Thin layer of the UK population earn more than £150,000 per year

Barry Mason

There are only 321,000 people in the UK earning more than £150,000 a year.

Data from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) by area shows that around 123,000 of the high-income earners, nearly 40 percent, live within the London area.

Topping the list is the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), with another borough, Westminster, in second place. Each borough has around 12,000 individuals on incomes of £150,000 a year or more. The top seven on the list of high-income earners are all in London.

It is also in London that areas with concentrations of high-earners can be found living in the closest proximity to those struggling to survive, and therefore where the extremes of inequality are most stark.

The high-income earners in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea represent just 8 percent of the borough’s population. The burnt-out shell of Grenfell Tower, in which 72 people died in the horrific 2017 fire, lies within RBKC, in impoverished north Kensington. The deaths at Grenfell were the result of cost-cutting and criminality, resulting from the attempts by the Conservative-run RBKC council to prettify the exterior of the tower block and make it more appealing when viewed by super-wealthy residents living nearby.

The London borough of Tower Hamlets is 15th on the list of the top 25 locations for high-earners, with around 4,000 individuals. A 2017 study showed the borough has the highest rates of poverty, including child poverty and income inequality, of any London borough.

Expressing the extraordinary geographical concentration of higher-earners, 205,000, approximately two-thirds of the total, are to be found in London and south-east of England.

Among the list of the top 25 areas for high-earners, only two are to be found outside this region. Edinburgh, with its concentration of financial institutions, has 4,000 high earners and is 16th on the list. At 17th is Cheshire East, including affluent towns such as Wilmslow and Alderley Edge. Adjacent to Manchester, they are known as the “Golden Triangle” and are home to many wealthy Premier League football players who play for clubs in the region.

HMRC data shows that just 31,000 people in the UK, out of a population of over 60 million, are in the top 0.1 percent income bracket, earning more than £1 million a year. According to the latest data published by the European Banking Authority, nearly three quarters of all Europe’s millionaire bankers live in the UK. The UK has around 3,500 bankers earning more than €1million (£850,000) a year. Of these 30 bank bosses earn €10 million (£8.5 million) a year. One asset manager took home nearly €41 million (£35 million), of which €38 million (£32 million) represented a bonus.

Analysis of the HRMC data shows the increasing concentration of wealth among an extraordinarily thin layer of the population.

Between April and September last year, the income of the top 0.1 percent of income earners increased by six percent compared to an average increase of 3.7 percent for the total number of the employed.

Sir Martin Sorrell will receive £2.13 million this year from a long-term incentive scheme from his time at UK-based multinational advertising firm WPP. This is despite him leaving the company last year, following allegations of staff bullying.

Last year, the CEO of oil conglomerate Royal Dutch Shell, Ben van Beurden, saw his salary increase two-fold to £17 million. This was made up of a basic salary of £1.3 million, a yearly bonus of £2.5 million and a £13 million yield from a long-term incentive scheme.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), in its analysis of the May government’s spring budget statement, reported, “The OBR (Office of Budget Responsibility) notes that the most recent Real Time Information suggests that pay of the top 0.1% has been rising considerably faster than the average over the last year or more—something which was not true for most of the period after 2010.”

In contrast, income for many workers continues to stagnate or fall. Highlighting the poor pay for most workers, IFS director Paul Johnson reported that the Bank of England had been searching for historical periods in which the average pay of workers was worse than today. He said, “It’s reached the early 1800s. I think it might be heading back to the Black Death soon.”

It is the narrow layer of the population on incomes of £150,000 or more a year or close to it that forms the social basis for identity politics. These comprise layers, often opinion formers, based within the media, academia, political parties, local government and the trade union apparatus, whose reactionary politics are based on envy of the ultra-high earners and disdain for the 90 percent of the working population who struggle to subsist on far less.

Over the last decade, the wealth of the affluent upper middle class has skyrocketed at the expense of the working class. The proponents of identity politics seek to manipulate discontent among broader layers of society at the almost unimaginable scale of social inequality, in order to advance their own claims to a greater share of wealth and privilege within the top 10 percent by demanding representation based upon race, gender, etc.

At a question and answer session that took place in Foyle’s bookshop, at the launch of Mehring Books’ Why Are They Back: Historical Falsification, Political Conspiracy, and the Return of Fascism in Germany, WSWS international editorial board chairperson David North explained:

“The real basis of identity politics is in the top 10 percent. They argue not about the extreme inequality that exists, where a few thousand billionaires have more wealth than half the population of the world. No, they are really angry over wealth distribution at the top.

“There is a lot of money sloshing about in the top one percent and only trickling down slowly to the upper 10 percent. There is a big difference if you are living in London, where it costs a lot of money, about where you can live if you are only getting a measly £150,000 a year. That is not going to get you very far.

“It might look great in Sheffield or Liverpool, it is far more than they will ever see. But you’re not comparing yourself to them. You [the upper middle class] despise them. Your complaint is, ‘I can’t get a house in South Kensington. I can’t afford something that is going for two of three million pounds.’

“So there is a bitter fight that goes on for access to wealth at the top. And that determines an entire social outlook. That is why it’s within these layers that identity politics has become so powerful and racial politics has become so powerful.”

Largest UK department store chain, Debenhams, goes into administration

Barry Mason

Tens of thousands of workers’ jobs throughout the UK retail industry are threatened by the UK’s largest department store chain, Debenhams, going into a “pre-pack administration.” Under a pre-pack administration, the sale of the company and its assets are negotiated prior to the appointment of administrators.

Debenhams employs around 25,000 workers across its 166 stores, warehouses and offices. In the UK, other jobs in Debenhams’ supply chain are also dependent on the company’s survival. Debenhams owns Danish department store chain Magasin du Nord and a subsidiary in Ireland. With its Danish and Irish operations, the firm operates 178 stores. The multinational company’s roots lie in the establishment of a draper’s shop in London in the late 18th century.

Last October, Debenhams announced losses of £500 million and said it planned to close up to 50 of its stores, representing nearly a third of its portfolio. Those would result in the loss of around 5,000 jobs. These closures were confirmed following the administration announcement. It is thought the first wave of a possible 12 store closures will take place next year. The total debt pile now stands at £621 million.

In 2003, Debenhams was acquired for £1.7 billion by a consortium of companies. They comprised private equity company CVC and investment firms Merrill Lynch and TPG. In 2006, the consortium refloated the company on the stock market at its purchase value, but it had by then 10 times the 2003 debt.

The Centre for Retail Research, writing on Debenhams’ crisis last October, noted, “Its current difficulties relate particularly to the debt problems inherited from the private-equity episode and the strategies followed subsequently.”

Remarking on the 2003 private equity takeover, it explained the consortium “raised £1.7bn of which £600m was equity. … This ‘equity’ was made a debt charge on the business which sold and leased back stores it owned, signing long leases with property companies to raise the funds. Within three years, the partners had trebled their capital investment and floated the much-diminished company again in 2006.”

Quoted last week in the Norwich Evening News, Professor Joshua Bamfield of the Centre for Retail Research said, “Debenhams has had problems because all of its value was extracted out of it, and it was used as a money-making machine. … Debenhams lost their value twofold—they sold their sites but also stopped investing. They didn’t refurbish sites so they ended up looking old and tired—they couldn’t compete.”

After the company was refloated on the stock exchange, one investor who began building up his Debenhams stock portfolio was Mike Ashley, the billionaire founder of sporting goods supplier Sports Direct. In late 2015, two undercover Guardian reporters, who had been taken on at the Sports Direct warehouse in Shirebrook, produced articles detailing the exploitative working conditions the retail giant imposes.

Ashley had built up a near 30 percent stake in Debenhams and offered to inject £200 million into the company, providing he was made chief executive officer. His offer was turned down. With Debenhams going into administration, Ashley’s £150 million share stake in the company was wiped out along with the stake of other shareholders. Sports Direct has launched a legal challenge alleging the administrator, FTI Consulting, had acted to prevent Ashley from taking control.

Ashley has bought up several financially distressed retail outlets, including House of Fraser, Evans Cycles and lingerie retailer Agent Provocateur. A Retail Gazette article published last November noted, “According to analysis from The Sunday Times, the Sports Direct tycoon’s method of buying up retailers in pre-pack administration deals, which means he can acquire the assets but not the debt, has come at a cost. … [It] has cost the high street over 6,000 jobs and over £1 billion in unpaid bills.”

Following its fall into administration, Debenhams has new owners, the group of lenders that had been propping it up financially. They are Bank of Ireland, Barclays Bank, Silver Point Capital and Golden Tree Asset Management.

Golden Tree was established in 2000 with offices in London, New York and Singapore. Its business is based on taking on high-risk investments that promise high rewards. Silver Point Capital, founded in 2002 by former partners of Goldman Sachs, operates a similar model to Golden Tree.

The lenders will seek to sell the Debenhams chain, and Sports Direct has registered an interest. However, according to BBC News, Sports Direct does not expect to be in the running. The BBC cites Sports Direct Deputy Chief Financial Officer Chris Wootton saying, “The way this has all been set up suggests to us [the owners] already have a plan to sell it to a third party, not us.”

One possible bidder may be Philip Day, the owner and chief executive of Edinburgh Woollen Mills. Retail research director at GlobalData Maureen Hilton said, “Day is developing a department store concept, so he might want to take some of their stores. … [H]owever the whole chain might prove too big.”

Debenhams’ pre-pack is the clearest sign that the slashing of retail jobs can only be expected to continue. Noting Debenhams’ administration and the collapse of many other fixtures of the high street, the Financial Times commented, “For UK retail, 2019 has so far proved a continuation of the annus horribilis of 2018.” It added, “[O]nline sales have grabbed about 20 per cent of the UK [retail] market,” and “a brutal shakeout is under way. It pits retailers and lenders, desperate to cut space, against landlords—themselves often with high loan to value ratios—that had expected a long-term steady income from their properties.”

In the first six months of 2018, major retail chains including Poundworld, Toys ‘R’ Us and Maplin went bust. According to the Centre for Retail Research, 2018 saw the loss of nearly 150,000 retail jobs with the closure of 20,000 shops and restaurants. According to the drapersonline website, retail job losses this year will be even higher—at 164,000.

One of the latest casualties is the up-market fashion chain LK Bennett, which recently went into administration after closing five shops in a bid to stem losses. It was announced April 12 that Rebecca Feng, who ran Bennett’s Chinese franchise, had bought the LK Bennett chain. Under the deal, 21 shops representing 325 jobs will remain but 15 shops will close with the loss of 110 jobs.

Retail workers continue to shoulder the costs of the collapse of the retail sector, losing their jobs and seeing their terms, conditions and pensions rights attacked.

Last week, it emerged that billionaire retail owner Sir Philip Green, who owns the Arcadia Group, plans to cut its £50 million contribution to the employees’ pension scheme in half, paying just £25 million. Arcadia includes fashion outlets Topshop, Burtons and Dorothy Perkins. The proposal is part of a restructuring plan that could see dozens of Arcadia stores close. The group has implemented a company voluntary agreement in an attempt to restructure its debts.

Of Green’s plans, ex-Labour MP Frank Field, who is chair of the parliamentary Works and Pensions Select Committee, said, “Does he really think he’s going to get away with his old tricks again? Run the business down, pocket whatever cash is left, stiff the pensioners and sail off on the Lionheart [Green’s superyacht] leaving employees, pension schemes and his long-suffering creditors in the lurch? Not if we have anything to do with it.”

Yet Green has “got away” with what Field’s committee previously described as “systematic plunder” for years and continues to do so.

Only three years ago, the high street retailer British Home Stores (BHS) collapsed. Green bought BHS for £200 million in 2000 via a leveraged buyout, and proceeded to bleed the company dry, slashing wages and conditions and squeezing his suppliers. While this enabled him to boost BHS’s profits in the short term, it fatally undermined its long-term viability. Green pocketed £420 million in dividends before selling the firm in 2015 to Retail Acquisitions, led by former bankrupt Dominic Chappell, for £1. BHS collapsed just months after with 11,000 jobs lost and a pension deficit of £571 million, endangering the pensions of 20,000 people.

Widodo predicted to be re-elected as Indonesian president

Peter Symonds

Indonesian elections will be held tomorrow, not only for the presidency, but also, for the first time, simultaneously for the national parliament as well as provincial and local governments. The elections, now held every five years, involve carefully vetted candidates backed by rival factions of the ruling class, none of whom represents the interests of the working class and rural poor.

The contest for the presidency epitomises the limited character of the election. Joko Widodo, a former small businessman, won the presidency in 2014 by posturing as a “man of the people” who would help working people. He was backed by former president Megawati Sukarnoputri and her Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P). His vice-presidential running mate was Jusef Kalla, a senior figure in Golkar, the political instrument of the Suharto dictatorship.

In one of his first actions as president, Widodo abolished fuel price subsidies—a regressive measure that hit the poorest sections of the population the hardest through increased fuel and transport prices. The decision was a clear signal to international finance capital that Widodo would meet its demands for massive infrastructure spending and pro-market reforms.

Widodo’s opponent in tomorrow’s election is Prabowo Subianto, whom he defeated in 2014. Prabowo is a former son-in-law of the dictator Suharto and a notorious ex-special forces commander. That Prabowo is standing for the presidency and is not in jail for his crimes, underscores the fact that the military and state bureaucracy remain a powerful behind-the-scenes force two decades after Suharto was forced to step down.

As he did in 2014, Prabowo is basing his campaign on nationalist demagogy, directed in particular against China, and appeals to Islamist bigotry. The ex-general has attacked Widodo over his deals with China to finance components of his massive infrastructure plans, worth an estimated $340 billion. China has heavily backed the controversial $59 billion high-speed rail link between Jakarta and Bandung that is bogged down in land acquisition and regulatory issues.

Anti-Chinese chauvinism directed against the country’s Chinese minority and Chinese-owned businesses has been the stock-in-trade for Indonesian politicians for decades. This now intersects with the escalating US confrontation with China and Washington’s efforts to undermine Beijing politically and diplomatically in Asia. Widodo, like leaders throughout the regime, has sought to balance between the US and China, which has become the leading investor in Indonesia.

Prabowo has accused Widodo of being too soft on China and of allowing too many Chinese workers to work on Chinese-funded projects. He has declared he will review all projects if he wins the presidency. While Prabowo has not attracted open support from Washington, his anti-China stance is in tune with the Trump administration’s aggressive policies.

Prabowo has been backed by hard-line Islamist parties and organizations, such as the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI). The FPI played a prominent role in the persecution and jailing of former Jakarta governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama on bogus charges of “blasphemy” in 2017. Basuki, a Christian, was a protégé and prominent ally of Widodo and the campaign was also aimed at politically weakening the president.

In a bid to burnish his religious credentials, Widodo has chosen an Islamic cleric, Ma’ruf Amin, as his running mate for this year’s election. Just days before the election, the president also made quick visit to Saudi Arabia where he met with the king and other senior Saudi officials on Sunday before making a brief pilgrimage to Mecca.

Widodo has attacked Prabowo’s lack of economic experience, while claiming that his own policies would result in continued economic growth. Prabowo’s vice-presidential candidate is a wealthy businessman, Sandiaga Uno. Their campaign has made bogus promises to lower food and fuel prices, and to cut food imports so as to assist small farmers.

Both Widodo and Prabowo are candidates of the wealthy cliques that dominate Indonesian politics. While Widodo is the favourite of foreign investors and their local partners, Prabowo favours more protectionist policies aimed at assisting less globally competitive sections of the business elite. Neither has the slightest concern for the tens of millions of impoverished workers and peasants in Indonesia.

The Indonesian economy has been growing at about 5 percent annually in real terms, boosting Widodo’s claims to be creating a prosperous country. However, in an article entitled “Widodo boasts about economy but Indonesia could do better,” the Financial Times noted the country’s large current account deficit and dependence on foreign inflows to finance government debt. It compared Indonesia unfavourably to Vietnam, which has experienced far higher levels of foreign investment.

Election polling, which is particularly unreliable in Indonesia, has Widodo in front of his rival by as much as 24 percentage points. But the lack of certainty has led to a slowdown in foreign investment in the lead-up to the election. A senior bank financier told the Nikkei Asian Review last week he had been getting a lot of calls from investors asking if there was “any chance or possibility or any surprise that [Prabowo] will win.”

While Widodo appears likely to be re-elected, he may face greater opposition in Indonesia’s lower house of parliament—the People’s Representative Council (PRC). A coalition led by Megawati’s PDI-P, which is again backing Widodo, has dominated the PRC but some commentators are predicting that its majority will narrow substantially.

Achmad Sukarsono, an analyst with Control Risks, told CNBC: “We expect the next parliament to be more fractured. All this points to a more convoluted and disputed parliamentary process, and consequently a president with a diminished ability to enact his agenda.”

The poll tomorrow involves some 193 million voters. They will queue up at more than 800,000 polling stations across the archipelago to elect office bearers at five levels of government. The preliminary outcome of the election will likely be known by the end of the day after the collation of “quick counts,” but the official results will not be known for weeks.

An Allied Approach to North Korea?

Sandip Kumar Mishra

South Korean President Moon Jae-in met US President Donald Trump on 10-11 April 2019 to bilateral relations as well as the future course of their dealings with North Korea. Although both these issues are related, their delineation is also important.

Since Trump assumed charge as president, the US has become more transactional in its relationship with allies. Trump has repeatedly argued that most US allies are "free-riders" in both security and economic domains, and should thus contribute more equally towards the sustenance of the US security commitment. Accordingly, the US has insisted that South Korea should pay more for the maintenance of US troops stationed in Korea.

Until 2018, South Korea contributed US$ 830 million of the total cost to station 2,8,500 troops in Korea. Dissatisfied with this figure, Trump has since pushed South Korea to contribute US$ 924 million. In February 2019, South Korea reluctantly agreed to these revised figures in a cost-sharing deal. However, this has not met Trump's approval, which is evident in his announcement of the deal for the period of a year rather than the usual five year span. The Trump administration has also announced that South Korea will purchase more US military arms and equipment - South Korea is the third largest buyer of military equipment from the US since 10 years ago. In fact, Seoul does not agree with the basic premise supplied by the US - that US forces in Korea are aimed at protecting South Korea - arguing that this is also in fulfillment of US' regional strategy.

For the US, bilateral trade also leaves a lot to be desired, with the US trade deficit increasing by around US$ 10 billion to reach a total of US$ 27.6 billion in 2016 despite the 2012 free trade agreement (FTA). This has in the past led to Trump threatening to walk out of the FTA. Just before the Moon’s visit, the US indicated that it might impose a 25 per cent tariff on auto imports from various countries, including South Korea.

On the geopolitical front, the US finds South Korea lacking in implementing specific policies to target China's rise in the region. South Korea, for its part, has openly denied being part of the Indo-Pacific strategy, and despite US displeasure, co-founded the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

Overall, it seems these old allies are gradually moving away from each other, particularly when seen in the light of the US assessment of alliances based primarily on a cost-benefit framework. Although both Moon and Trump had good things to say about their relationship and each other in their joint press conference, the divergence has undoubtedly created unease in South Korea. Moon's visit was also important as this was the first time the leaders were meeting  after a disappointing Hanoi Summit between the US and North Korea. During the Hanoi Summit and afterwards, the US appears to have hardened its position, demanding a "big deal." The US does not want to remove sanctions from North Korea until substantial progress is being made in the process of its denuclearisation. In the joint press statement, Trump talked about the right kind of "small deals." However, since then, the US administration has made in clear on multiple occasions that they are opposed to an "incremental" process towards North Korea’s denuclearisation.

In contrast, the South Korean leadership has argued that the momentum of talks with North Korea must continue. In the context of inter-Korea rapprochement, Moon has indicated several times that he would prefer some easing of sanctions on North Korea. Clearly, South Korea’s approach under the Moon administration has been of a step-by-step method to build trust and connections with North Korea.

Moon made a hurried visit to the US because of the realisation, following the Hanoi Summit, of the Trump administration drifting substantially from the South Korean position on North Korea, and in the hope of a commitment regarding a possible third US-North Korea summit. It was not clear whether, and to what extent, Moon was able to convince Trump of the viability of a step-by-step approach, although he was able to secure a more public US commitment to a third US-North Korea summit.

Overall, although the US and South Korea project an image of close coordination, the reality is that there are increasing limitations to their bilateral relationship, as well as fundamental differences in approach with regard to North Korea. Unless both countries are able to work together seamlessly, the situation will only be to North Korea's advantage. The US must begin by exercising greater caution in their pronouncements on behaviour expected of allies, and bring more nuance to their ambitions of denuclearising North Korea.

German Government Green Talents Award 2019 for International Graduate Students (All expenses paid to Germany)

Application Deadline: 22nd May 2019, 2 p.m. CEST.

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany

About the Award: The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) hosts the prestigious ”Green Talents – International Forum for High Potentials in Sustainable Development” to promote the international exchange of innovative green ideas. The award, under the patronage of Minister Anja Karliczek, honours young researchers each year.
The winners come from numerous countries and scientific disciplines and are recognised for their outstanding achievements in making our societies more sustainable. Selected by a jury of German experts the award winners are granted unique access to the country’s research elite.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: Applicants must meet the following requirements:

• Enrolment in a master’s or PhD programme or a degree (master’s/PhD) completed no more than three years before the end of the application process
• Strong focus on sustainable development and an interdisciplinary approach
• Proven excellent command of English
• Significantly above-average grades
• Not a German citizen nor a resident of Germany (individuals therefore not eligible to apply: German passport holders as well as anyone living in Germany at the time of application even if the residence is temporary)

No exceptions to these requirements can be accepted. Ineligible applications will automatically be disqualified.
The Green Talents Competition focuses on outstanding young scientists who are active in the field of sustainable development. The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) fosters interdisciplinary approaches in this regard. Applicants can therefore come from any scientific field closely related to sustainability research.

Number of Awards: 25

Value of Award: The prestigious Green Talents programme offers you the unique opportunity to become part of an exceptional world-wide network of outstanding young minds and leading German institutions.

• The first part of the prize consists of an invitation to a two-week Science Forum in Germany, where you will be introduced to renowned research facilities and have individual meetings with experts (individual appointments). Here you will learn about potential collaborations and experience the country’s excellent research infrastructure at close hand.
• In addition, a workshop on research and funding opportunities will provide you with further information for your future research stay in Germany.
• The journey will culminate within a festive award ceremony hosted by a high-level representative from the BMBF.
• You will have the opportunity to return to Germany for up to three months to conduct a research stay at an institute of your choice the year after the Science Forum.

How to Apply: Apply now!
It is important to go through the FAQs for application procedure and requirements before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Rockefeller Foundation Art Residency Programme 2019 for International Artists – Italy

Application Deadline: 1st May 2019,

Eligible Countries: Countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the United States

To be taken at (country): Bellagio, Italy. The Center consists of several buildings in 55 acres grounds on Lake Como in Northern Italy: the Villa Serbelloni and Villa Maranese house the resident fellows (scholars, practitioners and artists); the Sfondrata and Frati buildings are reserved for meetings. The town of Bellagio, immediately adjacent to the Bellagio Center, is located in northern Italy at the point where Lake */Como divides to form its Lecco and Como arms. It is approximately 75 km. (47 miles) north of Milan.

Eligible Fields: The Rockefeller Foundation seeks applicants with projects that contribute to discourse and progress related to its dual goals: i) advancing inclusive economies that expand opportunities for more broadly shared prosperity, and ii) building resilience by helping people, communities and institutions prepare for, withstand, and emerge stronger from acute shocks and chronic stresses. To achieve these goals, The Rockefeller Foundation works at the intersection of four related focus areas: Advance Health, Revalue Ecosystems, Secure Livelihoods, and Transform Cities.
Applicants with projects that may help shape thinking or catalyze action in these areas are also strongly encouraged to apply.

About the Award:  The Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Residency Programme is split into 3 areas:

• Academic Writing residency
• Arts & Literary Arts residency
• Practitioner residencies

The Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Residency Programme has a track record for supporting the generation of important new knowledge addressing some of the most complex issues facing our world, and innovative new works of art that inspire reflection and understanding of global and social issues.
The Bellagio Center Residency Program is committed to creating an environment that fosters rich cross-cultural and interdisciplinary exchanges, which arise from bringing highly diverse and international cohorts of artists, academics, practitioners, and policymakers together. The Bellagio Center typically offers residencies of two to four weeks for no more than 15 residents at a time. Collegial interaction within the community of residents is an integral dimension of the Bellagio experience. Meals and informal presentations of residents’ work afford an opportunity for dynamic discussions and engagement within and across disciplines. To help build connections across one another’s work, residents are also offered opportunities to interact with participants from international conferences that are hosted in other buildings on the Bellagio Center’s grounds.

Type: Short courses

Eligibility: 

• Residencies are open to university or think-thank based academics in all disciplines, literary artists, visual artists, and practitioners from a variety of fields, particularly those working on socially impactful endeavors. The Foundation seeks to promote a broad, stimulating mix of disciplines and fields within the Bellagio Community.
• The Academic Writing residency is for university and think tank-based academics, researchers, professors, and scientists working in any discipline. Successful applicants can either demonstrate decades of significant professional contributions to their field or show evidence of being on a strong upward trajectory in their careers.
• The Bellagio Arts & Literary Arts residency is for artists working in any discipline including composers, fiction and non-fiction writers, playwrights, poets, video/filmmakers, and visual artists who share in the Foundation’s mission of promoting the well-being of humankind and whose work is inspired by or relates to global or social issues.
• The Center also welcomes applications from practitioners, defined as senior-level policymakers, nonprofit leaders, journalists, private sector leaders and public advocates with ten or more years of leadership experience in a variety of fields and sectors.

Selection Criteria: Bellagio Center arts & literary arts residencies are for composers, fiction and non-fiction writers, playwrights, poets, video/filmmakers, interdisciplinary and visual artists seeking time for disciplined work, reflection, and collegial engagement, uninterrupted by the usual professional and personal demands.

Number of Awardees: Not more than 15 residents

Value of Residency: 

• During the course of the residency, room, meals and board are provided without charge.
• Opportunity for dynamic discussions and engagement within and across disciplines.
• Accessibility: housing/grounds/studios are accessible
• Studios/special equipment: Painting, Photography (digital)
• Additional studio information: The Maranese Art Studio (for painters) is located directly one flight downstairs from the bedroom (access through an outside stairway).
• To help build connections across one another’s work, residents are also offered opportunities to interact with participants from international conferences that are hosted in other buildings on the Bellagio Center’s grounds.
• Space for Spouses/Life Partners of residents are welcomed at the Center and can utilize this time to work on their own projects
• Travel grants and modest stipends to offset incidental travel costs are available on a needs basis, with awards granted to approximately half of all resident fellows.

Duration of Residency: 2 to 4 weeks

Go to Application

It is important to go through individual application requirements of each residency on the Rockefeller Foundation Webpage before applying.


Visit Program Webpage for details

Miss.Africa Digital Seed Funding 2019 for African Women in Tech Businesses

Application Deadline: 2nd July 2019

Eligible Countries: African countries

Eligible Fields: Projects eligible for grant funding include, but are not limited to:
– Computer science workshops and trainings for women and girls
– Early incubation of female tech entrepreneurs
– Programming and app development training programs
– Hackathons and coding boot camps for girls

About the Award: The Programme is interested in learning about successful activities that are currently supporting women and girls in STEM, and through this effort, we identify how we might support scalability and their impacts.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: To apply for a Miss.Africa Seed Fund grant applicants must meet the following eligibility requirements:

• – Current resident of an African country (including North and Sub-Saharan Africa).
• – Application must be submitted in English.
• – Applying as an individual (at least 18 years of age), or a representative of a non-governmental organization (NGO) or social enterprise based in Africa.
• – Ability to demonstrate previous experience conducting activities supporting women and girls in computer science or STEM fields.
• – Commitment to developing and contributing to a virtual community for supporting women and girls initiatives.
• – Demonstrated leadership potential (references will be required for those applying for leadership funds).
• – Proposed projects MUST have a tangible impact for women and girls in computer science and/or STEM- related fields.

Selection Criteria: Preference will be given to projects that target under-served populations and locations, take a collaborative approach, have a high potential for growth and present an innovative use of technology.

Number of Awardees: 3

Value of Funding: 

• The 2019 Seed Grant for the amount Five Thousand US dollars (USD 5,000) will assist the winning initiative to start or expand their capacity.
• A second category of One Thousand United States Dollars (USD 1000) will be granted  as a prize for two other applicants from emerging African countries that create further socio-economic value for women by effectively leveraging tech opportunities.

Timeline of Program: September 2019: Round IV of Miss.Africa Digital grants announced.

How to Apply: To apply, please fill the form with the instructions in the portal below or send your Expression of Interest (EOI) to the email: eoi(at)dotconnectafrica.org

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Barclays Africa L’Atelier Arts Competition 2019 for Young African Artists (Fully-funded to Paris, France)

Application Deadline: 31st May 2019 at 16:00 (CAT)

Eligible Countries: As per the draw held on the 4th of April 2019, the countries competing against one another in Group  A, B and C are as follows

Pool A Countries

• Kenya
• Ghana
• Mozambique
• South Africa

Pool B Countries

• Seychelles
• Tanzania
• Botswana
• Mauritius

Pool C Countries

• Namibia
• Uganda
• Nigeria
• Zambia

About the Award: Building on the platform created over the past two years, the competition is continuing to expand across Africa, opening in a number of countries, where Barclays Africa has a presence.
The L’Atelier competition sets the stage for approximately 100 young artists each year to promote their work by exhibiting at the Absa Gallery, in Johannesburg, South Africa, and having their work documented in a sought-after catalogue.

Type: Contest

Eligibility:

• Artists who are permanent residents of and residing in South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Namibia, Mozambique, Mauritius or Seychelles are invited to enter.
• Interested candidates are required to read the Terms and Conditions for further details on their eligibility.

Selection Criteria: The criteria for the adjudication both at the regional and national levels revolves around matters of technical execution, conceptual and thematic engagement, freshness of artistic vision within the context of African contemporary art and finally – and probably the most difficult element – aesthetic appeal.

Selection: Initial adjudication is done on electronic submission where you may upload up to seven (7) images of your artwork. Those artists whose entries make it in through to the next round will be contact directly to arrange for the collection of their artwork. It is essential when registering online and uploading your artwork that all fields are completed. Failure not to complete all fields will result in your entry been disqualified. Please note that all previous entrants will be required to re-register.

Value of Award: There are four prizes for the 2019 competition: the main prize for the winner of each Group; and the Gerard Sekoto Award for a South African entrant that continues to demonstrate growth in their art production.

First Prize: The Ambassadors from each of the three Groups receive:

• A one-month residency at the Cité Internationale des Arts in Paris
• A two-month residency in South Africa
• While taking up their two-month residency in South Africa, the artists will enjoy a weekly art masterclass
• A monthly stipend during their three-month residency
• Coverage of all flights, travel-associated costs, and accommodation
• All three Absa L’Atelier Ambassadors will take up their residency at the same time
• While taking up their South African residency, artists will work together towards a group exhibition consisting of both individual and collaborative artworks
• The exhibition will be documented in a printed catalogue
• Their group exhibition will open in the Absa Gallery within a year after taking up their residency and will then travel to each artist’s respective countries
• All entrants are eligible for this prize
• The date of residency is March to May 2020

Gerard Sekoto Award
3 Months in Paris:

• The Alliance Française, the Institut Français d’Afrique du Sud and the French Embassy are sponsoring the Gerard Sekoto Award for the most promising South African entrant in the Absa L’Atelier aged 25 to 35.
• This prize consists of a return flight ticket to Paris, a three-months stay in the Cité Internationale des Arts, nationwide touring of exhibitions in France, Institut Français d’Afrique du Sud French language lessons. The Cité Internationale des Arts in Paris residencies are made available by SANAVA. The period of Gerard Sekoto Award residency is from April to June 2020.

How to Apply: Interested applicants must go through the Program Webpage (see Link below) for application information BEFORE APPLYING.

ENTER NOW


Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Takeda Young Entrepreneurship Award 2019 for Young Entrepreneurs (Funded to Japan)

Application Deadline: 28th June 2019

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Japan

About the Award: The Award targets young entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial individuals who challenge technological or social needs in the real world. The Takeda Foundation believes that the challenging activities of young individuals trying to address real technological and social needs will lead to the creation of goods and services that enhance the well-being of people throughout the world, which is the mission of the Foundation.

Type: Entrepreneurship, Contest

Selection Criteria: The Takeda Young Entrepreneurship Award will be given to the individuals who propose the most creative and promising projects with a high potential for enhancing the well being of people at the site. The Takeda Foundation will select the Best Entrepreneur and 5 Entrepreneurs.
The Awardee will be selected from among the candidates who apply for the Takeda Young Entrepreneurship Award. Candidates should submit an application paper describing the background of the targeted issue, and his or her ideas for a solution to address that issue in 1000 words or less with figures (within 3 pages). They are also requested to submit a supporting report (in 300 words or less) written by an individual who receives benefit from the solution.

Selection: should include the items listed below.

1. The selection involves document examination and an on-line individual
2. presentation by the selected candidates. The document examination will start August, and the online individual presentation will be held in October.
3. The selection results will be announced in early November.
4. The awarding ceremony and workshop will be held in February, 2020.

Value of Award: The recipient of the Best Entrepreneur Award will receive a diploma, plaque and monetary prize of 1,000,000 Japanese yen. Each recipient of the Entrepreneur Award will receive a diploma, plaque and a monetary prize of 200,000Japanese yen.

How to Apply: 

• Registration : Please register at this URL before you submit the application form.
  You will receive your reception number and an address for submission of your application form.
• Application form : Please down load the Application form the designated URL which will be sent to you after registration.

Contents of Application Form: should include the items listed below.

• Applicant Information should be included in the application form.
• The application form contains Project Description which should include the following items (within 1000 English words in total). Figures or tables can be attached if they are within 3 pages.

• • (a) Background (Technological or/and social needs, and social impact)
  • (b) Solutions (Technical solutions and business model, competitiveness with other solutions, advantages (benefits/cost), etc.)
  • (c) Attempt (How seriously are you involved in your project? What are the milestones for this project? Do you expect any public funds? Have you organized any groups to develop your project?)

• Supporting report: Please ask beneficiaries (at least one) to describe within 300 words the kinds and degree of benefit he or she expects to receive when your project is achieved. Please keep in mind that supporting reports are not a recommendation letter from your mentor. They are reports from individuals who will receive benefits from your project. If you produce goods or service, then consumers will be your beneficiaries.

Visit Award Webpage for details

Falling Walls Science Fellowship 2019 for Journalists/Bloggers (Funded to Berlin, Germany)

Application Deadline: 30th June 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Berlin, Germany

About the Award: This year the Falling Falls Foundation is offering two types of Fellowships for science journalists: The Falling Walls Science Fellowship for journalists and the Berlin Science Week Fellowship. Please familiarize yourself with the requirements for both opportunities and specify in your motivation letter which fellowship you are applying for. You can find all details about both fellowships here. Please note: The Berlin Science Week Fellowship does not include travel costs to and from Berlin.

Falling Walls Science Fellowship for Journalists
In an effort to keep the public informed on life-changing scientific breakthroughs, we have created the Falling Walls Fellowship for Journalists.

Date: 7–10 November 2019

Number of places: 10

Programme: The Fellows get the opportunity to attend all Falling Walls events on 8 and 9 November (Falling Walls Lab, Falling Walls Venture, Falling Walls Engage and the Falling Walls Conference)

The fellowship includes: travel expenses (economy class), hotel accommodation for 3 nights, conference fees and meals (breakfast at hotel, catering during the Falling Walls events).

Eligibility: The Falling Walls Science Fellowship for Journalists is aimed at journalists and bloggers with at least three years of experience who hope to advance their knowledge in the area of sciences. Freelance and full-time journalists or bloggers can apply. Professionals in fields such as research, teaching, public relations and advertising are not eligible. The applicants must have a minimum of three years professional journalism/blogging experience in which they have written about the science topics.

Berlin Science Week Fellowship

Date: 6–10 November 2019

Number of places: 10

Programme: The Berlin Science Week Fellows are invited to attend events of the fourth Berlin Science Week as well as the programme of the Falling Walls Conference (Falling Walls Lab, Venture, Engage, Welcome Reception on 8 November and Conference on 9 November). The Fellowship Programme is a great possibility to connect with Berlin-based and international scientific institutions and to network with colleagues from all over the world. The programme also includes a guided tour to selected scientific institutions in Berlin and participation in the Berlin Science Award ceremony on 7 November, hosted by the Governing Mayor of Berlin.

The fellowship includes: hotel accommodation for 4 nights (including breakfast), free tickets to the Falling Walls events on 8/9 November, free meals during the events and participation at the Berlin Science Week. Please note: The fellowship does not cover travel expenses to and from Berlin.

Eligibility: Science journalists with a minimum of three years professional journalism/blogging experience in which they have written about the science topics.

Type: Fellowship

How to Apply: Applications for both fellowships can be submitted via this link.  Please specify in your motivation letter which fellowship you are applying for. You can only apply for one fellowship.
The application form must be filled out in English.


Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Abolish the Electoral College, Empower the People

Robert P. Alvarez

Senator Elizabeth Warren is hell-bent on dismantling the systems that feed inequality in this country, including the Electoral College.

“Every vote matters,” she said at a recent CNN town hall. That’s why we should “get rid of the Electoral College” and institute “national voting.”

Americans don’t directly elect their president — states do. In most cases, states award all of their “electoral votes” to the candidate who wins the popular vote in those states. Whoever gets 270 electoral votes wins the election.

Because electoral votes aren’t awarded in perfect proportion to population, small states get more influence over the outcome. Which means you can win the electoral vote even while getting fewer popular votes than your opponent.

Abolishing the Electoral College would level the playing field. It would ensure that people, not parties or mechanisms, determine who leads the country.

Is that so bad? If you’re a Republican, yes.

The Electoral College helped the two most recent Republican presidents — Donald Trump and George W. Bush — win office despite losing the popular vote. Bush lost the popular vote by over half a million, Trump by nearly 3 million.

No wonder Republicans are now up in arms about protecting their advantage. After all, the Electoral College gives disproportionate power to smaller, rural states, which tend to vote for them.

For instance, red Wyoming gets one Electoral College vote per 195,000 people. Blue California gets just one per 712,000 people. In other words, your vote counts nearly 4 times more if you live in Wyoming.

“Swing states” that don’t vote the same way each election also wield disproportionate power, since even a narrow winner will get all of their electoral votes. That’s why candidates spend so much time at diners in small-town Iowa and Ohio, rather than New York or Alabama, which vote more predictably for one party.

Seems to me all Senator Warren is calling for is a country that respects its citizens enough to let them choose their own leader — and to do so without some centuries-old electoral mechanism initially designed to inflate the political influence of slaveholders.

Perhaps the most insincere response to Warren’s proposal was National Review editor Rich Lowry’s.

If the Electoral College “is tantamount to disenfranchisement,” he wrote, “California could immediately mitigate the problem by splitting its electoral votes by congressional district the way Nebraska and Maine do… Of course, California is loath to give up any of its solidly Democratic electoral votes.”

I’m sure California would gladly split electoral votes by congressional district the way Nebraska and Maine do, on two conditions.

First, the Supreme Court would have to vanquish partisan gerrymandering to prevent presidential elections from being infected with the same dysfunction currently befalling congressional elections.

And second, the rest of the country would have to agree to divide their electoral votes by the same methodology.

But Lowry doesn’t suggest that, because it would spell doom for Republican second place finishers. Were the roles reversed, you can bet your bottom dollar Republicans would be clamoring for an end to this deeply flawed system.

Abolishing the Electoral College is unlikely in the short term. But that doesn’t mean Americans have given up on the idea of a direct popular vote.

Fourteen states and D.C. have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), agreeing to give their Electoral College votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. Colorado, Delaware, and New Mexico are the latest to join the compact, bringing their collective electoral vote total to 189.

Similar legislation has passed one legislative chamber in eight more states, comprising 72 Electoral College votes, and has been unanimously approved at the committee level in two states, comprising 27 more.

They’ll need 270 votes to ensure the winner of the national popular election wins the presidency. Right now that’s more likely than a constitutional amendment requiring overwhelming bipartisan support.

Still, there’s no getting around the real solution: Abolish the Electoral College so the candidate with the most votes wins.

Antibiotic-Resistance: Mystery Killer Spans the Globe

Robert Hunziker

Public health experts have been warning for decades that overuse of antibiotics reduces the effectiveness of drugs that cure bacterial infections. At least 2,000,000 Americans get antibiotic-resistant infections per year.

Notably, gluttonous overuse of antimicrobial drugs to combat bacteria and fungi via hospitals, clinics, and farms is backfiring and producing superbugs or “Nightmare Bacteria,” which is especially lethal for people with compromised immune systems and autoimmune disorders that use steroids to suppress bodily defenses.

Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) recently labeled a fungus called Candida auris or C. auris an “Urgent Threat.” This Nightmare Bacteria is a brutal killer that’s unstoppable and flat-out travels fast.

The CDC claims antibiotic resistance is “one of the biggest public health challenges of our time.”

According to the World Health Organization: “The world is facing an antibiotic apocalypse.”

The UK’s chief medical officer believes antimicrobial resistance: “May spell the end of modern medicine,” as routine surgeries turn into medical emergencies.

In short, new antibiotic resistance mechanisms are emerging and spreading worldwide, quickly. Knowledgeable sources worry that society at large is headed for a “Post-Antibiotic Era,” in which common infections and minor injuries can kill once again (Source: WHO Fact Sheet on Antibiotic Resistance, Nov. 2017).

According to a recent British governmental study, without new medicines and without curbing unnecessary use of antimicrobial drugs, infections followed by ensuing deaths will likely eclipse cancer deaths over succeeding decades. The harsh fact is nearly one-half of patients that contract C. auris die within 90 days. (Source: Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming)

Nowadays, the dangers of “Nightmare Bacteria” are growing out of control. The latest concern is that C. auris will begin spreading to healthier populations, even though healthy people are normally not at risk. Within only five years, C.auris has established itself as one of the world’s most intractable health threats. It is drug-resistant, tenacious and nearly impossible to exterminate and travels the globe looking for innocent victims, killing people mostly in hospital settings.

C.auris has already established a beachhead in Venezuela, Spain, the UK, India, Pakistan, South Africa, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. Nobody knows where else it may be cloaking.

A British hospital aerosolized hydrogen peroxide in a C.auris-infected room for one week solid. Subsequently, only one organism grew back in a Petri dish in the room. It was C. auris. The hospital serves wealthy patients from Europe and the Middle East, and it has not made a public announcement of the outbreak.

An outbreak of C.auris at a Spanish hospital resulted in 41% deaths of infected patients. The hospital has not made a public announcement of the outbreak.

In the U.S., the Brooklyn branch of Mount Sinai Hospital had a case of C. auris with an older man hospitalized for abdominal surgery.

According to a New York Times article d/d April 7th 2019: Deadly Germs, Lost Cures: A Mysterious Infection, Spanning the Globe in a Climate of Secrecy: “The man at Mount Sinai died after 90 days in the hospital, but C. auris did not. Tests showed it was everywhere in his room, so invasive that the hospital needed special cleaning equipment and had to rip out some of the ceiling and floor tiles to eradicate it… C. auris is so tenacious, in part, because it is impervious to major antifungal medications, making it a new example of one of the world’s most intractable health threats: the rise of drug-resistant infections.”

Indeed, Mount Sinai’s public exposure is an exception, as hospitals and governmental agencies keep C.auris’s whereabouts secret. Public transparency is shunned. Hospitals and local governments are reluctant to disclose outbreaks because of concern about tarnishing reputations and spreading of rumors. Even the Center for Disease Control is not allowed, in a pact with states, to publicly announce outbreaks.

There are multiple causes behind antibiotic-resistant infection outbreaks. As for one, using antifungals on crops to prevent rotting, in turn, contributes to drug-resistant fungi infecting people. Also, infamously, antibiotics are widely used (in fact, overused-by-a-country-mile) for disease prevention of farm animals.

“Indeed, researchers estimate that up to 70 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are given to healthy food animals to artificially expedite their growth and compensate for the effects of unsanitary farm conditions. This routine use of antibiotics in animals presents a serious and growing threat to human health because it creates new strains of dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria.” (Source: How Much Do Antibiotics Used on the Farm Contribute to the Spread of Resistant Bacteria? Scientific American magazine)

Furthermore, and of serious deliberate interest, Denmark is testament to what occurs by restricting non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in cattle, broiler chickens, and swine. Following Denmark’s restrictions, the use of antibiotics for swine dropped 50% from 1992-2008. Results: (1) swine production increased by nearly 50% and (2) antibiotic resistance in humans decreased.

By way of contrast, in the United States up to 70% of antibiotics go to farm animals that are not sick.

One pressing issue is no new classes of antibiotics have been invented for decades. In fact, all the antibiotics brought to the market in the past 30 years have been variations on existing drugs discovered by 1984, meaning they are just follow-up compounds, without a novel mechanism of action, meaning no major breakthroughs.

Problematically, only a few large drug companies are involved in antibiotic research and development because the cost of developing the drugs is high and profit margins are slim. In that regard, according to the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy: The antibiotic pipeline is near collapse, and the country needs to act now to preserve the infrastructure to support antibiotic research and development.

Pew Charitable Trust/Antibiotic Resistance Project is trying to muster public support for the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA, H.R. 1587/S. 619), which withdraws from animal production use of seven classes of antibiotics vitally important to human health, unless animals are diseased or drug companies can prove that their use does not harm human health.

Other groups in support of legislation include the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatricians, Infectious Diseases Society of America and World Health Organization.

In a letter to congressional leaders Feb. 5, 2019 The Pew Charitable Trusts, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and Trust for America’s Health, together with U.S. antibiotic developers large and small, called on Congress to move swiftly to enact a package of economic incentives to reinvigorate the stagnant pipeline of antibiotics.

A number of sponsors for congressional action are urging concerned citizens to call their representatives and senators and push for action on this life-or-death issue.