The economy, a key issue for voters as the November 5 presidential election draws nearer, will have a starring role in the debate tonight between the two candidates, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and her Republican rival, former President Donald Trump. 

About 8 in 10 adults tell CBS News that the economy is a major factor in their choice at the polls, outpacing issues such as abortion and climate change. 

Each candidate will seek to convince voters that their proposals will lead to better economic conditions, ranging from bigger paychecks to lower inflation. And CBS News polling shows that Trump may have an edge with inflation-weary consumers, with about 4 in 10 voters saying prices are likely to go down if he wins — twice as many as those who believe the same would be the case with a Harris victory. 

“[I]nflation and the high cost of living are deeply impacting lower- and middle-income Americans,” said Liza Landsman, the CEO of Stash, a financial services firm that polled consumers ahead of the debate, in a statement. “What the study did shed sharper light on is how vastly different individuals’ perceive their economic condition depending on their political view.”

For instance, about 7 in 10 Trump supporters told Stash they are deeply concerned about inflation, compared with 2 in 10 Harris voters, the study found.

Economists largely rate the current economy as good, albeit with some weak spots, such as a slowing labor market. But about 42% of Americans incorrectly believe the U.S. is currently in a recession, down from about 48% last year, a new MassMutual survey found. 

“Sometimes it is difficult to separate out various doom-and-gloom factors when it is hitting your wallet directly,” Paul LaPiana, a certified financial planner and head of brand, product and affiliated distribution with MassMutual, told CBS MoneyWatch.

Even so, a number of Wall Street economists are predicting that Harris’ policies are likely to result in stronger economic growth for the U.S., while warning that Trump’s combination of tariffs and tax cuts could both spur inflation while causing the deficit to mushroom by trillions. 

Here’s what to know about three key economic issues that could influence voters. 

Inflation and grocery costs

Inflation has sapped household budgets since 2021, when prices started rising due to the impact of the pandemic, which disrupted global supply chains and prompted the federal government to pump trillions into the economy. (Both Presidents Trump and Biden signed large spending bills into law during the pandemic, authorizing stimulus payments and extra unemployment aid, among other supports).

To temper inflation, the Federal Reserve responded by hiking interest rates to their highest point in 23 years. That’s paying off, with government data on Wednesday expected to show that inflation cooled to 2.6% on an annual basis in August, its lowest since March 2021, according to financial data firm FactSet.

But lower inflation doesn’t mean that prices have come down; instead, it simply means that the rate of price hikes have moderated from their pandemic peak. 

The candidates are likely to discuss their plans to address inflation, which remains a key issue for voters given that grocery costs remain 21% higher than they were prior to the pandemic. That means a cart of groceries in 2020 that cost $150 would now set you back by $182, or $32 more at the register.

Harris has vowed to tackle grocery costs by enacting the first federal law against price gouging by food suppliers and retailers. But economists say they’re skeptical such a law could make much of an impact. 

Trump, meanwhile, has pledged to end the “inflation nightmare.” But his policies, which include adding tariffs to all imported goods, would likely fuel inflation and reverse some of the progress of the last two years, some economists say.

What the candidates are pledging on taxes 

Both Harris and Trump have already made some tax pledges, with Harris vowing to increase the corporate tax rate and Trump proposing a steep cut, taking it down to 15% from its current 21%. 

Trump also wants to extend his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — his 2017 law that reduced tax rates for most individuals but provided the biggest benefits to the nation’s richest families. Many of those cuts are due to expire at the end of 2025. Trump’s vice presidential running mate, JD Vance, has also floated the idea of a bigger Child Tax Credit.

Harris, meanwhile, wants to enact more generous tax benefits, such as a $6,000 Child Tax Credit for parents of newborns and a bigger Earned Income Tax Credit. One analysis from the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model found that her proposals would help more low- and middle-income families than Trump’s.

“If Democrats sweep, personal and corporate taxes and benefit spending will likely rise,” Goldman Sachs analysts said in September 3 research report. “If Republicans sweep, they will likely stay mostly unchanged.”

Housing and the American Dream 

Housing remains out of reach for millions of Americans who are now priced out of home-buying due to high mortgage rates and housing prices. 

Harris has proposed providing $25,000 in down payment assistance for Americans who have paid their rent on time for two years, with more support for first-generation homeowners. She’s also proposing tax incentives for builders of starter homes, with the goal of widening the housing supply and lowering home prices.

Trump, meanwhile, has proposed making federal land available to help with housing supply, but his campaign hasn’t offered any details. He’s also vowed to deport between 15 million to 20 million undocumented workers, which he’s blamed for increasing housing demand and pushing up prices.

But the surge in home prices preceded the recent jump in undocumented workers, the New York Times reported. And deporting so many workers, many of whom work in construction, could jeopardize the workforce that builds homes. 

Source

The post The economy is a top issue for voters. Here’s what to watch for in the Harris-Trump debate. appeared first on Policy Print.

VIA Rail Canada’s new baggage policy and reservation system introduces sweeping changes that are catching passengers and workers off-guard as rail travel gears up for the holiday season.

“Instead of making train travel more accessible VIA Rail’s new policy only complicates it,” said Lana Payne, Unifor National President. “It’s unfortunate to see passenger rail become more cumbersome at a time when ease and affordability in green public transportation is more important than ever.”

VIA Rail’s new baggage and reservation policies launched on November 18, 2023 and are already having a negative impact on passengers’ wallets and travel experience. Travelers will now encounter seat selection and baggage fees similar to budget airlines, directly leading to higher travel costs. Particularly affected are students and economy class passengers, with students losing their previously entitled second free bag and economy travelers facing stricter luggage size limits. Additionally, Sleeper and Prestige class passengers will face revised cabin baggage allowances and checked baggage limits.

“These changes hit hard when people are already stretched thin and we’ve moved so far away from VIA Rail’s original mandate of providing an affordable service to Canadians,” Jennifer Murray, Atlantic Regional Director. “Our members are on the front lines, witnessing first-hand how such policies inconvenience travelers and complicate our working conditions.”

Unifor’s Get Canada Back on Track campaign advocates for an expansion of publicly-owned passenger rail in Canada. The campaign stresses the need for a public transport system that caters to environmental sustainability, safety, and the well-being of Canadian travelers and workers.

Unifor is Canada’s largest union in the private sector, representing 315,000 workers in every major area of the economy. The union advocates for all working people and their rights, fights for equality and social justice in Canada and abroad, and strives to create progressive change for a better future.

Source : CISION

The post Via Rail’s New Baggage Policy: a Burden on Passengers and Workers Alike appeared first on Policy Print.

The Biden administration on Wednesday urged a federal judge to reject a legal challenge to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point’s consideration of race in admissions, saying that Army diversity was “integral to ensuring national security.”

The U.S. Department of Justice in a brief argued the military academy’s affirmative-action policies remain valid even after the U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision striking down race-conscious admissions policies long used by colleges to boost enrollment of Black, Hispanic and other minority students.

The conservative majority Supreme Court’s ruling came in response to lawsuits by the same group now suing over West Point’s policies in federal court in White Plains, New York. The group, Students for Fair Admissions, was founded by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum.

Blum’s group in a lawsuit filed in September alleged the academy’s admissions practices discriminated against white applicants and violated the principle of equal protection in the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

But the Justice Department said SFFA had no legal standing to sue over the policies and ignored “critical differences” between civilian universities such as those in the Supreme Court case and military ones like West Point, which use race in a “limited fashion to foster diversity in the Army officer corps.”

It said top U.S. military leaders “have repeatedly concluded that a more diverse officer corps makes a more effective force: more lethal, more likely to attract and retain top talent, and more legitimate in the eyes of the nation and the world.”

Blum did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

The brief was filed ahead of arguments slated for Dec. 21 on SFFA’s request for a preliminary injunction before U.S. District Judge Philip Halpern, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit, along with a similar one Blum’s group filed against the U.S. Naval Academy, seeks to end an exemption tucked inside the Supreme Court ruling that allowed military academies to continue considering race as a factor in admitting cadets.

The Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating race-conscious admissions policies used by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina did not address race in admissions at military academies, which Chief Justice John Roberts said had “potentially distinct interests.”

The Justice Department in Wednesday’s brief said the prestigious West Point was a “vital pipeline to the officer corps” and that its race-conscious admissions practices helped the Army achieve its “mission critical” goal of having officers as diverse as its enlisted military personnel.

Although Black people make up 20.2% of the Army’s active duty enlisted personnel, only 11% are officers, the Justice Department said. Hispanic people constitute 18% of active personnel but only 9% of officers, the department said.

White people by contrast constitute 51.7% of the Army active duty enlisted corps and 68% of its officers, the Justice Department said.

Source : Reuters

The post Biden Administration Defends West Point’s Race-Conscious Admissions Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

Argentina on Sunday chose a new president and a new course, pivoting away from decades of Peronist policy domestically and, if new president-elect Javier Milei sticks to his campaign rhetoric, toward a new neighborhood policy that might jolt Latin America and a new foreign policy in the Middle East and toward China.  

The results of the presidential election runoff were not surprising, knowing the depth of the anger of the electorate at the economic crisis in the country. Inflation has hit 140 percent and poverty affects 40 percent of the population, while a $44 billion debt program with the International Monetary Fund did not even scratch the surface of solving the problems of Argentina. 

People wanted and demanded change, even if it came in the form of a right-wing populist and self-described “anarcho-capitalist,” who even brandished a chainsaw during the election campaign, vowing to cut the government down to size. An economist and former TV personality, Milei won with 56 percent of the vote, compared to the 44 percent of his opponent, the current Economy Minister Sergio Massa. He promised Argentines that there is “no room for lukewarm measures” and vowed to purge the government of corrupt establishment politicians. 

His platform is very radical even for Argentines, who are willing to forgive his style for the sake of change and a new beginning. He has said he will dollarize the economy, abandoning the national currency, the peso; eliminate the central bank; shut down the ministries of education and health; privatize the state-controlled energy firm YPF, after making it better to get a good price; and privatize the state-owned media, which he described as “a covert ministry of propaganda” as it gave him negative coverage during the campaign. Sound familiar? 

The incoming Argentine president is an admirer of former American President Donald Trump and some see a resemblance between them, including the mop of hair. He is even referred to as the “Trump of Argentina.” He is also a friend of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and both congratulated him, with Trump telling Milei: “You will make Argentina great again.” Bolsonaro said: “You represent a lot for Brazil.” 

However, Argentina’s relationships with its two largest trading partners, Brazil and China, seem to be heading into uncharted waters with Milei’s presidency. During his campaign, he attacked Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, calling him an “angry communist” and a “socialist with a totalitarian vocation,” prompting a Brazilian official to demand an apology before any talks between the two leaders can start. 

The president-elect softened his position on some domestic measures in the last days of the campaign, such as retreating from his vow to abolish the ministries of education and health, signaling that reality might sink in and a more pragmatic approach might be contemplated, especially as his party does not control the Congress and he cannot pass any of his promised measures without its approval.  

The question is though, how will he handle his relationship with Brazil, or any of his Latin American neighbors, especially since some of them did not hide their disappointment at his election? 

The biggest change from Argentina’s previous policies is predicted to be in his China policy. The president-elect advocated during the campaign breaking off relations with Beijing in favor of ties with “the civilized side of the world,” meaning the West. His Middle East policy might also bring a sea change to Argentina’s traditional policy for the region.  

China is the second-largest trading partner of Argentina and their relationship has warmed recently, with Beijing investing billions of dollars in projects in different sectors of the economy. China even helped the country avoid default by offering a $6.5 billion loan to help it make its debt payments one month before the elections, according to Bloomberg.  

The growing relationship between Argentina and China was a matter of concern in Washington, especially after Buenos Aires joined the Belt and Road Initiative in 2022 and accepted the invitation to join BRICS next year.  

The Chinese have expanded their influence in Latin America with the billions invested in the region through its Belt and Road Initiative. Seven countries in South America were participating in the initiative as of 2022, with projects ranging from the construction of infrastructure to energy, challenging the US in its backyard.  

According to World Economic Forum figures, trade between China and Latin America grew 26-fold between 2000 and 2020, increasing from $12 billion to $315 billion. It is expected to double by 2035, reaching more than $700 billion, which is about the same as the current trade between China and the US.  

According to the House Foreign Affairs Committee website on China’s influence in South America, in 2021 alone, Chinese state-owned companies “funded $11.3 billion worth of projects in South American countries.” But the committee adds that the “US still provides more foreign direct investment in Argentina than any other country, totaling $131.6 billion in the past decade.”

Other Chinese projects in Argentina have added to the anxiety in Washington, such as talks on setting up a port in the southern Tierra del Fuego province, as well as the satellite tracking station in Patagonia that Reuters has referred to as a Chinese “military-run space station” and a “black box.” 

Washington was not a mere spectator in all of this. It has continued to seek close relations with Argentina to counter China’s influence. Argentine President Alberto Fernandez visited Washington earlier this year and, after a visit to Argentina, Colombia and Brazil by NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, these countries all signed NASA’s Artemis Accords. Nelson was clear when he talked about the motive, as he noted “all of these countries have had entreaties from the Chinese government.” And, with Argentina in particular, he said the US wanted to “keep the ties, the information, flowing between our two countries.” 

Milei might try to decouple from China, as he promised, but experts echo what a Chinese spokesman said after the elections — that such a move would be “a serious mistake” on Argentina’s part.  

Both the US and China today need Argentina for a precious resource: lithium, which they need because it is essential for electric cars and the energy transition. Argentina has one of the world’s largest lithium reserves and it needs trading partners to get out of its economic crisis. Milei might soon learn that it is better for Argentina to keep all its options open.  

Milei’s platform is very radical even for Argentines, who are willing to forgive his style for the sake of change.

Dr. Amal Mudallali

Meanwhile, Argentina’s Middle East policy appears to be heading for a sharp turn toward Israel. Milei reportedly said that he plans to travel to the US and Israel before he takes office on Dec. 10. American and Israeli media outlets have written about his close ties to rabbis in Miami and New York, as well as his spiritual attachment to and his admiration of Israel.  

He has reportedly considered converting to Judaism and has supported Israel’s right to self-defense during its attack on Gaza. He has often waved Israeli flags at his campaign rallies. He has previously said he wants to move the Argentine Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, following in Trump’s footsteps, according to Politico. 

With Argentina’s turn to the right, the great power competition between China and the US is reminding people that America never likes to be challenged in its backyard. During their last debate, Republican presidential hopefuls spoke about reviving the Monroe Doctrine, which holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act. The Dallas Morning News warned that “reviving the Monroe doctrine is a dangerous idea” and cautioned that the Republican candidates’ posturing “will push Latin America into China’s arms.” Countering China’s influence is a bipartisan issue in Washington and Latin America will find that out soon.  

Source : Arab News

The post Argentina Set for Foreign Policy Shift Under Radical New President appeared first on Policy Print.

A recent indictment from the United States Department of Justice has alleged an Indian security official was involved in attempting to assassinate a U.S. and Canadian citizen in New York. The alleged target, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, is a leader in the Sikh separatist movement and has been involved in organizing referendums for the establishment of Khalistan, a proposed independent Sikh state in northern India.

The indictment also states that there is a link between the foiled attempt to kill Pannun and the murder of Canadian Khalistani leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, B.C. earlier this year.

The Indian government said it was investigating the allegations, and had established a committee to “address the security concerns highlighted by the US government.”

This announcement by the U.S. could have potential ramifications for Indian politics, both at home and abroad. However, it is unlikely to have any significant impact on next year’s general elections, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be seeking his third term in office.

Bolstering Modi’s strongman image

Canadian allegations against India had handed Modi an excellent political platform for the next general elections.

It sent a clear message that India’s government would, under no circumstances, tolerate any threats to the country.

India’s foreign policy has become more muscular under Modi; and that’s a strategy that resonates with his supporters.

His landslide victory in 2019 had a lot to do with support for India’s “surgical strikes” in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir in 2016 in response to an attack that killed 19 Indian soldiers.

Following Canada’s allegations of Indian involvement in Nijjar’s killing, the Modi government was once again able to successfully generate a narrative against Canada in general and the Liberal party in particular.

India’s narrative consists of four parts:

• Canada is a safe haven for terrorists, extremism and organized crime, and there is a nexus between Indo-Canadian gangsters and Sikh separatists working with Pakistan’s intelligence agency.
• The Canadian government has consistently ignored repeated requests from India to take actions against Khalistani “terrorists” operating on Canadian soil.
• Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is pandering to the large Sikh diaspora in Canada.
• The Liberal minority government is dependent on support from the New Democratic Party leader, Jagmeet Singh, a Sikh supposedly sympathetic to the Khalistani cause.

Indian news media and politicians have repeated the official discourse constantly for weeks.

While India was quick to dismiss Canadian allegations, it has adopted a much more cautious approach to the U.S. indictment. India has much to lose by alienating the Biden administration as both countries have invested a great deal in enhancing Indo-U.S. relations and making India a central ally in America’s Indo-Pacific strategy.

Meanwhile, Indo-Canadian relations have been chilly since 2015, largely due to Khalistan activity in Canada. Moreover, annual trade between India and Canada is worth about $12 billion while trade with the U.S. is worth $192 billion. In short, India has much more to lose by alienating the U.S than it does by taking a hard line with Canada.

Furthering authoritarianism

On the surface it might appear that news of the U.S. indictment could fracture India’s muscular foreign policy. However, this episode is unlikely to have much impact on India’s domestic politics. Modi remains popular with an approval rating of 78 per cent.

He is credited, among other things, with India’s emergence as a global power, with his effective handling of border issues with China, for taking on Pakistan and with the success of the country’s space program.

The 26-party opposition coalition, Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA), is unlikely to challenge Modi on this particular issue. The national defense narrative is a strong one, and India’s territorial integrity is a sacrosanct issue for all political parties.

However, among some minority communities, Muslims and Sikhs, both at home and abroad, revelations of assassination plots could raise serious concerns. The Modi government’s aggressive pursuit of a Hindu nationalist agenda, its repression of minorities and control over dissent have become more entrenched.

India’s parliament is in the process of amending its sedition laws. If the changes are passed, endangering the unity and integrity of the country could result in life-term imprisonment. These proposed changes to the already harsh and draconian penal code will only further criminalize dissent. The Modi government is ensuring that dissenting voices, particularly those of minority communities, completely disappear from Indian democracy.

Amplifying the Khalistan movement

India’s campaign of global repression of Sikh separatists could have the effect of unifying the Sikh diaspora. It was in 2018 that Pannun came up with the idea of holding a non-binding referendums to mobilize the global Sikh community.

That year, Sikh activists announced their campaign for holding referendums starting in 2021 across multiple cities. The first referendum took place in London on Oct. 31, 2021, followed by eight more referendums during 2022 and 2023 in the cities of Leeds and Luton (United Kingdom), Geneva (Switzerland), Brampton, Mississauga and Surrey (Canada), Melbourne (Australia), and Brescia (Italy).

Pannun announced plans for referendums in Punjab and the U.S, and for another round of voting in Canadian cities. In October, following Trudeau’s announcement of credible allegations against the Indian government, thousands of voters turned out to participate in a referendum in Surrey, B.C., some coming from as far as the cities of Edmonton and Calgary.

While only a small minority of the Sikh diaspora is thought to support creating a separate Sikh state, the majority were likely registering their disapproval of India and its repression of minorities. Memory of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in the wake of Indira Gandhi’s assassination which left thousands dead remains very much alive within the entire Sikh community to this day.

But Khalistani referendum politics relies heavily on images depicting so-called “martyrs” (separatists killed by India) and Indian diplomats as the assassins of Sikh activists. The desecration of Hindu temples also has the potential to create division within the Indian Hindu and Sikh diasporas. Canadian Liberal MP Chandra Arya has accused Khalistan supporters of targetting Hindu temples.

As more information comes out, the Canadian government will need to carefully manage its relations with India and the relationship between diasporic communities here.

Source : The Conversation

The post Alleged Assassination Plots in the U.S. And Canada Signal a More Assertive Indian Foreign Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

Startups can be at the forefront of economic recovery, job creation, and a more sustainable future. They are the most innovative actors in the economy and an economic force to be reckoned with. However, while they are the giants of the future, they are more often than not overlooked in policymaking. 

In the last five years alone, startups have been met with a tidal wave of digital regulation. While well-intentioned, overregulation often creates a hostile environment for innovative businesses by implementing market barriers and imposing additional operating and compliance costs.

The 2024 European Union Elections offer an opportunity to reverse this trend by ensuring that startups have a seat at the policy table so that Europe can build smart regulations and at the vanguard of startup innovation.  

Allied for Startups and its Members have published its EU Election Startup Manifesto, a standard with which startup communities and leaders will evaluate the success of any candidate, party, or group seeking a leading role in a democratic Europe in 2024.

While these policy prescriptions are a baseline of the needs of the growing entrepreneurial communities of Europe, support for these entrepreneurs and job creators must be aligned with an acknowledgment of the need for further investment in diversity, equity, and inclusion.

This integrated approach is likely the most effective pathway toward ensuring Europe’s continued growth and economic success.

What do startups need from policymakers?

Policymakers must embrace strategies and initiatives that will foster a growth-oriented environment for startups to deliver on the digital and green transitions as promised.

Hence, we propose a variety of actions, including:

Appointing a dedicated Commissioner for Digital Entrepreneurship, in order to simplify and harmonise all regulation that affects startups in a single place.

Introducing a startup and scale-up test for legislation, essential to creating regulatory frameworks that startups can not only comply with but thrive under.

Streamlining talent acquisition through an efficient EU-wide startup visa and simplifying regulatory processes with an EU company status.

Startups advocate for a harmonised level-playing field that allows them to innovate, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding net neutrality, fortifying the Digital Single Market, and strong research, investment and digital skills framework to nurture a competitive and thriving ecosystem.

What are startups’ expectations across EU institutions?

Startups’ expectations across EU institutions extend to the creation of dedicated groups and teams within the institutions, integrating startup perspectives into relevant deliberations, nominating counterparts, and emphasizing startups and SMEs in official titles.

Effectively, having a seat at every policy table.

While a new Parliament is on the ballot next year, startups recognize the importance of and positive outlook for all EU institutions to build a sustainable, lucrative future for European startups.

Prioritising startups’ needs during this election season holds the potential to transform Europe into an environment where innovation thrives, startups prosper, and Europe secures a prominent role in the global entrepreneurial landscape.

With these 10 items at the forefront of voter outreach and discussion, Europe can re-emphasise its commitment to building a strong startup community and lead the global economy.

Source : Tech EU

The post Startups Should Have a Seat at the Policy Table, Not on the Menu appeared first on Policy Print.

James Cleverly has said he is frustrated with the fixation on the government’s Rwanda policy, saying it is not the “be all and end all” of plans to tackle illegal immigration.

The home secretary, who replaced Suella Braverman after she was sacked almost a fortnight ago, told the Times he had become frustrated with the focus on the Rwanda plan.

“My frustration is that we have allowed the narrative to be created that this was the be all and end all,” he said.

“The mission is to stop the boats. That’s the promise to the British people. Never lose sight of the mission. There are multiple methods. Don’t fixate on the methods. Focus on the mission.”

The Rwanda scheme has faced a series of legal hurdles since it was first announced in 2020, the latest of which came on Cleverly’s second day as home secretary, when the policy was ruled unlawful by the supreme court.

Despite the setbacks, the government has not dropped the idea.

Rishi Sunak has refused to rule out leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR) and he is thought to be considering using emergency legislation to opt out of the convention on asylum cases in an effort to force through the Rwanda scheme.

While it was a UK court that dealt the latest legal blow to the legislation, Sunak’s Tories are keen to ensure the ECHR, and the European court of human rights that rules on it, will not prevent the policy being implemented.

The new home secretary struck a more measured tone on the ECHR in contrast to his predecessor. “My argument has always been that we need to modernise, update and reform,” he said.

“What some people, I fear, do is jump to their preferred solution and hang on to that really, really tightly and say this cannot be the right answer unless you do a particular thing.

“I do not want to do anything that might undermine the key cooperation we have with countries [who] are very wedded to the ECHR for understandable reasons.

“Nothing is cost free. Everything needs to be considered, the advantages and disadvantages.”

Net migration to the UK reached a record 745,000 in the year to December 2022, according to revised estimates published by the Office for National Statistics on Thursday.

The data places migration levels at three times higher than before Brexit, despite a Conservative party 2019 manifesto pledge to bring overall numbers down.

Sunak is under pressure from Conservative MPs angered by the latest data on legal net migration. The former prime minister Boris Johnson became the latest Tory to pile pressure on the prime minister to act on immigration on Friday.

He said in his Daily Mail column the figures were “way, way too big” and that the minimum income for most migrant workers coming to the UK should rise to £40,000.

Senior Conservatives have said Sunak risks ripping up the Northern Ireland peace process if he blocks human rights laws so the UK can deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. He is under increasing pressure from right-leaning MPs and ministers to close off legal avenues to asylum seekers who have successfully challenged their removal to Rwanda.

Source : The Guardian

The post James Cleverly ‘Frustrated’ With Fixation on Government’s Rwanda Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of the Reserve Bank may keep the repo rate — its key lending rate — unchanged at 6.5 per cent in its upcoming monetary policy review scheduled from December 6-8.

This may be because of rising inflationary risks, stemming from the recent spike in vegetable prices. The central bank is also expected to retain the stance of the monetary policy as ‘withdrawal of accommodation’. With better-than-expected second-quarter gross domestic product (GDP) print at 7.6 per cent, the RBI may revise upwards its FY ’24 growth estimate.

Why will RBI keep the repo rate unchanged?

Economists said that the six-member rate-setting panel of the RBI is unlikely to tinker with the repo rate — the rate at which RBI lends money to banks to meet their short-term funding needs — in the upcoming policy.

“There will be no change (in the RBI policy). The reason is that the inflation will start inching up because food inflation is going to increase. We have seen onion and tomato prices going up again. So, there is no case for even thinking of lowering the repo rate. At the same time, core inflation is around 4 per cent, and therefore, there is no reason for the RBI to increase the rate,” said Madan Sabnavis chief economist, Bank of Baroda.

Consumer price-based inflation (CPI) eased to 4.87 per cent in October from 5.02 per cent in September. The retail inflation, however, remains above the 4 per cent target of the RBI.

Last month, RBI Governor Shaktikanata Das said that though headline inflation has moderated, it remains vulnerable to recurring and overlapping food price shocks coming from global factors and adverse weather events. In such a scenario, the monetary policy needs to remain watchful and actively disinflationary while supporting growth.

“We are completely focused on the 4 per cent target. We maintain Arjuna’s eye on the inflation target (of 4 percent),” he had said at a banking event.

According to Kaushik Das, chief economist, India & South Asia, Deutsche Bank, with the strong July-September 2023 GDP print and upside risks to near-term inflation prints due to food price volatility, RBI is likely to remain hawkish in the upcoming monetary policy.

“RBI will likely keep repo rate and stance unchanged, persist with tight liquidity and ensure that short-term rates remain around 6.85-6.90 per cent, resulting in an ‘effective rate hike’,” Das said.

This will be the fifth monetary policy on the trot when the MPC is likely to leave the repo rate unchanged at 6.5 per cent. Last time, the repo rate was raised from 6.25 per cent to 6.5 per cent in February 2023. Between May 2022 and February 2023, the policy rate was raised by 250 basis points (bps). One basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage point.

Will the RBI change the policy stance?

The stance of the monetary policy may be retained as the ‘withdrawal of accommodation’, analysts said.

“In the last policy, the RBI stated that the transmission of (250 bps hike in) the repo rate has not happened. If you look at the weighted average lending rates and deposit rates of banks, there is still a 50 bps in the lending rates. Therefore, the stance will continue to be ‘withdrawal of accommodation’,” Sabnavis said.

In response to the cumulative 250 bps hike in policy rate since May 2022, banks have revised their repo-linked external benchmark-based lending rates (EBLRs) upward by the same magnitude. The one-year median marginal cost of funds-based lending rate (MCLR) increased by 152 bps from May 2022 to October 2023. The weighted average lending rates (WALRs) on fresh and outstanding loans of banks increased by 187 bps and 111 bps, respectively, from May 2022 – September 2023.

On the deposit side, the weighted average domestic term deposit rates (WADTDRs) on fresh and outstanding rupee deposits increased by 229 bps and 166 bps, respectively.

Will the GDP and inflation projections be revised?

With the Q2FY’24 GDP growth overshooting its estimate of 6.5 per cent, the RBI may revise its FY2024 growth forecast marginally. The real GDP growth for FY’24 is projected at 6.5 per cent. The RBI may not revise the headline inflation forecast, which has been kept at 5.4 per cent for the current fiscal.

“RBI will likely increase FY’24 GDP forecast to 6.8 per cent y-o-y, from 6.5 per cent y-o-y earlier, while holding the FY’24 CPI forecast unchanged at 5.4 per cent (as food inflation will come off sharply in January-March 2024, after picking up in October-December 2023),” Deutsche Bank’s Das said.

What will happen to lending rates in case of a pause by RBI?

As the RBI is expected to keep the policy rate unchanged at 6.5 per cent, all external benchmark lending rates linked to the repo rate will not rise. It will provide some relief to borrowers as their equated monthly instalments (EMIs) will not increase.

Source : The Indian Express

The post RBI Monetary Policy: Why is the Monetary Policy Committee Likely to Leave Repo Rate Unchanged? appeared first on Policy Print.

Montreal, Canada – More than a month into its bombardment of Gaza, the Israeli military issued a warning: Ground troops had surrounded the largest hospital in the Palestinian enclave, al-Shifa. A raid would be launched “in minutes”.

The impending siege of the Gaza City health complex sparked panic among the thousands of injured patients, medical staff and displaced Palestinians sheltering there.

But amid urgent international pleas to protect Gaza’s hospitals, much of the focus in Canada was on the tougher tone of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“I have been clear: The price of justice cannot be the continued suffering of all Palestinian civilians. Even wars have rules,” Trudeau said in a news conference on November 14, around the time the al-Shifa raid began.

“I urge the government of Israel to exercise maximum restraint,” he continued, offering his toughest comments since the war began. For weeks, Trudeau had been ignoring calls – and some of Canada’s largest protests in recent memory – demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

“The world is watching. On TV, on social media, we’re hearing the testimonies of doctors, family members, survivors, kids who’ve lost their parents. The world is witnessing this. The killing of women and children – of babies; this has to stop.”

The response from Tel Aviv was swift. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted publicly to Trudeau’s speech, arguing on social media that the Palestinian group Hamas, not Israel, was responsible for any civilian casualties. Netanyahu pointed to Hamas’s attacks in southern Israel on October 7, one of the events that precipitated the war.

Pro-Israel lobby groups in Canada echoed that argument, saying “the blood of dead babies – Israeli and Palestinian – is on Hamas” and accusing Trudeau of fuelling anti-Semitism.

In the days that followed, Canadian ministers sought to temper Trudeau’s comments.

“The prime minister, quite understandably, is concerned about innocent lives on both sides of that border,” Defence Minister Bill Blair told the Canadian network CTV. “We’ve also been crystal clear: Israel has the right to defend itself.”

The episode is one of many examples in recent weeks of what observers have described as Canada’s “schizophrenic” foreign policy when it comes to Israel and Palestine.

“Whenever [Trudeau] does show any mettle with respect to this, he invariably then steps back from what he said after any sort of criticism coming from either the Israel lobby in Canada or Israeli leaders,” Michael Lynk, a former United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, told Al Jazeera.

Unlike its powerful neighbour and Israel’s foremost backer, the United States, Canada says it aims to tread the middle ground in its policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It supports a two-state solution, opposes illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and says international law must be respected by all parties.

But experts say Canada has two policies when it comes to the conflict: one on paper and one in practice.

They note that Canada has cast UN votes against its own stated positions and opposed Palestinian efforts to seek redress at the International Criminal Court, and argue that it has backed hardline, Israeli policies and failed to hold the country accountable for rights abuses.

“This government, as well as previous Canadian governments, have unfortunately had a blind spot with respect to Israel,” said Farida Deif, Canada director at Human Rights Watch.

She added that Canada’s stance has not changed despite the nearly two-month-long military campaign in Gaza, where bombs have struck hospitals, refugee camps and schools serving as shelters. More than 15,200 Palestinians have been killed.

“What we’ve seen with respect to Canada’s policy on Israel-Palestine is really a lack of coherence, confusion, and essentially not really engaging with the reality on the ground,” she told Al Jazeera. “And the reality on the ground that we’ve seen – that Palestinian organisations, Israeli organisations, international organisations have documented – is the reality of apartheid and persecution.”

So what drives Canada’s position?

Al Jazeera spoke to nearly a dozen human rights advocates, politicians, former officials and other experts about how foreign and domestic calculations influence Ottawa’s stance – and whether public outrage could shift its strategy.

Canada has had close ties to Israel for years. It recognised the country shortly after it was founded in 1948 and established an embassy there not long after.

The two countries have had a free-trade agreement in place since 1997, with two-way trade totalling 1.8 billion Canadian dollars ($1.3bn) in 2021. Last year, Canada also exported 21.3m Canadian dollars ($15.7m) worth of weapons to Israel.

Some observers argue that the countries enjoy a natural affinity because of the similar ways in which they were created. Like Israel, Canada was built on the dispossession and forced removal of Indigenous peoples from their lands.

But relations truly flourished during the almost decade-long tenure of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “Canada and Israel are the greatest of friends and the most natural of allies,” Harper said in a speech to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, in 2014.

A year later, the Conservatives would lose to Trudeau’s Liberal Party in the federal elections, ending Harper’s tenure.

Yet, while Harper’s support for Israel was largely motivated by right-wing, Christian ideology, Trudeau and his more centrist government appear driven by political pragmatism.

Part of that pragmatism stems from Canada’s need to maintain good relations with the US, the country’s largest trading partner and most important ally, according to Peter Larson, chair of the nonprofit Ottawa Forum on Israel/Palestine.

“Canadian policymakers make a political calculation that coming out strongly or critical of Israel or supportive of the Palestinians is likely to get the Americans angry with us,” Larson said.

The government’s perspective, he said, was that Canada has “no control” over what happens in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. “We have no purchase there, we have no trade there, we have no military there. So why in the world would we get the Americans mad at us when we can’t really do anything anyway?”

Michael Bueckert, vice president of the advocacy group Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), agreed. “Every time we see an indication of a policy position [from Canada], it’s closely following whatever the US says,” he told Al Jazeera.

He pointed out that Canada has continued to mirror US positions during the war in Gaza.

“It just seems like everything that Canada does is triangulated based on what the US and Israel are saying,” Bueckert said. “That’s more important to them than being aligned with all other members of the UN, for example, or every humanitarian agency, or a majority of Canadian public opinion.”

Yet sources with knowledge of the government’s inner workings say that domestic politics is the primary driver behind Canada’s position. One of the most important factors, they maintain, is the pro-Israel lobby.

Corey Balsam, national coordinator of Independent Jewish Voices Canada, an advocacy organisation, said the lobby groups have an “unmatched” ability “to be in the room” with political decision-makers.

“The lobby writ large is very well-resourced and influential and well-placed,” he said.

That has forced the Liberal government to weigh whether their decisions will spark a backlash among pro-Israel lobby groups, which could lose them votes, notably to their Conservative rivals, Balsam said.

“I don’t know exactly the calculations that they’re making, but these are the things that they pay attention to – votes in certain ridings [electoral districts], for instance. Also funds and fundraising for the party, I think this is a big factor for them.”

Lynk, the former UN special rapporteur and Canadian law professor, also said Ottawa’s position on the conflict relates in large part to “who has access to the corridors of power”.

The Trudeau government attacked Lynk’s UN appointment at the outset in 2016, as did pro-Israel lobby groups, which put out statements arguing that he had an anti-Israel bias. Green Party leader Elizabeth May and Lynk’s colleagues at Western University in Ontario came to his defence, but the damage was done.

“I tried to engage with as high a level of political and diplomatic decision-makers as I could. I didn’t get very far [in Canada],” he told Al Jazeera.

“What I was trying to do is say, ‘I’m showing you what international law says. I’m showing you what, in fact, your own foreign policy ends up saying … Why is your foreign policy so schizophrenic when it comes to Israel and Palestine?’ Doors weren’t open for me.”

Several people Al Jazeera spoke to for this story described a pervasive fear of being accused of anti-Semitism for speaking out on Israeli rights abuses.

“There’s a certain weight [to anti-Semitism accusations] that is instrumentalised,” said Balsam.

“I think racism influences whose complaints are taken more seriously and whose pain is taken more seriously more broadly,” he added. “Complaints that invoke anti-Semitism – whether or not it is actually anti-Semitism – are taken seriously, whereas on the other hand, with Muslim and Arab groups or Palestinian groups and individuals, they can be much more easily brushed off.”

During the Gaza war, nowhere has Canada’s position been more clearly on display than at the United Nations. After the UN Security Council failed to pass any resolution to address the situation, the focus shifted in late October to the General Assembly, where a non-binding motion was put forward to urge a humanitarian truce.

The measure passed with overwhelming support, but Canada abstained. It also put forward an amendment to the resolution to condemn Hamas.

“Unfortunately, Canada cannot support the text as it is currently proposed. We cannot act as the UN General Assembly without recognising the horrible events of October 7 and without condemning the terrorists behind them,” Canada’s UN ambassador, Bob Rae, said as he presented the amendment on October 27. It failed.

Peggy Mason, president of the Rideau Institute, an Ottawa-based nonprofit, said whereas Canada previously was seen as a bridge-building country, the amendment was a “bridge-weakening exercise”.

“And it was unconscionable, in my view, in the context of efforts to curtail an unfolding humanitarian crisis of horrific dimensions,” she told Al Jazeera.

Canada came under even closer scrutiny when its UN mission voted against a draft resolution on November 9 condemning Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories as illegal – even though the government’s stated position is that the settlements violate international law.

In a statement explaining the vote, Canada said it was concerned by the number of resolutions that “unfairly single out Israel” at the General Assembly every year.

“Canada reiterates the importance of a fair-minded approach at the United Nations and will continue to vote ‘no’ on resolutions that do not address the complexities of the issues,” the statement read.

According to Bueckert of CJPME, no one is buying that excuse. “They’ve created this rationale for it, but good luck convincing Canadians of this, that these actions make any sense. That it makes sense to vote against things that you say you support,” he told Al Jazeera.

The resolution to condemn the Israeli settlements is among a number of Palestinian-related motions that come up for a vote at the UN General Assembly every year.

And the way Canada votes on these resolutions is dictated by the prime minister’s office, according to a source familiar with the matter, who spoke to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity in order to speak freely.

“It’s unusual that the [prime minister] would directly intervene on an issue before the United Nations,” the source said. Usually, foreign policy files are handled by Canada’s foreign affairs department, known as Global Affairs Canada.

Lynk, the former UN expert, also told Al Jazeera that most foreign policy issues “are decided at Global Affairs and rarely ever make it to the prime minister’s office for yea or nay”. But matters related to Israel and Palestine are different. They are “determined and directed out of the prime minister’s office”, Lynk said.

Meanwhile, the anonymous source said Canada’s UN mission has faced direct pressure from pro-Israel lobbyists. That person described a meeting years ago in which a top lobbyist urged Canada to change its votes. The mission told the lobbyist no, but 24 hours after their meeting, the prime minister’s office directed the mission to vote the way the lobbyist had wanted.

“I thought it was outrageous, and I was angry and offended,” the source said. “It’s not the way to run a country. It’s not the way to run a foreign policy.”

Trudeau’s office redirected Al Jazeera’s question on whether it handles Canada’s UN votes to Global Affairs Canada. Global Affairs Canada did not answer the question when pressed by Al Jazeera.

“When it comes to votes at the UN, Canada reiterates the importance of a fair-minded approach,” the department said in an emailed statement.

“We will continue to vote no on resolutions that do not address the complexities of the issues or address the actions of all parties. We also remain opposed to the disproportionate singling out of Israel for criticism. Canada rejects the suggestion that there is any kind of ‘double standard’ at play.”

Many people Al Jazeera spoke to said there is a growing sense that the Canadian government’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict could change in the face of shifting demographics.

“As Parliament gets more diverse and has connections to different communities, I do think that the calculus – in terms of, ‘Is this going to hurt me or help me electorally?’ – is shifting,” said Bueckert.

“It clearly hasn’t shifted enough to change Canada’s position in a meaningful way, but that is how we can make sense of the change in tone where Canada at least has to appear to care about what’s happening to people in Gaza.”

Since the war began, there also has been a split within the Liberal Party between politicians who staunchly support Israel and those calling for a ceasefire despite Trudeau’s own reticence to do so.

Less than two weeks into the Israeli military operation, Liberal MP Salma Zahid, who represents a district east of Toronto, Canada’s largest city, stood up in the House of Commons to urge Ottawa to call for a ceasefire.

“It’s very, very important that Canada be a strong voice to call for a ceasefire and make sure that we put an end to the killing of these innocent civilians,” she told Al Jazeera in a phone interview in November.

Asked about divisions within her own party, Zahid said the Liberal Party is a “big tent” and that all views can and should be heard. But she said she aims to represent her constituents, many of whom are Muslim Canadians.

“Some people have called me a terrorist sympathiser. That is sad to see that. But I will not stop because of these comments on social media or anything. I think it is really very important that I be there as a strong voice for the Palestinian people and also for the community,” Zahid said.

Uthman Quick, communications director at the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said a recent poll showed the disconnect between public opinion and the Liberal government’s positions.

The poll, released by the Angus Reid Institute on November 7, found that 30 percent of Canadians said they wanted an immediate ceasefire, compared with 19 percent who did not. Among Liberal voters, 34 percent supported a ceasefire compared with 12 percent who were opposed.

While Quick said the federal government’s tone has shifted since the war began, rhetoric alone is not enough. “For the amount of violence and killing that we’ve seen in Gaza, I think that warrants a more drastic approach from our government to really call for peace and for a ceasefire,” he told Al Jazeera.

He also said the government’s position could lead to political ramifications that extend beyond Arab and Muslim communities, as anti-war protests draw people of all backgrounds. “It’s not just a purely Muslim slash Palestinian slash Arab community divide on electoral fronts,” Quick said.

According to Deif at Human Rights Watch, Canada should be trying to pursue a “consistent policy” rooted in international law – and condemn war crimes regardless of who is responsible and who is the victim. It also should suspend weapons sales to Israel so long as “Israeli forces commit widespread, serious abuses against Palestinian civilians with impunity”.

“What we would like to see is Canada engaging on Israel-Palestine in the way that Ambassador Bob Rae engaged on Myanmar and the Rohingya crisis, in the same way that [Foreign] Minister [Melanie] Joly engaged on Ukraine following the Russian invasion,” she told Al Jazeera.

The consequences of inaction, she added, can be devastating.

“When powerful governments, whether it’s Canada or other Western states, turn a blind eye to the Israeli government’s abuses and serious violations of international humanitarian law, it certainly sends a message that it can continue to commit those acts.”

Source : Al Jazeera

The post Israel, Palestine and Canada’s ‘Schizophrenic Foreign Policy’ appeared first on Policy Print.

Thousands of protesters in the US capital on Saturday called for a ceasefire in Gaza amid Israel’s relentless bombing campaign, with some slamming President Joe Biden’s support for Washington’s top ally in the Middle East.

The rally, at which demonstrators waved Palestinian flags and wore the traditional keffiyeh scarf, was the largest protest in Washington since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas conflict on October 7.

“Free, free Palestine,” and “End the siege on Gaza now,” the protesters shouted.

Other slogans targeted the US president: “Biden, Biden you can’t hide, you signed off on genocide” and “We say no, Genocide Joe.”

“It is unacceptable to allow for the loss of so many innocent lives and we cannot consider this a proportional conflict,” said 24-year-old Amanda Eisenhour of Virginia.

“This is a massacre, a genocide… a stain on our history, and I cannot accept as a citizen that my taxes are funding this.”

Jasmine Iman, 25, came from New York to attend the protest and said she will not vote for Biden in next year’s presidential election because of his steadfast support for Israel.

“We will not vote for the Democratic Party. We will make sure that everyone we know knows not to vote for the Democratic Party because of (Gaza),” she said.

Biden, 80, is likely to face off against 77-year-old Republican former president Donald Trump a year from now, with polls showing a hypothetical matchup in a virtual dead heat.

If the election ends up being a choice between Biden and Trump, “I’ll sit it out,” Iman said.

Fighting raged in Gaza on Saturday for a 29th day since Hamas militants stormed across the Israeli border and, according to Israeli officials, killed more than 1,400 people, mostly civilians, and abducted over 240 others.

Since then, Israel has relentlessly bombarded the Gaza Strip and sent in ground troops. The health ministry in the Hamas-run Palestinian territory says 9,488 people have been killed, around two-thirds of them women and children.

Source : Al Monitor

The post Protesters Slam Biden’s Israel Policy at Pro-Palestinian March in Washington appeared first on Policy Print.