provide more assurance about the condition of a building, but are more expensive, take longer to carry out, and can be disruptive.”
Five years since the initial safety incident, remedial work is still mainly at the assessment stage, the report reveals. The “DfE currently lacks comprehensive information on the extent and severity of potential safety issues across the school estate, although it has made progress in the last year.”
Of the 14,900 schools with buildings constructed between 1930 and 1990, only 42 percent had carried out work to identify the presence of RAAC by May 2023. The DfE has identified 572 schools that may contain RAAC and 24 requiring immediate action. In May, the DfE pledged to provide funding for remedial work in schools where RAAC poses an immediate risk.
The report notes, “Since summer 2021, DfE has assessed the threat to safety in school buildings as a critical risk”. However, NAO’s report found there was “insufficient capital funding to address structural issues [which contributes] to the severity of the risk.” Just £2.3 billion a year was spent on school estates between 2016-17 and 2022-23, around half the £5.3 billion a year in capital funding which the DfE said was required to “maintain schools and mitigate the most serious risks of building failure.”
Capital spending on school buildings declined by 50 percent in real terms since 2010 under the whiplash of austerity by successive governments. Since then, public debt has piled higher still to finance corporate bailouts during the pandemic and to fund the astronomical costs of NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine.
The report into school buildings also identified long-known dangers associated with asbestos used in around 13,800 “system-built” school blocks, of which over a quarter may have deteriorated. The DfE has approved plans to assess just 200 and has yet to even employ specialists for the job. According to the National Education Union (NEU), 300 school staff have died from mesothelioma since 2001, a deadly cancer associated with exposure to asbestos. It is estimated that classroom asbestos has killed 10,000 pupils and teachers in schools during the last four decades.
The Sunak government has launched an all-party inquiry into the use of RAAC in public buildings. It will prove as toothless as every other government inquiry. Each Whitehall department has been instructed to assign one civil servant to locate RAAC.
Joint general secretary of the NEU Kevin Courtney responded to the report saying, “If we are to prevent something catastrophic happening, such as building collapse, and to finally get to grips with the hidden killer asbestos in our schools, action must be taken—and significant funding put in place.”
Something catastrophic has already happened, namely when the NEU and other education unions worked with the Johnson government to herd staff and students back into unsafe schools at the height of the COVID pandemic. Aside from the untold deaths which resulted from this criminal policy, its long-term consequences are evident in Long COVID. Children who caught Covid are exhibiting a range of health problems including poor concentration and a sudden spike in the incidence of type 1 diabetes. This form of diabetes is linked to immune response, which COVID-19 can disrupt.
In February, the NEU, NASUWT, Unison, Unite, GMB and Community wrote an open letter to Education Secretary Gillian Keegan highlighting the “shocking” state of schools which could end up “costing lives”, asking the government what action it was taking to eradicate the risk of building collapse.
Apart from futile appeals to the government, the unions will do nothing to ensure the safety of schools. They are currently trying to wind up the teachers’ dispute over pay, workload and funding, making clear they will accept a below inflation pay offer if only the government will meet them and accept their services.
The Baltimore police reported a mass shooting overnight Saturday at a block party in the Brooklyn neighborhood of South Baltimore. Two people were killed and 28 were injured, with three in critical condition. The suspects have not been found as of this writing.
The incident is the largest mass shooting in the city in over a decade, according to the Gun Violence Archive. The police say the two people killed were an 18-year-old woman and a 20-year-old man. Victims reportedly ranged from 21 to 34 years old.
“Me and Aaron were waiting for him to be seen when the first car came pulling in and we ended up helping get him in the ER,” said a local resident on social media about the scene at the hospital. “The next thing you know, car after car, kid after kid just kept pulling in and jumping out, all got shot somewhere on their body.” The resident noted that a car “pulled right up to the door bringing two girls… that were shot… it’s crazy and so sad they were all babies!!”
The mass shooting is the fifth the city has seen in 2023, with the police reporting nearly 130 homicides and almost 300 shootings so far this year. It occurred around 12:30 AM at a block party associated with the neighborhood’s annual “Brooklyn Day” festivities.
A person looks out the front door of a home as police tape surrounds the area in the Southern District of Baltimore, Sunday, July 2, 2023. Police say two people were killed and dozens were wounded in a mass shooting that took place during a block party just after midnight. [AP Photo/Julio Cortez]
Nineteen victims were sent to MedStar Harbor Hospital, all of whom were “suffering varying degrees of injury from gunshot wounds,” according to hospital spokespeople.
One resident told the Baltimore Sun that “not a day goes by we don’t hear shots.”
In January 2022 the Democratic mayor launched a pilot program called Group Violence Reduction Strategy (GVRS) in the Western District, which historically is the most impoverished and violent part of the city. The 2015 police murder of 25-year old Freddie Gray occurred in the Western District.
Homicides and nonfatal shootings in the district declined by 34 percent in 2022 due to the GVRS program, although they have started to increase again this year.
“There’s nothing to do around here, there’s no pools, no movie theaters; [nothing] that a kid on summer break would want to do,” a 20-year resident of the neighborhood told the World Socialist Web Site. “My heart hurts for those families,” she said, adding that she was doing all she could to “get my babies out of here.”
The 2020 US Census reports that the city has a 20.3 percent poverty rate, with a per capita income of $34,378. These statistics persist even as Baltimore’s unemployment rates have dropped to historic lows, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting last month that unemployment in the city was less than two percent.
In Baltimore City as a whole, there were 4,845 violent crimes, a 7.2 percent decrease compared to the same time last year, but with property crimes up by 34.47 percent this year.
Shootings tend to accelerate during the summer. Nationwide there have been a total of 21,500 deaths due to gun violence, including homicides and suicides, and 338 mass shootings so far this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive.
The interim report of the Australian Labor government’s cost-cutting review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was released last Friday. It provides no details whatsoever of how the government plans to slice $74 billion off its funding for critically-needed disability services over the next decade, as declared by Labor’s May 9 federal budget.
Bill Shorten addressing Department of Social Services senior staff [Photo: Bill Shorten]
Nevertheless, the report sounds an ominous note. “The NDIS is an uncapped, needs-based scheme,” it states. “However, the NDIS must also be sustainable and its costs predictable for governments and the public.”
This sends a clear message that, as the corporate elite and media are demanding, moves are being prepared to impose new caps and eligibility restrictions on NDIS programs. This will inflict even greater difficulties and hardships on the estimated 2.4 million people aged under 65 years who have disabilities, including children and their parents.
As the WSWS warned from the outset, when the previous Gillard Labor government introduced the NDIS in 2013, it was a pro-business blueprint designed to shut down state-run disability services, shift people into a voucher-based disability market based on profiteering corporate providers and strip away Disability Support Pension (DSP) entitlements.
In 2011, the Gillard government had already announced the largest crackdown on DSP eligibility in Australian history by introducing harsher “impairment tables” used to judge those applying. By 2020, the number of DSP recipients aged 16–64 had declined from around 802,000 in 2012 to 660,000, an 18 percent cut.
The overall result has been a disaster for most people with disabilities. A 2021 survey of people with disabilities conducted by the Melbourne Disability Institute, in partnership with the Brotherhood of St. Laurence and Baptcare, published in June 2022, reported that 90 percent of respondents said the support and services they received were inadequate to meet their needs.
Now the Albanese Labor government is trying to politically exploit the predictable failures, cruelties and crisis produced by this privatisation in order to initiate an even more damaging cutback and restructuring.
There was another telling warning sign last week when NDIS Minister Bill Shorten quickly back-tracked on a media interview in which he had suggested that it “wasn’t the end of the world” if the government did not meet its budget target of slashing the NDIS spending growth rate from 14 percent to 8 percent annually to meet the $74 billion goal.
“Rest assured the Albanese government is absolutely committed to scheme growth targets of 8 per cent,” Shorten said.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers also weighed in to recommit the government to delivering on that target, reassuring the financial markets of Labor’s “fiscal responsibility” and its capacity to hold the line in the face of mounting working-class discontent over the worsening cost of living and social crisis, including on disability services.
The NDIS was one of the biggest targets of the May 9 budget, which also inflicted substantial cuts to funding for public health, schools, tertiary education and housing. At the same time, it allocated hundreds of billions of dollars for income tax cuts for the wealthy and purchases of AUKUS submarines and other weaponry to prepare to join a US war against China.
Yet the budget said nothing about how the huge NDIS cutback would be achieved, seeking to keep the public in the dark as much as possible. Last month, equally deceptively, Shorten laid out plans to cut $15.3 billion off NDIS funding over the next four years, supposedly without affecting the quality or availability of services.
Implausibly, Shorten claimed that most of the savings could come by putting participants on longer-term assistance plans and streamlining application response times in an effort to reduce the high numbers of complaints and legal appeals from people denied eligibility or adequate help.
Clearly, however, these measures—even if implemented—will not satisfy the government-corporate demands for much more fundamental cuts.
Commissioned by Shorten and the government last October, the NDIS review panel was, above all, charged with making recommendations about how to make the scheme “fiscally sustainable.”
The panel consists of Lisa Paul, a former federal public service chief, and Professor Bruce Bonyhady, one of the NDIS’s original architects. For now, instead of making recommendations, their interim report poses five revealing questions, asking for submissions.
Question one is “Why is the NDIS an oasis in a desert?” That is a muffled reference to the fact nearly all other disability services, once provided by state, territory and local governments, and by learning difficulty programs in government schools, have been eliminated over the past decade, as intended by the Gillard government.
There were 592,059 participants in the NDIS as of March—only about a quarter of all those with disabilities. Data collated last November by the Per Capita think tank showed a precipitous decline in disability service funding in all states and territories, from over $7 billion a year in 2015-16, before the full NDIS rollout, to less than $1 billion in 2020-21. There has also been a sharp decline in local government spending, in real terms, on related services.
At the same time, the Per Capita report found that NDIS “Tier 2” programs—meant to be provided to people classified as less seriously disabled, and therefore denied care packages—constituted less than 1 percent of NDIS spending. It said this funding appeared to be lower than aggregate state-level spending on Tier 2-type activities that predated the NDIS.
Question two is: “What does reasonable and necessary mean?” That is the test for the level of assistance offered to NDIS participants. According to the report, the test is “poorly defined,” adding: “This unresolved issue is the cause of many of the scheme’s challenges—including stressful, time-consuming and poor planning experiences, inconsistent and inequitable decisions about funding and disputes between participants and the Agency.”
While the report requests suggestions as to how to tackle this issue, the government’s clear thrust is to “define” the test to further restrict access to care packages. The report itself states: “The NDIS was never designed to support all people with disability.”
Question three is: “Why are there many more children in the NDIS than expected?” In particular, about 54 percent of NDIS participants under the age of 18 have autism, and 21 percent have developmental delay. Eleven percent of boys aged between five and seven are NDIS participants; 5 percent of girls in this age bracket are on the scheme.
While the causes of this are no doubt complex, and demand further probing, the report concedes that this reliance on the NDIS “reflects a lack of supports for children with disability, outside the NDIS, in mainstream settings.” It comments: “With so few supports outside the NDIS, it is not surprising that parents are fighting to get their children with developmental concerns, delays and disabilities into the NDIS.”
Even more revealing is question four: “Why aren’t NDIS markets working?” The report states: “The markets in the NDIS have not worked as originally imagined. Competition has not produced improved quality, innovation or diversity of services for all participants in all locations.”
The truth is that the “markets” are working exactly as the WSWS warned. People with a disability have become individual “clients.” They must negotiate contracts for support plans delivered by businesses that compete in “the disability service industry,” including by price-gouging, while slashing costs and the training, wages and conditions of disability support workers.
Far from proposing any reversal of this disastrous privatisation, the report proposes the impossible—making the profit-driven markets serve working people. It asks: “What needs to be done to ensure NDIS markets serve the interests of people with disability, rather than the other way round?”
Finally, question five cuts to the chase: “How do we ensure that the NDIS is sustainable?” The report asks for proposals to ensure that the NDIS can “contribute to the new sustainability framework foreshadowed by National Cabinet.” That is the cost-cutting demanded by this Labor government-dominated cabal of federal, state and territory government leaders.
One of the most cynical claims made by the government and big business backers of the NDIS is that it boosts the economy by equipping participants to enter the workforce. The Per Capita think tank, for example, calculated in 2021 that every dollar spent on the NDIS “injected” $2.25 back into the economy.
Essentially this means providing employers with a new source of cheap, government-subsidised labour. Under the government’s Supported Wage System (SWS), people with disabilities can be paid as little as $102 a week—less than an eighth of national minimum wage of $882.80 per week! According to the government’s SWS web site: “Under SWS, special workplace arrangements are created so that employers can pay wages to a person with disability based on how productive they are in their job.”
None of this is enough for the financial oligarchs and their media outlets. A June 30 editorial in the Australian called for harsher eligibility restrictions, as well as means testing and co-payments to compel people with disabilities to pay for services. The NDIS required “tough love” to survive, it insisted.
Such is the ruling class’s contempt for working-class lives. Many NDIS participants have complex needs, including for personal help with daily living, respite care, travel assistance, specialised equipment, home modifications and disability accommodation.
Members of the Supreme Court sit for a group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Octobert 7, 2022. [AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite]
Since the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision 13 months ago, which overturned Roe v. Wade and deprived women of the constitutional right to access abortion, the ultra-right majority on the court has engaged in a rampage against basic democratic rights and the social rights of the working class.
This culminated Friday in two decisions with the same 6-3 split among the justices: to declare unconstitutional the Biden administration’s limited reduction of student loan debt owed to the US government; and to endorse the “right” of a commercial web designer to refuse to create materials for the wedding of a gay couple.
The class character of the first decision is obvious: an executive action by the federal government to bail out wealthy bank depositors is constitutional, but not a limited action to help debt-burdened students. The second decision destroys a constitutional right to be free of discrimination, while paying lip service to the First Amendment. The court declares that the web designer can justify her bigotry on the basis of “freedom of religion.”
The vast majority of the American people support both debt relief for college students and equal rights for gays and lesbians—as well as abortion rights. These perverse and reactionary decisions are the product of a profoundly undemocratic political structure in which popular feeling is systematically overridden in favor of the interests of a tiny ruling elite.
Amid the massive surge in military spending to pay for the war with Russia in Ukraine and the escalating military buildup in the Pacific against China, the institutions of American capitalism are dropping any pretense of either addressing the economic needs of the population or representing the views of the majority of the public.
The high court, far from being a neutral political arbiter or an impartial interpreter of constitutional norms, has revealed itself as the spearhead of political reaction.
This is not just a matter of the personal corruption of the individuals on the court. Many of the “justices” have the closest ties to wealthy sponsors, who shower them with bribes in return for judicial favors. In the recent period, both Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were revealed to have taken lavish vacations and other financial perks from billionaire “friends.”
The Supreme Court as an institution is profoundly undemocratic. The nine justices are unelected and appointed for life terms. They are not subject to any code of ethics or independent monitoring, and are effectively unremovable. No Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached.
Of the six justices who make up the right-wing majority, five were appointed by presidents who themselves were not elected by the people. Both George W. Bush, who appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and Donald Trump, who appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, lost the popular vote and became president only thanks to another undemocratic institution, the Electoral College. In the case of Bush, the Supreme Court directly intervened to stop the recounting of ballots in Florida to hand him the presidency in 2000.
The Electoral College is itself based on an even more undemocratic institution, the United States Senate, in which each of the 50 states has two senators, regardless of population. A state like California, with 39 million people, has the same representation as Wyoming or Vermont, which have 583,000 and 647,000 people, respectively. Such small states can be easily controlled by the most right-wing corporate interests.
It is in the presidency itself that the anti-democratic character of the political system stands out most sharply. Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden all moved quickly to bail out Wall Street in the financial crises of 2008-2009, 2020 and 2023, making hundreds of billions, and even trillions, available to the financial oligarchy.
Even more glaring is the role of the military-intelligence apparatus, which constitutes the vast bulk of the federal government. Every president for the last 78 years has waged war without the declaration by Congress required by the Constitution. In many instances, there was not even the fig leaf of a congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force.
The two capitalist parties share responsibility for these actions, as Democrats and Republicans alike, in both the White House and Congress, have conducted or supported illegal wars, subverted governments, sponsored military coups and engaged in massive spying, not only all over the world, but within the United States as well.
Today, the leading candidates for president in 2024 are Republican ex-president Donald Trump, who led a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election and shred the Constitution, and Democratic President Joe Biden, who has launched and systematically escalated a war against Russia in Ukraine that he himself has admitted could lead to nuclear “Armageddon.”
The two-party system is itself one of the main anti-democratic institutions used by corporate America to strangle any challenge to its power and wealth. The entire political system, including a media that functions as an instrument of the state and intelligence agencies, is designed to exclude any challenge to the Democrats and Republicans, the two parties of the ruling elite.
The state, as Marxists have long explained, is an instrument of class rule. The essential objective factors underlying the collapse of democratic forms of rule in the United States are: 1) endless war abroad, which now has entered the sphere of total war against nuclear-armed powers, and 2) staggering levels of social inequality.
Any effort to reform this array of institutions—restructuring the Court, eliminating the Electoral College, ending the tyranny of small states in Senate, curbing the near-absolute power of the “commander in chief”—poses immediately the necessity for a mass mobilization of the working class against the corporate and financial interests that these institutions serve.
