By Frances Davis and Ian Richardson
The much-anticipated General Election in the southern Irish state, called for 26 February, has brought into sharp focus two clear political alternatives – a continuation of right wing austerity politics or a break with it, in favour of a left wing alternative. The fact that the election is taking place in the centenary year of the 1916 Rising also gives an added significance – and one which is not just based on an historic poignancy. Most of the fundamental tasks of 1916 are yet to be accomplished.
A major discussion is taking place in China on the issue of its economy’s ‘supply side’. Naturally there are aspects of this which relate to specifically Chinese issues. Discussion in China also differs fundamentally from that in the West in that it takes place simultaneously in both ‘Western’ and ‘Marxist’ economic terms. Nevertheless the overall framework of this discussion equally relates to the key issues of economic policy in Western countries.
In the later part of the 20th century Latin America suffered an economic catastrophe from neo-liberal policies. Until 1993 average per capita GDP in developing Latin American economies remained below 1981 levels. By 1998 annual average per capita GDP growth was still only 0.9% – taking a five-year average to remove cyclical fluctuations.
By Michael Burke
The outcome of the Spanish general election is unclear as no major party has an overall majority or even an obvious political partner(s) with which it could form one. The poll overall represents a shift to the left, but a shift insufficient to place the anti-austerity forces in government.
Boris Johnson supported the catastrophic invasion of Iraq, launched by Bush and Blair, which is the cause of the present chaos in the Middle East and the rise of global terrorism it has resulted in. Like the bombing of Libya the Iraq invasion turned previously powerless jihadist terrorists into a powerful force. Above all the people of the Middle East but also those in Paris, San Bernardino, and Mali are paying for that with their lives.
The effective measures that would really defeat ISIS are very simple - the fact Cameron doesn't propose them shows he is lying about trying to destroy ISIS.
Cameron’s claim in asking for authorisation to bomb Syria is that it is intended to destroy ISIS and other ‘jihadists’. But the facts show this is a lie, that Cameron’s aim in Syria is totally different, and that its end result will be to strengthen ‘jihadists’. As unfortunately some on the left have also not understood the real situation on this it is therefore important to clarify the real facts in Syria which demonstrate what are Cameron’s actual goals.
David Cameron, in his House of Common’s statement attempting to justify bombing Syria, used a blatant lie that there are 70,000 ‘moderate’ members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Syria. This plays exactly the same role as Tony Blair’s notorious lie that Iraq possessed WMD and that these could be used in 45 minutes.
Even before the recent horrific terrorist attacks in Paris and Mali, the purpose of the U.S. "war on terror" as stated in words was to fight "Islamic terrorism" and "jihadism." But facts show each time the U.S. and its allies have launched a war in the Middle East it has been followed by a great strengthening and not weakening of "jihadism." Taking events in order:
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner